SI/CTS Raj Mal Rana And Others vs State Of HP And Others

L. Narayana Swamy, CJ

Challenge in this Letters Patent Appeal is laid by the appellants to the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 02.11.2020 in CWPOA No. 5063 of 2020, titled SI/CTS Brij Bhushan and others vs. State of HP and others, whereby the petition filed by the petitioners/appellants herein has been dismissed, hereinafter referred to as the 'impugned judgment' for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.

The appellants, who were Original Applicants before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal, hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal', filed the Original Application before the Tribunal, with the following prayers:

"(i)That impugned order dated 5.1.2016 Annexure A­8 may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii)That the impugned seniority list dated 11.1.2016AnnexureA­9 may kindly be quashed and set aside by further ordering that respondent No.4 may be placed below all the applicants.

(iii)That standing orders Order No.19226 dated 19.10.2015 may kindly be ordered to be summoned from the respondents and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside."

The aforesaid Original Application, on abolition of the Tribunal came to be transferred to this Court and registered as CWPOA No. 5063 of 2020.

Briefly stated, the facts are that the appellants and respondents are serving as Sub Inspectors in the Communication and Technical Services of Himachal Pradesh Police. The grievance of the appellants herein/petitioners in the petition was with regard to showing the private respondent over and above them in the seniority list of Sub Inspectors, who was promoted to the said post on account of "Prime Minister's Police Medal for Life Saving' having been conferred upon him.

It appears that the private respondent was awarded 'Prime Minister's Police Medal' for Life Saving' in the year 2003. At the relevant time, Standing Order No. P.II(4) of 2002, was in force. This Standing Order was issued under the provisions of Police Rules 13.19 and 13.21 which provided for one rank out of turn promotion to enrolled Police Officers (up­ to the rank of Inspector of Police), who were awarded Police Medals mentioned therein and those, who during discharge of their official duties, exhibit exceptional courage or presence of mind and devotion to duty or high degree of professional competence. The medals which were mentioned in this Standing Order also included 'Prime Minister's Police Medal for Life Saving'

As per the appellants herein/petitioners, this Standing Order nowhere provided that upon promotion as Sub Inspector on out of turn basis, the incumbent was also entitled for seniority because the Standing Order was clear and categoric that seniority shall be conferred only in case of Sub Inspectors of Police getting promoted, who in terms of Standing Order, were to gain seniority from the date of promotion

Appellants herein/petitioners have also referred to Standing Order No.4 of 2007. Clause 4 of the said Standing Order does disclose that for the first time, in this Standing Order it was contemplated that enrolled Police Officers upto the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, who are awarded any Police Medal mentioned in para 2 thereof, would be entitled for seniority in the higher rank immediately after passing the prescribed promotion course and not on the basis of seniority from the date of promotion on out of turn basis. Reference has also been made to another Standing Order dated 31.12.2013 annexed with the petition as Annexure A­5, wherein also similar condition is provided and by referring to the same, the appellants herein/ petitioners demonstrate that the grant of seniority to the private respondent from the date of his promotion as Sub Inspector is illegal and the final seniority list in which the private respondent is reflected over and above the petitioners does not stand before judicial scrutiny.

Aggrieved against this seniority list, appellants herein/petitioners preferred Original Application before the Himachal Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal which, on its abolition came to be transferred to this Court and registered as CWPOA No. 5063 of 2020, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court being devoid of any merit. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal.

We have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, Mr. Ashok Sharma, learned Advocate General and the learned counsel for respondent No.4.

The grounds taken are that the learned Single Judge has failed to apply the correct position of law hence the impugned judgment is vitiated and deserves to be set aside. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the facts and material placed before it particularly Annexure A­11 in which it was directed to place the private respondent much below the appellants in the seniority list.

The learned counsel for the respondents have reiterated their submissions made before the learned Single Judge. It is argued that respective case of the parties have been duly considered by the leaned Single Judge and there is no error in the impugned judgment. Hence the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be dismissed.

The main and sole contention between the appellants and private respondent is that on promotion to the post of Sub Inspector on account of 'Prime Minister's Police Medal for Life Saving' having been awarded to the private respondent, he was not entitled for seniority as from the date of his promotion on out of turn basis.

