Sub Inspector Rajender Singh vs State of Haryana and Another

Ranjit Singh, J.—Having been enrolled as Constable in the year 1981, the Petitioner was selected for B1 test in 1993 and passed the Lower

School Course. He was accordingly promoted as Head Constable on 15.3.1994 and confirmed as such on 5.11.1998 under Rule 13.8(2) of the

Punjab Police Rules, 1934. Later the Petitioner passed Inter-mediate School Course in the year 2005 and was promoted as Assistant Sub

Inspector on 23.5.2005. He was confirmed as Assistant Sub Inspector after completion of two years satisfactory service and was promoted as

Sub Inspector w.e.f. 3.10.2008.

One Assistant Sub Inspector Daya Nand filed a writ petition before this Court, pleading that the Petitioner, who was junior to said Daya Nand,

was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector while ignoring the claim of said Daya Nand. It was then found that Assistant Sub

Inspector Daya Nand had wrongly impleaded the Petitioner as private Respondent as he belonged to Rohtak Range whereas the Petitioner was

promoted as Sub Inspector in Commissonerate Gurgaon, which was a different range. Thereupon, Director General of Police passed an order on

10.8.2011, removing the Petitioner from List-E of Commissioner ate Gurgaon. The Petitioner has challenged this order on the ground that this has

been done without assigning any reason and without giving any show cause notice. The order impugned in this regard is annexed with the writ

petition as Annexure P-1.

In the impugned order, it is mentioned that the Petitioner was brought on B1 list in District Faridabad. He passed the Lower School Course in

the same batch in which Daya Nand had passed the course and was promoted as Head Constable on 5.11.1998 and then as Assistant Sub

Inspector with effect from 23.5.2005 alongwith said Daya Nand, while being posted in District Faridabad, which was in erstwhile Gurgaon Range.

With effect from 24.7.2007, he was transferred from District Faridabad to Commissionerate Gurgaon, where the Petitioner was promoted as Sub

Inspector with effect from 1.10.2008. Daya Nand was, thus, claiming promotion on the ground that the Petitioner, who is junior was promoted as

Sub Inspector in Commissionerate Gurgaon. Reference is made to the criteria of fixing seniority in view of the judgment dated 7.2.2006 passed by

this Court in CWP No. 18904 of 2005 titled Megh Pal and Ors. and Ors. v. State of Haryana. It is held that Constable promoted as Head

Constable but not confirmed as such, will be district/unit in which they were appointed/enrolled and cadre of Head Constable will be district/unit in

which they were confirmed as Head Constable. Daya Nand originally belonged to Rohtak Range and he had passed Lower School Course and

got list C1 from Rohtak District. He was, thus, required to be maintain his seniority in his parent range i.e. Rohtak Range. The Petitioner belonged

to erstwhile Gurgaon Range and got all his promotions while posted in District Faridabad. On 8.6.2007, the Commissionerate Gurgaon was

created, then the Petitioner was then on the roll of District Faridabad, which is Faridabad Range. Accordingly, it is viewed that he is required to

maintain his seniority in his parent range i.e. Commissionerate Faridabad. The Petitioner accordingly has been transferred from Commissionerate

Gurgaon to his parent range i.e. Commissionerate Faridabad with immediate effect. The Director General of Police has further directed that the

Commissonerate of Police, Faridabad, shall fix their seniority in their parent ranges. As as consequence thereof, the Petitioner has been removed

from List E from the Commissionerate Gurgaon, which he has challenged, terming the same as illegal, unjust, unfair and unconstitutional.

The short submission made by the counsel for the Petitioner is that where the seniority has been fixed on the basis of date of confirmation, then

the date can not be changed adversely effecting the seniority of the employee, without affording him full opportunity of hearing. There can not be

much dispute in regard to this proposition of law but the present one is not a case of simple change of seniority on the basis of date of confirmation

or even not a case where the date of confirmation is being changed in any arbitrary or illegal manner.

It is not disputed before me that the Petitioner was serving in Faridabad Commissionerate when he earned his promotion. Accordingly, he has

been transferred to his parent range where his seniority will have to be fixed. This action has been taken in terms of the law laid down by this Court

in Megh Pal''s case (supra). Whether any opportunity of hearing would still be needed in such like cases, thus, would be an issue? Counsel for the

Petitioner was asked to make submission as to what he would wish to urge in view of this factual position. The counsel could not dispute that he

belonged to Faridabad Range, which is his parent range and he has accordingly been transferred to his parent range but still insisted that he was

prepared to go to the parent range as Sub Inspector. The result of assigning the Petitioner to the parent range would have a necessary affect on his

seniority and necessary consequence would have to follow. I, thus, do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed in view of the

peculiar facts and circumstances of this case.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine.