Punjab-Haryana High Court
H.C. Ram Chander And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 27 March, 2014
Bench: Hemant Gupta, Ritu Bahri, Fateh Deep Singh
Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: March 27, 2014
(i) Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M)
H.C. Ram Chander and others ............Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...........Respondents
(ii) Civil Writ Petition No. 1274 of 1993 (O&M)
Hari Singh and others ............Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FATEH DEEP SINGH
Present: Shri R.K. Malik, Senior Advocate, with
Shri Nikhil Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners, as
Amicus Curiae.
Shri Pradeep Singh Poonia, Addl. AG, Haryana &
Ms. Shubra Singh, DAG, Haryana, for the respondents.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.933 of 1993 and 1274 of 1993, as common questions of law and facts are involved. However, for facility of reference, facts are taken from CWP No. 933 of 1993.
Singh Dalbir 2014.03.28 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [2] The present writ petition has been placed before this Bench, consequent to an order passed by the Division Bench on 5.2.1993, when it was noticed that the view taken by some of the judgments of this Court run counter to the Full Benches of this Court in Sardul Singh, Head Constable v. Inspector General of Police and others, AIR 1970 Punjab & Haryana 481 and Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab etc., AIR 1977 Punjab & Haryana 360 wherein it has been held that only a confirmed Head Constable has a right to be deputed to undergo Intermediate School Course. The question raised is as to "What procedure should be adopted by the Police Department for deputing the Head Constables to undergo Intermediate School Course"?.
The issue raised is purely legal arising consequent to the earlier judgments. However, some facts, before the issue raised is examined, need to be noticed.
The petitioners have claimed that they are being considered as juniors to the private respondents on the ground that the respondents were confirmed as Head Constables in other districts though promoted as Head Constables later than the petitioners. Thus, the petitioners are senior to the respondents and are entitled to be deputed for the course prior in time to the private respondents. It is pointed out that the petitioners were confirmed in the year 1986, whereas in other districts falling within the same range, the order of confirmation was passed in respect of some other officers earlier to the petitioners keeping in view the vacancies available in the said districts. Thus the fact of confirmation will not entitle them to be deputed for course on the basis of confirmation which is uncertain and dependant on circumstances beyond the control of the officers. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be denied the opportunity to undergo the said course only for the reason that some Head Singh Dalbir 2014.03.28 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [3] Constables, have been confirmed in other districts earlier than the petitioners though the petitioners are senior to other Head Constables from the date of their promotion as Head Constables.
A brief resume of the process of promotion in the State Police Service needs to be recapitulated. The list of the Constables in the districts is maintained in List-A, whereas the list of the constables in the selection grade is maintained in Grade-B. It is admitted that as of now, there is no selection grade amongst the constables. The constables, who undergo Lower School Course, are promoted as Head Constables, when their names are entered in List-C on meeting the criteria of promotion. The List-C is maintained at the district level. The Head Constables, for the purposes of promotion as Assistant Sub Inspectors, have to undergo, Intermediate School Course and on the basis of their rank in the Intermediate School Course and subject to fulfillment of other conditions, they are promoted when their names, are brought on List-D. A Learned Single Judge in the case of Mohinder Singh etc. v. State of Haryana etc., (Civil Writ Petition No. 4468 of 1991 decided on 6.6.1991), has considered the argument raised by the petitioner that the date of promotion as Head Constable should be the deciding factor in view of the fact that the confirmation against the post of Head Constable is on account of the confirmed post in the district. It does not depend upon the officer, but is uncertain event. It was held as under:-
"The language of this sub-rule is clear and unambiguous terms provides that the seniority of the Lower Subordinates shall be reckoned from the dates of their appointments. I am in complete agreement with the view expressed by K.S. Tiwana J. (as he then was). Additionally, it was the admitted position that confirmation of Head Constables is done district wise. In a given case depending upon the availability of Singh Dalbir 2014.03.28 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [4] confirmed posts in a particular district junior persons may score over senior for the simple reason that in the district the vacancies of confirmed employees are in existence whereas in the other district there is drought of such vacancies. This precise matter was dealt with by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in D.K. Mitra's case (supra) wherein it was held that when the seniority lists are prepared zone wise for determining seniority, the date of confirmation would be wholly irrelevant. So far as the reliance placed by the counsel for the respondents on the observations made by the Full Bench reproduced above, are concerned, suffice to say that these do not go against the case of the petitioners. Thereto, it was held that every Head Constable on List-C has a right to be sent for the intermediate School Course in the order of his seniority determined in accordance with Rule 13.3 and it is only those Head Constables who are confirmed have to be sent first and it is only when the list of confirmed Head Constables is exhausted that the Head Constables on probation would have a right to be sent."
