Allahabad High Court
Jang Bahadur Singh And Ors. vs State Of U.P. And Ors. on 1 October, 1997
Equivalent citations: (1997)3UPLBEC1805
Author: D.K. Seth
Bench: D.K. Seth
JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. Sri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the petitioners has challenged the order dated 19-9-1997 contained in Annexure '3' to the writ petition, by which the petitioners have been reverted from the post of Head constable. He has assailed the said order on the ground that the said order has been passed without approval of the Deputy 'Inspector General of Police, in violation of Regulation 455 of the Police Regulations. The petitioners have also submitted a representation which is Annexure '7' to the writ petition.
2. After having heard Sri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri B. R. Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, this writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioners; having regard to Regulations 450, 454 and 455 of the Police Regulations, as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned respondent.
3. Sri Chaudhary, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand contends that the promotion in the present case was given on the basis of range itself. But such promotion on the pest of Head-constable on the basis of seniority throughout the State, cannot be given separately in the range only. In order to grant promotion to the post of Head-constables on the basis of seniority throughout the State itself, only the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Personnel) has been entrusted to grant such promotion. Thus the promotion given to the petitioners on the basis that the petitioners are working, appears to be void ab initio and, as such, non est and, therefore, the petitioner!; cannot claim any right no the basis whereof interim order could be issued. Since the promotion was void ab initio, no hearing is also necessary. The question of giving opportunity of hearing before reversion is confined to the revision of Head-constables on probation. In the present case the said provisions as contained in Regulation 450 of the police Regulations is not attracted in asmuchas it was not a reversion on the ground of unsatisfactory performance during probation, but the reversion is on the ground that the promotion itself was non-est.
4. Sri Uma Kant, learned counsel for the petitioners on the other hand opposes the said contention and insisted that even in such case the petitioners are entitled to an opportunity.
5. Regulation 450 of Police Regulations clearly lays down that Armed Police promoted to the rank of Head-constable shall be on probation for one year. The Superintendent of Police may revert a probationer Head-constable to the substantive rank if his work is found unsatisfactory during the said period. But before passing such an order of reversion the Head constable concerned shall be supplied in writing specific complaints, being the ground for reversion, calling upon him to show cause why he should not be reverted and pass order of reversion after taking his explanation into account. In such cases for some reasons or other if he is not confirmed after expiry of the period the probationary period may be extended.
6. In the present case, it is not a reversion of probationer constable on the ground of unsatisfactory work during the period of probation. Therefore the provision as contained in Regulation 450 is net applicable. If the promotion is granted by mistake and if it is void ab initio, in that event the question of hearing does not arise in view of specific provision contained in the Regulation 450 of the Police Regulations.
7. In that view of the matter, I am not inclined to grant any interim order as prayed for by the petitioner. However, the reversion of the petitioners shall be subject to the decision on the representation of the petitioners and joining of the petitioners on the reverted post, without prejudice to their rights and contentions subject to the decision of the representation of the petitioners. If the decision is in negative, the same shall be reasoned one and it shall be communicated to the petitioners,
8. The petitioners may submit grounds in respect of their representation already made within a period of three weeks, which shall also be taken into consideration along with the representation.
9. With these observations the writ petition stands disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
16. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioners on payment of usual charges within three days.