Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajinder Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 5 February, 2014
Bench: Jasbir Singh, Harinder Singh Sidhu
LPA No.1013 of 2013(O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
LPA No.1013 of 2013(O&M)
Date of decision: 05.02.2014
Rajinder Kaur and others
.....Appellants
versus
State of Punjab and others
......Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh
Hon'ble Mr.Justice Harinder Singh Sidhu
Present: Mr.Dalip Singh Brar, Advocate for the appellants
Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral)
Appellants have laid challenge to an order dated 26.3.2013, dismissing their Civil Writ Petition No.6547 of 2013. The above writ petition was filed to impugn an order dated 6.2.2013 (P14) withdrawing date of seniority given to them earlier.
As per facts on record, the appellants entered police force of the State of Punjab as Special Police Officers (SPOs) in the year 1990-1991. A large number of SPOs were taken in service to meet the law and order problem existing then. By making some amendment in the standing order on 19.11.1991, it was stipulated that those SPOs whose work and conduct would be satisfactory, they will be adjusted as Constables in future. In the year 1991, it was decided that Constables will be selected through direct recruitment, however, an attempt will be made to first adjust SPOs already in service. As per the Policy, process of adjustment/ absorption was started in the year 1995. It is case of the appellants that when without adhering to the norms, pick and choose policy was adopted by the Superintendents of Krishan Gopal 2014.02.21 12:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order High Court Chandigarh LPA No.1013 of 2013(O&M) 2 Police to adjust SPOs, some of them came to this Court by filing CWP No.812 of 1994, which was disposed of on 6.9.1995, by passing the following order:-
"In view of the fair stand taken by the counsel for the respondents, the writ petition is disposed of with the direction that the respective Districts Superintendents of Police shall consider the claims of the petitioners for absorption as constables with effect from the date/s the person/s junior to them were appointed. In case, the petitioners are found suitable, orders of their appointment shall be issued. The consequential reliefs relating to the fixation of pay and payment of arrears of salary, shall follow. The needful shall be done within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs."
Directions were issued to adjust those applicants from the date when juniors to them were absorbed in service.
Thereafter, CWP No.7451 of 1996 was filed by some other SPOs who were not granted benefit in view of aforesaid order of this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 12.12.1996 by passing the following order:-
"We dispose of this petition with a direction to the respective Senior Superintendents of Police to consider the claim of the appellants for absorption as Constable with effect from the dates persons junior to them were appointed. In case, the appellants are found suitable, orders of their appointment be issued. Consequential reliefs regarding fixation of pay and seniority shall follow. Keeping in view the large number of Krishan Gopal 2014.02.21 12:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order High Court Chandigarh LPA No.1013 of 2013(O&M) 3 SPOs/ Auxiliary Constables involved in these cases, we will not order payment of arrears of salary to avoid unnecessary burden on the State Government at this stage.
Directions issued above be carried out within six months from the receipt/ production of a certified copy of this order. No costs.' Thereafter, general instructions were issued in the year 1999 to follow the judgment, referred to above. When appellants were not considered and their juniors were promoted, they filed representation followed by a legal notice. When nothing was done, they came to this Court by filing CWP No.6848 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court on 26.4.2011, directing the respondents to decide representation/ legal notice filed by the appellants. Vide order dated 13.6.2012 (P10), appellants were granted seniority allegedly from the date when their juniors were promoted. However, subsequent thereto, a show cause notice was issued to them as to why benefit given to them may not be withdrawn. Despite opportunity given, detailed reply was not filed, however, only a request was made to extend time. The competent authority, taking note of the facts and various judgments on the subject regarding adjustment of SPOs in service against post of regular Constable, withdrew the benefit given to them vide order dated 6.2.2013. The appellants came to this Court by filing CWP No.6547 of 2013, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 26.3.2013. Hence, this appeal.
After hearing counsel for the appellants and going through the paper book, we are not inclined to interfere in the order under challenge. It Krishan Gopal 2014.02.21 12:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order High Court Chandigarh LPA No.1013 of 2013(O&M) 4 has been noticed by the competent authority when order dated 6.2.2013 (P14) was passed that as per judgment of this Court passed on 12.12.1996 in CWP No.7451 of 1996 those who were selected for adjustment against the post of Constables in subsequent selection they cannot claim equality with those who were selected at an earlier point of time, may be juniors to them.
By noting extract from that judgment in order dated 6.2.2013, it was observed as under:-
"The above said Lady SPOs now Constables were not selected for the post of Constable in the year 1997 by the Central Recruitment Board constituted following the Hon'ble high Court Judgment dated 12.12.1996. They were found suitable for the post of Constable in the year 2002 in which the standard of suitability test was reduced. Therefore, they were not entitled for the deemed date seniority as was the case of SPOs who were found suitable for the post of constable in the year 1997. The deemed date granted to them vide this office order No.15325-30/B dated 13.6.2012 is wrong and against the Legal position mentioned above.