An application was filed for the review of the order for the reason that the judgments in Gurmail Singh Head Constable and others v. State of Punjab (CWP No. 1992 of 1976) Kashmira Singh v. State of Punjab and others (CWP No. 1584 of 1975), have since been overruled by the Full Bench in Surjit Singh's case (supra). The Learned Judge hearing the review petition disposed of the same in the light of observations in Ranjit Singh and others v. Haryana State and others (CWP No. 10547 of 1991 decided on 12.9.1991).
In Ranjit Singh's Case (supra), the question considered was whether the seniority of the Head Constables in the range for the purposes for deputing them for Intermediate School Course, under the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable to Haryana, is to be determined on the basis of the date of confirmation on the post of Head Constables or continuous length of service. It was held that the action of the Official respondents for determining seniority of Head Singh Dalbir 2014.03.28 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [5] Constables in range for the purposes of deputing for the course on the basis of date of their confirmation in the District is wrong. The learned Single Judge considered the judgment in Mohinder Singh's case (supra); Gurmail Singh and Kashmira Singh's cases (supra)as well as the Full Bench in Surjit Singh's case (supra) and held as under:-
"It will be seen from the above discussion that the point whether the seniority of a Head Constable for deputing him for the Course in a seat allocated to a Range is to be determined on the basis of length of service as Head Constables or from the date of confirmation. Consequently, I hold that the Full Bench authority in Surjit Singh's case (supra), is of no assistance to the respondents.
Now coming to the decision of the learned Single Judge in Lakha Singh's case (supra), again the point in issue before me was not before the learned Single Judge and was never debated. In that case, the challenge to the determination of seniority in a Range of a Head Constable on the basis of date of confirmation was never challenged; rather it was the case of the petitioners that the seniority for that purpose has to be determined on the basis of the date of confirmation. In that case, the date of confirmation of respondents Head Constables, who were in different districts than the petitioners, had been ante-dated, which made them senior to the petitioners and the challenge by the petitioners was to the ante-dating of the date of confirmation of the respondents as Head Constables. As observed above, whether in a Range the Seniority of the Head Constables for purposes of deputing them for the Course is to be determined on the basis of length of service or from the date of confirmation, was not the subject matter of decision in that case.
Having cleared the decks that the Full Bench Judgment in Surjit Singh's case (supra) or a Single Bench judgment in Lakha Singh's case (supra) does not decide the issue in hand, it remains to be seen whether the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Mohinder Singh's case (supra) helps the petitioners or not. There is no doubt that the learned Single Judge had placed reliance on two Single Bench Judgments of this Court in Singh Dalbir 2014.03.28 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [6] Gurmail Singh's case (supra) and Kashmira Singh's case (supra), to come to a conclusion that the seniority of the head Constables for deputing them for the Course on Range-wise basis, is to be determined by the length of service. Apart from the fact that these judgments stood overruled by the Full Bench, I am of the opinion that, with all respect to the learned Single Judge, the reliance on these two authorities was not well based, inasmuch as the issue, the learned Single Judge was deciding, was not the issue in those two Single Bench decisions. The details have already been noticed above. De-hors of these two Single Bench decisions, the learned Single Judge in Mohinder Singh's case (supra) had also placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment in D.K. Mitra's case (supra). It is by now well settled that in absence of a rule regarding determining of seniority, the seniority has to be determined on the basis of length of service. There is no dispute that in the present case there is no rule for determining the seniority of Head Constables Range-wise for deputing them for the Course. In absence of the rule, the length of service as a Head Constable is the only criteria for determining the seniority Range-wise.
.........(Emphasis supplied).
xx xx xx In view of what has been observed above, the learned Single Judge in Mohinder Singh's case (supra), replying on the ratio of D.K. Mitra's case (supra) had come to a correct conclusion that the seniority of the Head Constables in a Range for purposes of deputing them for the Course, had to be determined on the basis of length of service and not from the date of confirmation. My conclusion is also the same as that of the learned Single Judge in Mohinder Singh's case (supra), without taking into consideration the two Single Bench judgments in Gurmail Singh's case and Kashmira Singh's case (supra), as these already stand overruled by the Full Bench in Surjit Singh's case (supra).
I may make it clear that I am dealing with the case of seniority of the confirmed Head Constables belonging to different districts in a Range for purposes of deputing them for the Course. I have already held that the seniority of the head Constables in a Range for Singh Dalbir 2014.03.28 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [7] deputing them for the Course is to be based on the continuous length of service and not on the basis of date of confirmation. However, betwixt a confirmed Head Constable and an unconfirmed Head Constables, a confirmed Head Constable would have a prior right of being deputed to the Course as compared to the unconfirmed as has been laid down by the Full Bench in Sardul Singh's case (supra)"
A Division Bench of this Court has reiterated same view on October 7, 1991 in CWP No. 12953 of 1991, when it was observed as under:-
"We are of the view that this is the best possible basis on which workable seniority of the Head Constable confirmed on the same date belonging to the different Districts should be restored to range wise. Thus, by accepting these writ petitions, the respondents are directed to select the names of the petitioners for undergoing the next Intermediate Course strictly according to the said workable criteria as referred above. No further action is called for on these writ petitions. These stand disposed of."
The same view was reiterated by the two Division Benches in CWP Nos.13040 of 1991 decided on 24.10.1991 and 16629 of 1992 decided on 29.1.1993.
The Division Bench, while referring to the aforesaid judgments in the present case noticed that the ratio of the Full Benches in Sardul Singh's and Surjit Singh's cases (supra), were not followed in the judgments referred to above.
Before we examine the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, some of the extracts from the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to Haryana, need to be extracted:-
"12.1 Authorities empowered to make appointments.-
(1) to (3) xx xx xx
Singh Dalbir
2014.03.28 13:56
I attest to the accuracy of this
document
High Court Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [8]
(4) Inspectors shall be borne on a provincial roll and
shall receive provincial constabulary numbers.
Sergeants shall be borne on a separate provincial roll and shall receive separate provincial constabulary numbers.
Sub Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors shall be borne on district rolls and shall receive district constabulary numbers.
Head constables and constables in each district shall be borne on district rolls and shall receive district constabulary numbers."
xx xx xx 12.2 Seniority and Probation.
(1) and (2) xx xx xx (3) All appointments of enrolled police officers are on probation according to the rules in this chapter applicable to each rank.
Seniority in the case of upper subordinates, will be reckoned in the first instance from date of first appointment, officers promoted from a lower rank being considered senior to persons appointed direct on the same date, and the seniority of officers appointed direct on the same date being reckoned according to age. Seniority shall, however, be finally settled by dates of confirmation, the seniority inter se of several officers confirmed on the same date being that allotted to them on first appointment. Provided that any officer whose promotion or confirmation is delayed by reason of his being on deputation outside his range or district shall, on being promoted or confirmed, regain the seniority which he originally held vis-à-vis any officers promoted or confirmed before him during his deputation.
The seniority of lower subordinates shall be reckoned from dates of appointment, subject to the conditions of rule 12.24 and provided that a promoted officer shall rank senior to an officer appointed direct to the same rank on the same date.
Provided [ xx xx xx ] "13.1 Promotion from one rank to another. - (1) Promotion from one rank to another, and from one Singh Dalbir 2014.03.28 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [9] grade to another in the same rank shall be made by selection tempered by seniority. Efficiency and honesty shall be the main factors governing selection. Specific qualifications, whether in the nature of training courses passed or practical experience, shall be carefully considered in each case. When the qualifications of two officers are otherwise equal, the senior shall be promoted. This rule does not affect increments 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 promotions 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.
Lists 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 of the Inspector-General as prescribed in sub-rule 13.15(1) and will regulate promotion to the rank of Inspector."
