Balwinder Kaur vs State of Punjab and others

The petitioner herein is aggrieved against denial of promotion

to the post of Head Constable w.e.f. 01.04.2003 and seeks to quash the

impugned order dated 05.10.2012 (Annexure P-7) by which her appeal has

been rejected.

In brief, facts are that the petitioner joined Punjab Police as

Constable on 08.04.1997 in District Hoshiarpur. On 15.10.2002, she was

deputed to undergo Lower School Course which she passed in the session

March 2003. The name of the petitioner was entered in the promotion list

C-1 w.e.f. 01.04.2003 vide an office order dated 22.08.2003. Thereafter, the

petitioner was promoted to the post of Head Constable by order dated

20.10.2003. Having completed her Course in March, 2003, the petitioner

made a representation to the respondents that she should be given

promotion on the date when she had completed her Lower School Course.

The representation and the appeal were subsequently rejected on the ground

that the result of the Lower School Course was sent to the respondent-

Department by the Director, P.P.A. Phillaur on 22.08.2003. After the result

was received, a Promotion Committee was constituted and the said

Promotion Committee was asked to check the record and send its

recommendation. After the recommendation of the Promotion Committee

were received, the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable w.e.f.

20.10.2003.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends

that posts were vacant and were available as on 01.04.2003 and on account

of the fact that she had completed her Lower School Course in March, 2003,

she should have been appointed from the date when the posts were vacant.

It is also contended that a Lady Constable, namely, Devinder Kaur No.

717/JALL who was deputed to the same batch of Lower School Course i.e.

Session March 2003, whose result was declared by the P.P.A. Phillaur vide

the very same list i.e. the list dated 12.06.2003, made a representation to

respondent No.3 that she be promoted to the post of Head Constable w.e.f.

01.04.2003 i.e. the date with effect from which her name was entered into

the promotion list C-1. The representation of Devinder Kaur was accepted

and she has been given a deemed date of promotion w.e.f. 01.04.2003.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents-State would submit that the petitioner along with two other

Constables were brought on the promotion list w.e.f. 01.04.2003. After that

a DPC was constituted and on receipt of recommendations of the DPC, the

petitioner along with other Lady Constables were promoted as Head

Constable w.e.f. 13.10.2003 and, therefore, there is no infirmity in the order

that has been passed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and only question

that arises is whether the petitioner whose name was reflected on the C-1

list as on 01.04.2003 would be entitled to be promoted to the post of Head

Constable on the date when her name was brought on the C-1 list or from

the date when the DPC made its recommendation.

As per Rule 13.8 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 List C

specifies procedure for appointment/promotion to Head Constables. In each

district a list is maintained of all constables who have passed the Lower

School Course at Phillaur and are considered eligible for promotion to Head

Constable. A Card shall be prepared for each Constable admitted to the list

and shall contain his marking under sub-rule 13.5 (2) and notes by the

Superintendent himself or furnished by Gazetted Officers which in turn is to

be scrutinized and approved by the Deputy Inspector General of police at

his annual inspection. Promotions to Head Constable shall be made in

accordance with the principle described in sub-rules 13.1 (1) and (2) with

further qualification that date of admission to list C shall not be material,

but the order of merit in which examinations have been passed shall be

taken into consideration in comparing qualifications. Therefore, once a

person has been brought on to the list C promotion to the post of Head

Constable is not automatic.

It has been held in a series of decisions of the Apex Court that a

promotion takes effect from the date of being granted and not from the date

of occurrence of vacancy or creation of the post. In this regard reliance can

be placed on a number of descions of the Apex Court, Union of India v.

K.K. Vadera [1989 Supp (2) SCC 625 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 127], State of

Uttaranchal v. Dinesh Kumar Sharma [(2007) 1 SCC 683 : (2007) 1 SCC

(L&S) 594], K.V. Subba Rao v. Govt. of A.P . [(1988) 2 SCC 201 : 1988

SCC (L&S) 506 : (1988) 7 ATC 94], Sanjay K. Sinha-II v. State of Bihar

[(2004) 10 SCC 734 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 169], Nirmal Chandra Sinha vs

Union Of India & Ors . (2008) 14 SCC 29.

Admittedly, the petitioner completed her Lower School Course

in March, 2003 and her name was reflected in C-1 list as on 01.04.2003. A

DPC was constituted in the month of July, 2003 after receipt of the result

from the Police Academy at Phillaur, the DPC recommended the promotion

of the petitioner only in October, 2003. What has to be taken note of is that

mere completion of the Lower School Course would not itself simpliciter

entitle the petitioner to promotion. The matter has to be considered by the

DPC by taking into account other factors as well and is only after a

recommendation has been made that a candidate would have entitled to

promotion. The law in this regard is well settled that the person is only

entitled to be considered for promotion and a candidate cannot claim

promotion as a matter of right. The petitioner herein is not in a position to

state that anyone in her district has been given promotion over and above

her. The other candidate who had also appeared for the Lower School

Course, has also been given promotion after the result was received from

PAP Phillaur. As regards the claim of the petitioner for being equated with

Ms. Devinder Kaur, would have no bearing to the case in hand as Lady

Constable Devinder Kaur was promoted in another district that is District

Jalandhar.

Therefor, I am of the opinion that the petitioner has not been

able to establish infringement of a legal right to warrant any interference

by this court. The writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.