Undisputedly, the private respondent is junior to the appellants right from their initial appointment as constable to the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. He was given out of turn promotion as per Standing Order No. P.II(4) of 2002. Sub­Clause 2 of the said Standing Order reads as under:

"2.Promotions under this scheme shall be governed as under:­

(i) Enrolled Police Officers up to the rank of Assistant sub Inspector of Police who are awarded any police Medal out of those mentioned in para­1 shall be promoted to the next higher rank immediately, subject to vacancy, and then deputed to under to prescribed promotion courses in the next batch irrespective of other eligibility conditions.

(ii)They will not be reverted to the lower rank while undergoing such promotion courses.

(iii) In case of Sub­Inspectors of Police, they shall be immediately promoted to the next higher rank, irrespective of other eligibility conditions and their seniority will be reckoned from their date of promotion"

The private respondent was promoted against the post of Sub­Inspector on out of turn basis w.e.f. 10.6.2003 to the post of Sub Inspector, whereas the petitioners/appellants herein were promoted to the said post in the month of March, 2005 onwards. Though the private respondent was junior to the appellants as Assistant Sub­Inspector, however, he got promotion over and above the appellants to the post of Sub­ Inspector on out of turn basis. The Standing Order, which was occupying the field, when the private respondent was given out of turn promotion, is Standing Order No. P­II (4) of 2002. Clause 2 of the said Standing Order has already been extracted above. This Clause clearly provides that in case of Sub Inspectors who are promoted to the next higher post, irrespective of other eligibility conditions, seniority of such an incumbent shall be reckoned from the date of promotion. In the case of enrolled Police Officers up to the rank of Assistant Sub­Inspector of Police, who are awarded any of the Police Medal mentioned therein. The Clause aforesaid contemplates that they shall be promoted to the next higher rank immediately, subject to vacancy and then deputed to undergo prescribed promotion courses in the next batch irrespective of other eligibility conditions. The only difference in terms of the aforesaid Standing Order is that promotion of an enrolled Police Officer up to the rank of Assistant Sub­Inspector is dependent on the availability of vacancy and there is embargo in the case of Sub­Inspector of Police who is to be promoted to the next promotional post on out of turn basis. Another embargo for enrolled Police officer up to the rank of Assistant Sub­Inspector of Police is that after promotion, which is subject to vacancy, the promoted officer is deputed to undergo prescribed promotion courses in the next batch irrespective of other eligibility conditions, no such condition is there as far as Sub Inspector of Police is concerned.

On the date when the private respondent was promoted on out of turn basis, the appellants were still serving in the cadre of Assistant Sub­Inspectors. Thus, private respondent became senior to the appellants because he was no more in existence in the cadre of Assistant Sub­Inspectors and got promotion to the next cadre before appellants herein.

The Standing Orders Annexure A­4 and A­5 do disclose that as far as seniority of the enrolled Police Officers up to the rank of Assistant Sub­Inspector of Police, who are awarded any of the Police Medals mentioned in the said Standing Order, was concerned, the same was to be regulated after passing the prescribed promotion courses. The subsequent condition incorporated in the Standing Orders is that earlier neither there was any such condition nor the seniority of the promoted enrolled police officers up to the rank of Assistant Sub­Inspector post promotion was dependent on clearing of prescribed promotion courses. The only a clarification stood incorporated in the later Standing Orders.

The private respondent is stated to have undergone and passed the relevant prescribed courses much before the appellants which were necessary for a candidate to pass for being promoted to the post of Sub­Inspector from the post of Assistant Sub­Inspector while he was serving as Assistant Sub­Inspector before his out of turn promotion.

The representation made by the appellants/petitioners against the tentative/provisional seniority list of Sub Inspectors/CTS as it stood on 31.10.2015 in which the private respondent was reflected above the petitioners, has been rejected by the authority holding the same devoid of any merit by assigning detailed reasons. The final seniority list stood prepared after rejection of the appellants' representation. There is no arbitrariness on the part of the official respondent in preparing the seniority list. The seniority has been rightly conferred by the official respondents to the private respondent and we are not inclined to interfere with the same for the reasons mentioned supra.

The judgment being CWP No. 6599 of 2010 relied upon by the appellants is not applicable in the present case as neither the appellants nor the private respondent was party to it. It is not appropriate to rely on the said judgment. Under these circumstances we fully agree with the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge and refrain from taking a contrary view.

Accordingly, we find no merit in this appeal and the same deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Pending applications, if any also stand disposed of.