Dhirender Singh And Others v. State Of Haryana And Others

Factual and Procedural Background

The matter concerns an appellant who was promoted by the Superintendent of Police on 16-01-1990 under a sports quota, citing his outstanding performance in wrestling. According to the respondents’ counter-affidavit, the promotion was made on an ad hoc basis against an upgraded vacancy, and the appointment order specified that the appellant could be reverted at any time without notice and would have no right to seniority in the promoted post.

The appellant challenged the adverse order before the High Court, and upon an appeal to the Supreme Court, leave was granted. The Supreme Court considered whether any interference with the High Court’s order was warranted and ultimately dismissed the appeal. A connected appeal (CA No. 16847 of 1996 @ SLP (C) No. 19421 of 1996) was also dismissed following the same reasoning.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the appellant’s ad hoc sports-quota promotion granted by the Superintendent of Police (without approval of the DIG) could be treated as a regular promotion so as to invalidate reversion, by applying the ratio of Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana.
2. Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with the High Court’s order on the facts and authority competence presented in the record.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The appellant relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana (JT (1994) 2 SC 157) to contend that, though termed temporary/ad hoc, the promotion should be treated as a regular promotion, making reversion unlawful.

Respondents' Position (as stated in counter-affidavit)

• The Superintendent of Police promoted the appellant on 16-01-1990 on an ad hoc basis against an upgraded vacancy due to outstanding sports performance (wrestling).
• The appointment order expressly provided that the appellant could be reverted at any time without notice and would have no right to seniority in the post.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court examined the reliance placed by the appellant on Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana. It noted that in Rishal Singh, the promotion was granted by the DIG, who was the competent authority to make appointments by promotion, and the promotion was made in terms of Rule 13.8(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (empowering temporary promotions). On that footing, the Court in Rishal Singh treated the promotion as effectively regular and held reversion to be bad in law.

Applying that framework, the Court held that the precedent could not govern the present dispute because the appellant’s promotion was granted by the Superintendent of Police, and it was admitted that no approval of the DIG was obtained. In light of this difference regarding the authority making/approving the promotion, the Court concluded that the ratio of Rishal Singh had no application and found no ground to interfere with the High Court’s order.

Holding and Implications

DISMISSED: The appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs. A connected appeal (CA No. 16847 of 1996 @ SLP (C) No. 19421 of 1996) was also dismissed following the same order, with no costs.

The direct effect is that the High Court’s order remains undisturbed and the appellant does not obtain relief in this appeal. However, the Court clarified that if the appellant is otherwise eligible, the dismissal does not prevent consideration of his case according to the applicable rules. The order does not indicate that any new precedent was set beyond applying (and distinguishing) the cited authority on the specific facts of competence/approval.