Keeping in view the above and in compliance with the Director General of Police, Punjab, Chandigarh's letter No.294-23/2011/LA-2/8411 dated 27.12.2012 these Lady Constables were issued a Show Cause Notice to each to explain their position as to why the deemed date given to them may not be withdrawn and they were given seven days time to submit their reply. In the notices it was Krishan Gopal 2014.02.21 12:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order High Court Chandigarh LPA No.1013 of 2013(O&M) 5 mentioned that if their reply is not received within stipulated period them it would be presumed that they did not want to say anything and final order to withdraw deem date seniority would be passed. These Lady Constables submit their replies and the same have been considered duly."
It was specifically noticed that the appellants were not selected by the Central Recruitment Board in the year 1997. They were recommended for adjustment in the year 2002 by reducing standard of suitability test. In view of that, deemed date of seniority given to them was rightly withdrawn.
Learned Single Judge, after noting long history of the litigation qua adjustment of the SPOs against the post of Constables, rightly observed that the appellants were not entitled to get deemed date of adjustment i.e. the date when juniors to them were adjusted. In order dated 26.3.2013, it was observed as under:-
"The detailed facts and the sequence of the litigation, which ensued with regard to the claim of the SPOs for appointment as Constables, clearly spell out that the Constables who had been appointed in the year 1997, on the basis of higher benchmark fixed by the respondents for assessing the suitability for appointment to the post of Constables, have been found to be better placed than the Special Police Officers although seniors who were appointed as Constables in the subsequent suitability test, which was held in the year 2001-02, where the standard was reduced of the suitability test. This is apparent from the order dated 04.08.2000 passed by this Krishan Gopal 2014.02.21 12:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order High Court Chandigarh LPA No.1013 of 2013(O&M) 6 Court in Review Application No. 711 of 1999 in CWP No. 7883 of 1999 titled as SPO Tilak Raj vs. State of Punjab and others, the operative part whereof reads as follows:-
" Our intention in the judgment was that such persons who might have been rejected on the ground of physical fitness or physical aptitude test may be given one more chance to get absorbed as a Constable and it was never our intention that they should also rank senior to the persons who stood already selected."
The position has further been crystallized by the order passed by this Court in CWP No. 18078 of 2002 Jasvir Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others, which writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 14.11.2002, operative part of which reads as follows:-
" Petitioners and respondents No. 5 to 8 were working as SPOs on daily wages. As per the Standing Order issued by the Police Department the Constables are recruited to the Punjab Police from amongst the Special Police Officers. Respondents No. 5 to 8 were selected constables in the year 1998 in which selection the petitioners were also considered but not found suitable. Admittedly the petitioners were selected as Constables in a subsequent selection. They were selected as Constable in subsequent selection. They have now filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a mandamus directing the respondents to give them deemed date of appointment, which were given to the private respondents.
We have heard counsel for the petitioners and are of the view that the petitioners are not entitled for the relief Krishan Gopal 2014.02.21 12:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order High Court Chandigarh LPA No.1013 of 2013(O&M) 7 claimed in this writ petition. Since they were selected in the subsequent selection, they cannot claim equation with the private respondents who were selected much prior to them. In this view of the matter, we find no merit in the petition and the same stands dismissed."
The Special Leave Petition No. 11036 of 2003 and I.A. No. 5 of 2006 preferred by the petitioners in the Supreme Court against the said order stands dismissed on 07.02.2008. What has been stated in the impugned order on facts is that the petitioners, who were Lady SPOs, were found suitable for the post of Constables in the year 2002, in which the standard of suitability test was reduced, therefore, they are not entitled for deemed date of seniority over and above the SPOs, who were found suitable for the post of Constables in the year 1997 which had a higher standard of suitability test. The deemed date granted to them vide office order dated 13.06.2012 was not sustainable as per law laid down by this Court.
The assertion of the petitioners that they have not been given ample opportunities to respond to the show cause notice issued to them is also not acceptable as the petitioners have filed reply to the show cause notice, which was duly considered by the competent authority but was not found to be such which would entitle the petitioners the claim as made by them in the legal notice. The impugned order dated 06.02.2013 (Annexure P-14), therefore, is fully justified which does not call for interference by this Court." It was specifically noticed that the appellants were found suitable for adjustment against the post of Constables only in the year 2002. In the selection made prior thereto, standard of suitability was higher, it was Krishan Gopal 2014.02.21 12:46 I attest to the accuracy of this order High Court Chandigarh LPA No.1013 of 2013(O&M) 8 reduced later on and only thereafter, the appellants were selected. If that is so, in terms of judgments earlier passed, as referred to above, they are not entitled to get deemed date of adjustment against the post of Constables as claimed by them.
No case is made out for interference.
Resultantly, the appeal stands dismissed.
(Jasbir Singh)
Judge
05.02.2014 (Harinder Singh Sidhu)
gk Judge
Krishan Gopal
2014.02.21 12:46
I attest to the accuracy of this
order
High Court Chandigarh