Inder Singh vs State of H.P. and Others

V.K. Sharma, J.—The petition has been filed on the following prayers:

i) To direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to consider the case of the applicant for promotion as H.C. from the date the Respondent No. 4 has been promoted;

ii) To direct the Respondents to delete the name of the Respondent No. 4 from the seniority list in Distt. Cadre and the applicant be put at Sr. No. 1 in the same seniority list;

iii) To direct the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to allow pay and allowances alongwith arrears of pay to the applicant from the date Respondent No. 4 was promoted;

iv) To grant to the applicant such other consequential relief(s) which the Hon''ble Tribunal may deem fit, just and proper in facts and circumstances of the matter.

In reply, Respondents No. 1 to 3 have taken the following stand vide para 6(b), (c) and (e):

(b) In reply to this para it is submitted that the applicant as well as Respondent No. 4 are borne on the strength of the State Police after their recruitment as Constables. Subsequent thereto, Respondent No. 4 was inducted into the trade of driver. However, he continued to be in the Constabulary strength of H.P. Police and for the purpose of promotion to the next higher rank his seniority was to be reckoned from the date of his induction into the Police force. By No. means Respondent No. 4 could be ignored for promotion in the category of driver subsequent to his recruitment as Constable. It is clarified here that Respondent No. 4 is senior to the applicant from the date of his appointment. The Respondents, therefore, rightly considered and promoted Respondent No. 4 to the rank of Head Constable against 5% exemptee quota as per the provision of Punjab Police Rules 13.8 (amended).

(c) In reply to this para it is submitted that promotion of the Respondent No. 4 was ordered under the provision of Punjab Police Rule 13.8 which provides seniority to be the main criteria for considering and promoting the incumbents under 5% exemptee quota. The case of the applicant as well as Respondent No. 4 was considered by the D.P.C. on 25.9.2001. On that relevant date only one vacancy existed against 5% exemptee quota in Kullu District and the Respondent No. 4 being senior to the applicant was rightly recommended by the D.P.C. for promotion. The promotion was based on the principle of seniority-cum-merit. Thus the averment of the applicant in this para are not tenable. The proceedings of the D.P.C. shall be placed for inspection of this Hon''ble Tribunal if desired and ordered so. (e) The averments of this para are not tenable. The applicant as well as the Respondent No. 4 were considered by the D.P.C. and Respondent No. 4 being senior was ordered to be promoted in accordance with provision of Rule 13.8(2) by the D.P.C. It is respectfully submitted that proceedings of D.P.C. are not required to be mentioned to the candidates in the zone of consideration. The allegation, therefore, is not legally sustainable.

There is No. rejoinder.

In view of the above reply, in case the Petitioner still has any surviving grievance, he may make a representation along with copy of this judgment to the Respondents/competent authority within one month from today, who shall consider and decide the same within next three months in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner, if so desired.

The petition so also pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms.