- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jagbir Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeals arise from orders of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated 31-3-1994 in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 15044 of 1993 and 1575 of 1994. The appellant was recruited to the Haryana Police Service as a Constable under the sports quota on 15-9-1977. He was promoted to Head Constable on 4-7-1984, having regard to his sports performance, and was confirmed as Head Constable on 31-8-1987.
Subsequently, the Superintendent of Police issued a show-cause notice dated 11-8-1988 proposing to de-confirm him as Head Constable with effect from 31-8-1987. The appellant was later promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector on an ad hoc basis on 22-11-1990. While serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector, he was provisionally selected for an intermediate school course commencing on 15-9-1993 and was sent for that training. During this training, his name was deleted from the list of Head Constables.
After unsuccessful representations, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 1575 of 1994 challenging a second show-cause notice dated 14-12-1993; the High Court dismissed that petition on 31-3-1994. Another writ petition challenging the de-confirmation was also dismissed. The present appeals were brought by special leave.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the appellant’s promotion and confirmation as Head Constable under the sports quota, although at points described as ad hoc, should be treated as regular under Rule 13.1(1) of Chapter XIII of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana).
- Whether, in consequence, the appellant is entitled to be deemed regularly promoted/confirmed as Head Constable with all consequential benefits, rendering the de-confirmation and deletion from the Head Constables’ list unsustainable.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana, CA No. 852 of 1994, dt. 21-1-1994 | Under Rule 13.1(1) of Chapter XIII of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana), a promotion that may be described as ad hoc can nevertheless be a regular promotion; such promotion cannot be treated as ad hoc, and the employee is entitled to confirmation. | The Court relied on this principle to hold that the appellant’s promotion was regular, not ad hoc, and that he is entitled to regular promotion/confirmation. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted the admitted facts that the appellant was recruited and promoted under the sports quota and held that his promotion was in accordance with the applicable rules. It referred to and followed the decision in Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana, which interprets Rule 13.1(1) of Chapter XIII of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to Haryana). In that precedent, even where a promotion order described the advancement as ad hoc, the legal position under the rule treated the promotion as regular, entitling the employee to confirmation.
Applying that reasoning, the Court concluded that the appellant’s promotion could not be treated as ad hoc. Consequently, he is entitled to be treated as regularly promoted. This resolved the controversy underlying the de-confirmation and the deletion of his name from the Head Constables’ list.
Holding and Implications
Appeals ALLOWED. The appellant must be deemed to have been regularised as Head Constable, and all consequential benefits are to be granted. No costs.
Implications: The direct effect is the appellant’s regularisation as Head Constable with attendant benefits. The opinion applies an existing rule and precedent to the appellant’s case and does not purport to establish a new legal principle beyond affirming the applicability of the cited precedent.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals by special leave arise from the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made on 31-3-1994 in Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 15044 of 1993 and 1575 of 1994. The appellant was recruited as a Constable in Haryana Police Service against sports quota on 15-9-1977. He was promoted as Head Constable on 4-7-1984 keeping in view his performance in the sports. He was also confirmed as a Head Constable on 31-8-1987. He was served with a show-cause notice by the Superintendent of Police dated 11-8-1988 as to why he should not be de-confirmed as Head Constable w.e.f 31-8-1987. In the meanwhile, he was also promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector on ad hoc basis on 22-11-1990. While he was continuing as Assistant Sub-Inspector, he was provisionally selected to undergo intermediate school course which was to commence from 15-9-1993. He was selected and sent for the training. While the appellant was undergoing the training his name was deleted from the list of Head Constables. Consequently, after unsuccessful attempt by representations, the appellant filed the Writ Petition No. 1575 of 1994 in the High Court challenging the validity of the second show-cause notice dated 14-12-1993. It was dismissed by the High Court by order dated 31-3-1994. The other writ petition challenging de-confirmation was dismissed. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
3. In view of the admitted position that he was recruited under the sports quota and also promoted thereunder, his promotion is according to rules. The controversy raised was considered by this Court in Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana CA No. 852 of 1994, dt. 21-1-1994. It was held therein that though the order indicated that the promotion was on ad hoc basis, but in view of Rule 13.1(1) of Chapter XIII of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as is applicable to the Haryana State the promotion given to the appellant was a regular promotion and it cannot be considered to be ad hoc. As a consequence, he was held to be entitled to confirmation in that position. In view of the above legal position we are of the view that the appellant is entitled to the regular promotion.
4. The appeals are accordingly allowed. He must be deemed to have been regularised as Head Constable. All the consequential benefits should also be given to the appellant. No costs.
Alert