RANBIR SINGH SHARMA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner, who is direct recruit was confirmed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State of Haryana, w.e.f. 5.10.1985 (However, the order confirming the petitioner w.ei. 5.10.1985 is the subject-matter of challenge in C.W.E No. 3555 of 1993). I am not opining anything regarding the legality of the order of confirmation of the petitioner in this writ petition. The private respondents, who were working as Inspectors were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police on various dates. On 26.12.1985, some temporary posts of Deputy Superintendents of Police were converted into permanent posts w.e.f. 4.10.1985 and all the private respondents were confirmed as Deputy Superintendents of Police w.ei. 4.10.1985. It is the case of the petitioner that on his representation against the order dated 26.12.1985 by which temporary posts of Deputy Superintendents of Police were converted into permanent posts with retrospective effect, Haryana Government constituted a committee to go into the legality of the said order. It is further the case that the said Committee opined) that the conversion of the temporary posts to permanent posts with retrospective effect was not justified. However, according to the petitioner inspite of the report of the Committee, his representation was rejected by a non-speaking order passed on 5.2.1991. This led the petitioner to file another representation on 3.9.1991. A show cause notice was issued to the private respondents mentioning therein that it was proposed to withdraw the order dated 26.12.1985 referred to above, and they should show cause as to why the said order be not withdrawn. The private respondents filed reply to the show cause notice.

(2.) Before final decision was taken by the State Government on the show-cause notice issued to the private respondents, the petitioner filed the present writ petition on 2.3.1993 inter alia praying that the order dated 26.12.1985 be quashed and the seniority of the petitioner vis-a-vis the private respondents be re-determined and further the select list, which is prepared by the U.P.S.C. for appointment to the I.P.S., for the years 1992 and 1993 may not be finalised. During the pendency of the writ petition the State Government vide order dated 8.10.1993 withdrew the order dated 26.12.1985 (Annexure P/2) by which certain temporary posts of DSPs were converted into permanent posts with retrospective effect. As a consequence thereof, another order was issued on 18.10.1993 by the State Government (photocopy placed on record) by which the date of confirmation of the respondents was changed and they were shown junior to the petitioners.

(3.) The only prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, in the circomstances, is that the Respondents-State should be directed to forward the revised seniority list as depicted in order dated 18.10.1993 to the U.P.S.C. for consideration by it regarding the petitioner's case for being brought on the select list. Needless to mention that when the earlier select list was prepared order dated 18.10.1993 (which was not in existence then) was not before the U.P.S.C. whatever the value of consideration of this order can be is for the U.P.S.C. to decide. The case of the petitioner is that his correct seniority should be before the U.P.S.C. to.