Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 384 (JK)

Sandeep Singh Katoch v. State and Others

2016-07-21

RAMALINGAM SUDHAKAR

body2016
JUDGMENT This petition is of the year 2012. The admitted case of the petitioner is that in response to the Advertisement notice issued by the Police Department, he applied to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police in two wings namely Armed Wing of the Jammu and Kashmir Police and Executive Wing of the same Department. He was called for interview for his selection in both the wings. In para-4 of the petition, it is stated that when the final select list was issued, the name of the petitioner was shown in the select list pertaining to the Armed Wing. It is submitted that petitioner joined Armed Police Headquarters at Jammu and after joining, he was deputed along with other selected candidates for undergoing the basic recruitment training course at Police Training Academy, Udhampur which was completed by the petitioner on 09.01.2012. After being relieved from the Police training Academy, the petitioner reported to Armed Police Headquarters, Jammu on 16.01.2012. At the Armed Police Headquarters, Jammu, the petitioner was informed by the concerned officials that his name did not figure in the list of the candidates selected in the Armed Police and he was asked to report in the office of Inspector General of Police, Jammu Zone. Accordingly, petitioner reported in the office the Inspector General of Police, Jammu Zone. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that Inspector General of Police, Jammu vide his order No. 20 of 2012 dated 21.01.2012 adjusted the petitioner for practical training in District Rajouri and pursuant to the order dated 21.01.2012, the schedule for two years Police Practical Training was from 01.02.2012 to 31.01.2014. At this point of time, it appears that the AIG(P) vide letter No. Trf/29/2010/45212-13 dated 17.09.2012, adjusted the petitioner in the Armed Police for further practical training and was directed to undergo the said training in the Armed Police. The petitioner is aggrieved as to why he was adjusted in Executive Wing for practical training and thereafter sent to Armed Wing for further training. He wanted the authority to produce the record pertaining to change of the Wing, i.e. Executive Wing to Armed Wing. He is aggrieved by such an action. Allegation of arbitrariness and mala fide is made. The petitioner is aggrieved as to why he was adjusted in Executive Wing for practical training and thereafter sent to Armed Wing for further training. He wanted the authority to produce the record pertaining to change of the Wing, i.e. Executive Wing to Armed Wing. He is aggrieved by such an action. Allegation of arbitrariness and mala fide is made. He, therefore, filed the present writ petition for the following relief: “(1) Mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue his practical training in the Executive Wing of the Police at the place where the petitioner has joined pursuant to order No. 19 of 2012 dated 18.01.2012. (2) Certiorari quashing communication No. Trg/29/2010/45212-13 dated 17.09.2012 and all other communications and orders which direct the adjustment of the petitioner in the Armed Wing including the relieving order (Annexure D) issued subsequent to the deputation of the petitioner for practical training in Executive Wing of the Police. (3) Prohibition prohibiting the respondents from changing the Wing of the petitioner i.e. from Executive Wing of the Police to Armed Wing of Police.” The very statement made by the petitioner that is to say that the practical training is for the period 01.02.2012 to 31.01.2014 makes it clear that the period is already over and therefore, at present the petitioner cannot have any grievance as by virtue of the interim order that period is already over. Objections have been filed by the respondents and they have contended in the objections that all recruits to the posts of Sub-Inspector have to undergo training in all the wings of the Jammu and Kashmir Police which is common for all. The petitioner after completion of basic course was inadvertently adjusted in Jammu Zone for practical training vide annexure-A to the writ petition and respondent No. 2 after realizing the mistake, rectified the error vide PHQ Letter No. Trg/29/2010/45212-13 dated 17.09.2012 wherein IGP, Jammu Zone was informed that the petitioner was a Armed Wing borne officer and therefore he was adjusted in Armed Police. The plea of the respondents is that since the petitioner was initially selected and appointed in the Armed Wing, he has no right to be adjusted in the Executive Wing which happened due to a clerical error. There is no mala fide and arbitrariness in the proceedings under challenge. The plea of the respondents is that since the petitioner was initially selected and appointed in the Armed Wing, he has no right to be adjusted in the Executive Wing which happened due to a clerical error. There is no mala fide and arbitrariness in the proceedings under challenge. In this view of the matter, the issue is whether three reliefs that have been sought for by the petitioner would have any relevance at this point of time. Even as per the statement of the petitioner, his period of training is for two years and that period is already over and interim order was granted on 17.10.2012 so the relief that the petitioner sought for has already been granted to him. Thus, no further adjudication is required in the matter. However, if the petitioner has any other grievance which can be suitably redressed, he would be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Writ petition along with connected MP(s) is disposed of as above.