H.C. KULWANT SINGH Vs. H.C. DAYA RAM
LAWS(SC)-2014-6-26
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on
June 30,2014
H.C. Kulwant Singh
Appellant
VERSUS
H.C. Daya Ram
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
OM PARKASH V. DELHI ADMINISTRATION AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]P. GANESHWAR RAO AND OTHERS V. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
K R C S BALAKRISHNA CHETTY AND SONS AND COMPANY VS. SATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
UDIT NARAIN SINGH MALPAHARIA VS. ADDITIONAL MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
Y V RANGAIAH STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. J SREENIVASA RAO:S SREENIVASA RAO [REFERRED TO]
A A CALTON VS. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION [REFERRED TO]
PRABODH VERMA DAL CHAND VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. KAILASH CHAND MAHAJAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF RAJASTHAN VS. R DAYAL [REFERRED TO]
L CHANDRA KUMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
K AJIT BABU VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
B L GUPTA VS. MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]
M V RAVINDRANATH VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
A.M.S. SUSHANTH AND ORS. V. M. SUJATHA AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BIHAR VS. KAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR TIWARI VS. JAGAT NARAIN RAI [REFERRED TO]
KHETRABASI BISWAL VS. AJAYA KUMAR BARAL [REFERRED TO]
JAMSHED HORMUSHJI WADIA VS. BOARD OF TRUSTEES PORT OF MUMBAI [REFERRED TO]
RAMA RAO VS. M G MAHESHWARA RAO [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN SINGH RATHORE VS. B N CHATURVEDI [REFERRED TO]
TRIDIP KUMAR DINGAL VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION UTTARANCHAL VS. MAMTA BISHT [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ASSAM VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. BRIGADIER P S GILL [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
THE BIHAR LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY PATNA AND ORS. VS. GYANENDRA KUMAR SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2015-4-11] [REFERRED TO]SATYAJIT SAHOO VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2015-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-7-94] [REFERRED TO]
C. LALTHAZUALA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-8-56] [REFERRED TO]
LALTHANKIMA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MIZORAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-12-35] [REFERRED TO]
LALTHANKIMA AND ORS. VS. THE STATE OF MIZORAM AND ORS. [LAWS(GAU)-2015-12-35] [REFERRED TO]
CENSUS COMMISSIONER VS. R KRISHNAMURTHY [LAWS(SC)-2014-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
CHITARANJAN KUMAR SINHA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-5-45] [REFERRED TO]
L. MOHEN SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2016-2-4] [REFERRED TO]
KAILASHPATI JHA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL & OTHERS [LAWS(CAL)-2015-12-153] [REFERRED]
PREM PRAKASH SINHA, S/O G L SINHA; DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI; PRAVEEN KUMAR LAATA; RAJESH KUMAR SHUKLA; RAJESH CHANDRAKAR VS. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH AND ORS ; CHHATTISGARH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AND ORS [LAWS(CHH)-2015-12-58] [REFERRED]
JHARKHAND RAJYA GRAM RAKSHA DAL (IN W.P.(S) NO. 3894 OF 2015) VS. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND (IN ALL THE CASES) [LAWS(JHAR)-2017-3-17] [REFERRED TO]
DR. DILIP KOTHARI VS. STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [LAWS(MPH)-2017-9-5] [REFERRED TO]
ANANT PAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2017-12-222] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. J. SANGPUII W/O SH. H. HAUTHUAMA VS. STATE OF MIZORAM [LAWS(GAU)-2017-2-50] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VERMA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2017-9-180] [REFERRED TO]
KOZO LASUH VS. STATE OF NAGALAND [LAWS(GAU)-2018-4-73] [REFERRED TO]
V K ABDUL NASIR, S/O LATE T K UMMER VS. JAYAKRISHNAN P D , S/O P N DAMODARAN NAMBOOTHIRI [LAWS(KER)-2018-3-252] [REFERRED TO]
AGRICULTURE DEGREE HOLDER EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION VS. STATE OF MANIPUR, THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER [LAWS(MANIP)-2018-4-5] [REFERRED TO]
ISHWARAPPA SHIDDALINGAPPA MANVI GADAG AND ORS VS. GADAG MAHALAXMI PRESSING GINNING CO LTD AND ORS [LAWS(NCLT)-2016-9-29] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHAL KISHOR SHARMA AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-10-16] [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH HAZRA VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [LAWS(CAL)-2019-3-152] [REFERRED TO]
J.DELIBARN VS. BAR COUNCIL OF INDIA [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-310] [REFERRED TO]