xx xx xx 13.9 List D. Promotion to Assistant Sub-Inspectors.- (1) A list shall be maintained in each district in card index Form 13.9(1) of those head constables who have passed the lower school course and the Intermediate school course at the Police Training School and are approved by the Deputy Inspector General as eligible for Singh Dalbir 2014.03.28 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [10] officiating or substantive promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. No head constable shall be admitted to this list who is not thoroughly efficient in all branches of the duties of a constable and head constable and of established integrity." In Sardul Singh's case (supra), the petitioner, a Head Constable, was not selected for the Intermediate School Course on the ground that he needed more experience in all the branches of police working, whereas some other Head Constables, who were either working or officiating, were selected for that course. It was in these circumstances, the question examined was as to whether the Deputy Inspector General of Police or any other Officer or authority has the right to make a selection from among the Head Constables before sending them for Intermediate School Course. While examining the said question, the Full Bench, held that Intermediate School Course is an eligibility condition for promotion and a Head Constable does not get the right to be admitted to List-D or to be promoted as officiating, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He will become eligible for further promotion, when he is found to be efficient and honest. It is in this background, a finding was recorded to the following effect:-
"15. For the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that every Head Constable on List-`C' has the right to be sent for the Intermediate School Course in the order of his seniority determined in accordance with Rule 13.8. While sending the Head Constables for the Intermediate School Course, the Deputy Inspector General of Police shall first send the confirmed Head Constables and after their list if exhausted, the Head Constables on probation will be sent and list of all officiating Head Constables will be sent. This appears to us to be the most reasonable, fair and equitable way of complying with the provisions of Rule 13.9 of the Police Rules in the interest of all the Head Constables in the police force, who legitimately aspire for promotion. Any Head Constable Singh Dalbir 2014.03.28 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [11] unwilling to undergo that course will of course be omitted."
In view of the said reasoning, the respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner for being sent for Intermediate School Course in order of seniority. It may be noticed that it was not a case where the Head Constables from different districts were being deputed to undergo Intermediate School Course to acquire eligibility for the purposes of promotion.
In Surjit Singh's case (supra), the Full Bench considered the question whether the seniority of the lower subordinates in the Punjab Police, are governed by the date of their appointment only and is not to be finally determined by the date of their confirmation. It appears that the petitioners and the private respondents were from the same district and in the same seniority. The Court held that the seniority of the confirmed officer would be taken by date of confirmation and that such officer would rank senior to the officer not confirmed in that rank, irrespective of the latter's date of appointment. It was held as under:-
"20. For the afore-mentioned reasons, I am of the view that the argument raised on behalf of the respondents is both plausible and sound. The third paragraph of sub- rule (3) of Rule 12.2, therefore, operates only during the probationary period of the lower subordinates. After confirmation in either of the two ranks comprised therein the provisions of rule 14.1 would obviously come into full play. Therefore, the seniority of a confirmed officer would be finally determined by the date of his confirmation and he would rank senior to an officer not confirmed in that rank, irrespective of the latter's date of appointment."
The issue in the present case is that though the Head Constables in different districts have been brought on List-D on the same date, but the confirmation in the districts depends upon the Singh Dalbir 2014.03.28 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [12] availability of vacancies and the promptness of the Superintendent of Police in passing an order of confirmation. Thus a Head Constables who are brought on List-D, earlier in point of time, but not confirmed due to factors beyond their control, would not be sent for course for the reason that he has not been confirmed. Thus a Head Constable, who has been confirmed on account of fortuitous circumstances, will get preference over a candidate, who was brought on List-D at an earlier point of time simply for the reason that the two Head Constables were in two different districts.
Such question was neither raised nor arose for consideration in Sardul Singh's case or for that matter in Surjit Singh's case. The question in Surjit Singh's case was of determination of seniority from the date of appointment or date of confirmation. The said case is of a case of seniority in the same district. The Court held to the following effect:-
"19. The petitioners in the third category of cases were Head Constables, who were promoted as officiating Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police without having passed the Intermediate School Course. They were reverted by order, dated September 15, 1969, on the ground that Intermediate pass Head Constables had become available and the petitioners were being reverted as being untrained. The petitioners have challenged this order or reversion on the ground that they were not found unsuitable for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and it was no fault of theirs that they were not sent for the Intermediate School Course before promoting them. In fact by their promotion as officiating Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police they were lulled into the belief that the passing of the Intermediate School Course was not necessary in their cases. It is not possible for us to quash the order of reversion of the petitioners because they were holding the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police in an officiating capacity and their reversion to their substantive rank Singh Dalbir 2014.03.28 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [13] was not by way of punishment nor cast any stigma on them. They had no right to the officiating posts and since better qualified persons became available, according to rule 13.9 of the Police Rules, the order of reversion was legal. Under rule 13.9 no Head Constable can be appointed as an officiating Assistant Sub- Inspector of Police unless he has passed the Intermediate School Course and is admitted to list 'D'. These petitioners were admittedly never placed on list 'D', but their names were placed on provisional list 'D' for which there is no authority in the Police Rules. It appears that the department had evolved a practice in 1957 or thereabout to prepare a provisional list 'D' on which the names of Head Constables were brought and after some trial selection was made out of them for being sent for the Intermediate School Course. These petitioners were never selected for that course although some of them held the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police for six years or so. It is really very hard on the petitioners to be reverted in this manner, but we feel that we cannot help the petitioners in their plight. It is for the Government and the high police officials to consider how to ameliorate their suffering which has been caused to them not because of their own fault, but because of the wrong act of the higher police officials in promoting them contrary to the Police Rules. We do hope that the respondents shall find some way to do justice to these unfortunate petitioners. We, however, find force in their prayer that they should be sent for the Intermediate School Course according to the principle laid down by us in the first category of cases."
