Punjab-Haryana High Court
Asi Sumer Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 October, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 20161 of 2012 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 20161 of 2012
Date of Decision : October 09, 2012
ASI Sumer Singh and others
.... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioners have approached this Court impugning the Standing Order No. 50 of 1988 (Annexure P-3) issued by the Director General of Police, Haryana, being violative of the letter dated 25.03.1982 (Annexure P-2) issued by the Director General of Police and being violative of Rules 13.1 and 13.10 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as '1934 Rules').
It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are senior to respondent No. 5, who has been CWP No. 20161 of 2012 2 promoted to the post of Sub-Inspector over and above the petitioners only on the ground that he has passed the Upper School Course whereas the petitioners have not done so. He refers to the letter dated 25.03.1982 (Annexure P-2) to contend that the Upper School Course is not an essential pre-requisite for further promotion under the 1934 Rules and those individuals, who have crossed the age of 50 years, are not required to pass the said course. He contends that the petitioners have crossed the age of 50 years and, therefore, their promotion under Rule 13.1 of the 1934 Rules should have been granted to them and non-promoting the petitioners, whereas their juniors have been promoted, renders the order of promotion passed in favour of respondent No. 5 illegal and deserves to be quashed.
Referring to Rule 13.1 of the 1934 Rules, counsel contends that the Standing Order No. 50 of 1988 (Annexure P-3) is violative thereof as by this instruction, passing of the Upper School Course has been made mandatory, which is not in consonance with the statutory Rules, which do not require such a qualification for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. He, accordingly, contends that Standing Order No. 50 of 1988 being violative of the 1934 Rules cannot sustain and deserves to be quashed.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance, have gone through the records of the case.
CWP No. 20161 of 2012 3
Rule 13.1 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 reads as follows:-
13.1 Promotion from one rank of another.(1) Promotion from one rank to another, and from one grade to another in the same rank, one grade to another in the same rank, shall be made by selection tempered be the main factors governing selection. Specific qualifications, whether in the nature of training courses passed or case. When the qualifications of two officers are otherwise equal, the Senior shall be promoted. This rule does not affect increment within a time-scale.
(2) Under the present constitution of the Police force no lower subordinate will ordinarily be entrusted with the independent conduct of investigations or the independent charge of a police station or similar unit. It is necessary, therefore, that well-educated constables, having the attributes necessary for bearing the responsibilities of upper subordinate rank, should receive accelerated promotion so as to reach that rank as soon as they have passed the courses prescribed for, and been tested and given practical training in, the ranks of constable and head constable.
(3) For the purposes of regulating promotion amongst enrolled police officers six promotion lists- A,B,C,D,E and F will be maintained.
CWP No. 20161 of 2012 4Lists A, B, C, and D shall be maintained in each district as prescribed in rules 13.6, 13.7, 13.8 and 13.9 and will regulate promotion to the selection grade of constables and to the ranks of head constables and assistant sub- inspector. List E shall be maintained in the office of Deputy Inspector-General as prescribed in sub-rule 13.10 (1) and will regulate promotion to the rank of sub- inspector. List F shall be maintained in the office if the Inspector-General as prescribed in sub-rule 13.15(1) and will regulate promotion to the rank of inspector. Entry in or removal from A,B,C,D or E lists shall be recorded in the order book and in the character roll of the police officer concerned. These lists are nominal rolls of those officers whose admission to them has been authorized. No actual selection shall be made without careful examination of character rolls.
(4) Nothing contained in these rules shall affect reservation and other concessions Required to be provided for Scheduled Castes and other Backward 60 Classes in accordance with the orders issued by the State Government in this regard, from time to time, under clause (4) of article 16 of the Constitution if India." A perusal of the above Rule do indicate that it is not mandated that the Upper School Course should have been passed CWP No. 20161 of 2012 5 by a candidate, who has been considered for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. However, the said Rule does give an indication that the specific qualifications, whether in the nature of training courses or passed or practical experience, should also be considered in each case when promotion has to be granted. Keeping that spirit in view, Standing Order No. 50 of 1988 has been issued by the Director General of Police. Relevant portion thereof reads as follows:-
" From the above it is clear that the regular promotion to the rank of Sub Inspector is to be made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police from promotion list "E" only. For admission of name in list 'E', there is no provision of bringing the names of those ASIs who have passed the Upper School Course, but according to the provisions of Rule 13.1 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, promotion from the rank to another, and from one grade to another in the same rank, shall be made by selection tempered by seniority. Diligence and honesty shall be the main factors governing selection. Further, specific qualifications whether in the nature of training courses passed or practical experience, shall be carefully considered in each case. In view of these provisions, for the purpose of promotion, training course having been passed by an ASI become a special qualification and it needs to be given CWP No. 20161 of 2012 6 weightage in the enrolled officer is otherwise fit. Amongst the eligible ASI those who have passed Upper Scheduled Course will necessarily be more meritorious in preference to those who had not passed such course. That the rules do not provide for Upper School Course Training but if any ASI undergoes the same he does attain a special training and becomes more meritorious. As such, while considering the names of ASIs for admission to list 'E', it becomes necessary to give preference to those who have passed the Upper School Course, according to their merit, so that the provisions of Police Rule 19.1 could be complied with while making promotions."
A perusal of the above when seen in the light of Rule 13.1 (1) of the 1934 Rules, the same cannot be said to be in violation of the said Rule in any manner. What has been said in this Standing Order is that preference will be given to those candidates, who have passed the Upper School Course. This Standing Order does not make passing of the Upper School Course mandatory for consideration for promotion.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioner thus, cannot be accepted and it is held that Standing Order No. 50 of 1988 is in consonance with and supplements Rule 13.1 (1) of the 1934 Rules. The Instructions dated 25.03.1982 (Annexure P-2) also do CWP No. 20161 of 2012 7 not fall in conflict with the Standing Order No. 50 of 1988, as has been asserted by the counsel for the petitioners, as these are two different fields, which are being occupied by them independently and there being no violation and conflict between them, the contention of the counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted.
The contention of the counsel for the petitioners that the claim of the petitioners has only been rejected on the ground that they have not passed the Upper School Course also cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that promotion cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is only consideration for promotion, which can be claimed and the claim of the petitioners has been duly considered by the competent authority but in the light of the fact that better candidates were available as is apparent from the spirit of Rule 13.1 of the 1934 Rules, which gives preferential treatment to the candidates, who have special training, the promotion of respondent No. 5 by the respondents is in accordance with law.
Finding no merit in the present writ petition, the same stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
October 09, 2012 JUDGE
pj