Head Constable Sat Paul and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

K. Kannan, J.—The petitioners 1 to 3 are Head Constables in Gurdaspur Range, who have a grievance that the private respondents 8 to 11, who had been juniors to the petitioners, had been selected for Intermediate School Course in the year 1992 that made possible for them to claim their promotions, but the petitioners were left out of consideration. The petitioners'' claim is made on the basis that the first petitioner joined as a Constable on 24.09.1980 and promoted as Head Constable on 14.12.1988 after passing the lower school course. The second petitioner was a Constable on 23.10.1981 and promoted as a Head Constable on 19.09.1985 and confirmed as such on 01.01.1991. The third petitioner joined as Constable on 18.01.1982 and promoted as Head Constable on 17.10.1989. All the petitioners would claim that they had outstanding ability in sports and had obtained all India positions in police meet in athletics.

To bring favourable comparison with the respondents, it is pointed out that the 8th respondent joined on 17.12.1987 as a Constable, 9th respondent had joined in 1985, 10th respondent in 1986 and 11th respondent joined on 01.09.1981. As regards the 11th respondent, it must immediately be pointed out that both as regards entry as a Constable and as regards the time when he was posted as a Head Constable, he ranked above the petitioners 2 and 3. The petitioners'' grievance is that the respondents had never been promoted on ad hoc basis in 1987-88 as Head Constables and even before confirmation in the respective posts, they had been sent to the Intermediate School Course. The counsel would refer to a Full Bench decision in Sardul Singh, Head Constable Versus Inspector General of Police, Punjab and others-1970 SLR 505 that lays down that every Head Constable had a right to be deputed for Intermediate School Course and the same shall be considered only in the order of seniority. The Full Bench held that in the order of preference, the first category shall be confirmed Head Constable, the second category shall be Head Constable on probation and the last of all, the officiating Head Constables. The contention is that the respondents 8 to 11 were all merely officiating Head Constables and they could not have been sent to the intermediate school course. I do not think this argument is going to be any help, because it is not as if the decision prohibits an officiating Head Constable to be sent; the decision merely sets out priorities. It must be noticed that none of the petitioners had been confirmed as Head Constables at the relevant time and they were all holding merely posts on ad hoc basis. The issue, however, should be that if the respondents were also ad hoc, then there must be yet another consideration, namely, a consideration of seniority from the time of induction in service which would seem breached if the date of entry alone were to be taken as relevant criterion. The butt of objection is that the petitioners who were officiating Head Constables and who were left out of reckoning ought to have been preferred to respondents 8 to 10, all of whom were also ad hoc or officiating Head Constables and whose entry into service as Constables had been after the petitioners'' entry and the date when ''C'' list was prepared. The petitioners 1 and 2 were still placed higher than respondents 9 and 10, who had been included in ''C'' list only subsequent to the petitioners and the 8th and 11th respondent had not been put in ''C'' list at all but from the ad hoc officiation as Head Constables, they had been directly sent for Intermediate School Course.

This is answered by the State in a simple fashion, namely, as per Punjab Police Rules 12.1(4), the Head Constables and Constables in each district shall be borne on district rolls and shall receive district constabulary numbers. The contention, therefore, is that the seniority is maintained at the range level and the respondents 8 to 10 belonged to different range and not in the range of the petitioners who belonged to Gurdaspur Range. The affirmation is on the ground that nobody in Gurdaspur, who was junior to the petitioners, had been sent to Intermediate School Course and the petitioners cannot compare themselves on an issue of seniority by reference to the date of entry in various ranges. The counsel would downplay this essential difference by stating that both the petitioners and the respondents were not being considered with reference to range-wise seniority but as one category of sports persons, who had gained entry or participation in sports events at national levels. The State would also join issues on how the petitioners themselves had been detached from the sports wing even in the year 1987, that was, before the consideration was undertaken to prepare a list of persons eligible for the Intermediate School Course. The contention through the affidavit filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police is that the first petitioner had taken part in sports only upto 1987 but since his performance was below average, he had been detached from the sports wing in the year 1987. As regards petitioner No. 2, he was detached or removed from the sports wing even in the year 1985. The 3rd petitioner had represented All India Police Games in the year 1987 and achieved only 4th position. All the petitioners have come by promotions subsequently over a period of time when they had been sent for Intermediate School Course and obtained the necessary qualifications.

The following aspects can be deduced from the narration of facts:-

(a) The promotion to higher post that was possible on undergoing of Intermediate School Course ought to be done in the order of priority where regular Head Constables would be sent. Among ad hoc Head Constables inter se seniority in the said posts will secure primacy of consideration;

(b) The inter se seniority will be decided range-wise and the persons in the particular range could complain of violation of seniority principles only by citing instances of juniors in the same range who had been allowed to join the Intermediate School Course;

(c) The range-wise seniority could also be discarded when the persons brought to services on sports quota will be considered only in the said quota so long as they participated in sports and allowed to be retained as falling for consideration in the category.

If the seniority could be only range-wise, then all the petitioners and the private respondents, who had occupied the respective positions on sports category, will still have a case only so long as the retention in sports category is allowed by their participation in such category. The counsel argues that there is no question of detachment of persons who had been taken on sports category and the petitioners had all been retained only in the sports category. This seems essentially a point of fact, for, the specific averments brought through reply affidavit of the senior police official goes uncontroverted. I have already pointed out that how each one of the petitioners were said to have been detached or removed from the sports wing much before the time when the private respondents were sent for Intermediate School Course. To repeat, the first petitioner was said to have been detached in the year 1987 and second petitioner in the year 1985, while the third petitioner had participated in the year 1987 in All India Police Games and for this achievement, he had been given the benefit of sports achievement and was sent for Intermediate School Course in the year 1990 against sports quota. The 10th respondent was deputed against seats allotted to Jalandhar Range and the 11th respondent had not undergone any recruit course or any promotion post but he had undergone condensed course only in the year 1983 that was treated as equivalent to Intermediate School Course by the proceedings of the Director General of Police, dated 15.06.1989. I do not think the matters brought to court through the affidavit of the respondent, there is anything amiss that would allow for a deemed date of obtaining qualification for the petitioners as having passed Intermediate School Course from the dates when the respondents 8 to 11 had secured the promotions after qualifying in the Intermediate School Course.

I do not find any scope for intervention. The writ petition is dismissed.