The present is a case where seniority of the Head Constables in a range falling in different districts is required to be determined for the purpose of deputing them to undergo Intermediate School Course.
In Ranjit Singh's case, the learned Single Bench has examined the right of a Head Constable for being deputed to the Intermediate Training Course coming from different districts but within the same range. The learned Single Judge relied upon D.K. Singh Dalbir 2014.03.28 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [14] Mitra v. Union of India and others, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1558, that if the promotion is within the zone, then adoption of the date of confirmation as the governing point is to inject an element of inequality into the very foundation of the promotion process. Thus, the principle applied was that the seniority should be determined from the continuous length of service. Reliance was placed upon the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para No.17 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-
"17. But, it is said, the date of confirmation is the material date for determining relative seniority, and the promotee respondents were confirmed before the petitioners. It appears that the Railway administration in according confirmation has been influenced by two principal factors, one is that confirmation has been considered zone-wise. Confirmation has been made as vacancies have arisen within a particular zone. The vacancies differ from zone to zone. They do not arise equally in different zones, but turn on factors peculiar to each zone, such as the strength of the cadre within the zone, and the differing number of vacancies arising in different zones at different times. In other words, confirmation based on the placement of an officer within a particular zone must necessarily be determined by factors confirmed to that zone and unrelated to an all India standard. It is apparent that confirmations limited by such a local perspective cannot serve as a legitimate basis for drawing up a seniority list intended for effecting promotions to the all India cadre of Medical Superintendents. To adopt the date of confirmation as the governing point in such circumstances is to inject an element of inequality into the very foundation of the promotion process. It is conceivable that the Railway Administration has adopted the rule of according confirmations to the Divisional Medical Officers zone- wise for certain practical considerations and, therefore, we do not propose to adjudicate on the validity of that practice. But we do lay down that such confirmations cannot legitimately constitute the basic norm for Singh Dalbir 2014.03.28 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [15] drawing up a seniority list of the Divisional Medical Officers for the purpose of promotion to the grade of Medical Superintendents. In the circumstances, the true principle, in our opinion, must be that seniority should be related to the length of continuous service as Divisional Medical Officer reckoned from the date of promotion to the post. This is subject of course to the exception that such service should not include any period served in a fortuitous, stop-gap or ad hoc appointment." (Emphasis supplied)."
Based upon the said judgment, the learned Single Bench in Ranjit Singh's case, adopted the principles of continuous length of service as Head Constable, irrespective of the date of confirmation, relevant for deputing the Head Constables to undergo Intermediate School Course.
The confirmation as Head Constable in the district cannot be made the sole basis as such confirmation is dependent upon numerous circumstances over which a Head Constable has no control. Therefore, once a Head Constable is brought on List-D, such list alone should be made the basis for further deputing them to Intermediate School Course, subject of course to satisfying all other criteria. The confirmation or non conformation of a Head Constable in the List-D, shall not be the basis for deputing a Head Constable to undergo Intermediate School Course. Such process alone will lead to equality and avoid unholy race to shift the officers to a district offering confirmation at an earlier point of time and vice-versa to deny an opportunity of promotion. Therefore, we find that the view taken by this Court in Ranjit Singh's case is fair and reasonable and has stood the test for more than 20 years. There is no reason to take a different view than the one taken in the year 1991 and followed continuously thereafter.
Singh Dalbir 2014.03.28 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh Civil Writ Petition No. 933 of 1993 (O&M) [16] Therefore, we hold that the Police Department should depute the Head Constable to the Intermediate School Course on the basis of continuous length of service in List-D without taking into consideration the date of confirmation.
The writ petitions stand disposed of accordingly.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE (FATEH DEEP SINGH) JUDGE March 27, 2014 ds Singh Dalbir 2014.03.28 13:56 I attest to the accuracy of this document High Court Chandigarh