G.VIJAYAKUMAR VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL [LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-391] [REFERRED TO]
PARESHKUMAR MANSUKHLAL TRIVEDI VS. PRINCIPAL DISTRICT JUDGE [LAWS(GJH)-2020-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
JOHN VARGHESE VS. SUDHAKARAN K.A [LAWS(KER)-2020-12-320] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA KR. DEBBARMA VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2020-10-15] [REFERRED TO]
N.RAVI VS. COMMISSIONER BBMP [LAWS(KAR)-2021-7-33] [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2022-1-27] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. RAJ KUMAR [LAWS(SC)-2022-5-96] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)In this appeal, by special leave, apart from interpreting the precise connotative effect of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short "the Rules"), specially Rule 13.7 of the Rules that governs the promotion of the constables in Chandigarh Police to the post of Head Constable, and the amendments that were incorporated on 4.3.1982, and another incarnation of the said amendments vide amendment dated 6.2.1988, we have also called upon to decide whether the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2007 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6550 of 1998 whereby the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short "the tribunal") dated 8.1.1990 and 23.9.1998 were assailed has redeemed the cause of justice within the requisite parameters of law by lancinating both the orders of the tribunal and further issuing directions to recast the seniority list of Head Constables on the foundation of seniority rules and not to revert any Head Constable or the Assistant Sub-Inspector with the rider that they shall avail further promotion solely on the basis of their revised seniority warranting no interference by this Court or has acted beyond the ambit of jurisdiction in its appreciation and application of well settled principles that would make the order pregnable inviting its extinction.
(3.)The factual score needs to be depicted with necessitous chronology. The appellants and respondent Nos. 1 to 34 were recruited as Constables in Chandigarh Police by the Union Territory, Chandigarh and they are governed by the Rules as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Rule 13.7 of the Rules which dealt with the promotions to the posts of Head Constables from the Constables prior to amendment of the Rule on 4.3.1982, provided that the names of Police Constables for admission to Lower School Course were required to be entered in List 'B' in order of merit determined by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of test scheme in (i) Parade (ii) written test in general law and (iii) examination of service record. After the amendment of the said Rule a batch of confirmed Constables were sent for Lower School Course at Police Training College, Phillaur. The said course was for six months and it was held twice a year one commencing in April and the other in October. A batch of fifteen Constables duly selected on the basis of the amended Rules was sent for Lower School Course in April, 1988. Thereafter vide notification dated 17.6.1988 the Rule 13.7 was amended by Punjab Police (Chandigarh Amendment) Rules, 1988 which came into force on the date of publication in the Chandigarh Administration Gazette. After the Rule was amended, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh Administration issued a letter dated 27.6.1988 to the effect that a test would be held some time in September, 1988 as laid down in the amended Rules.
(2.)In this appeal, by special leave, apart from interpreting the precise connotative effect of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short "the Rules"), specially Rule 13.7 of the Rules that governs the promotion of the constables in Chandigarh Police to the post of Head Constable, and the amendments that were incorporated on 4.3.1982, and another incarnation of the said amendments vide amendment dated 6.2.1988, we have also called upon to decide whether the High Court by the impugned judgment and order dated 18.12.2007 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 6550 of 1998 whereby the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for short "the tribunal") dated 8.1.1990 and 23.9.1998 were assailed has redeemed the cause of justice within the requisite parameters of law by lancinating both the orders of the tribunal and further issuing directions to recast the seniority list of Head Constables on the foundation of seniority rules and not to revert any Head Constable or the Assistant Sub-Inspector with the rider that they shall avail further promotion solely on the basis of their revised seniority warranting no interference by this Court or has acted beyond the ambit of jurisdiction in its appreciation and application of well settled principles that would make the order pregnable inviting its extinction.
(3.)The factual score needs to be depicted with necessitous chronology. The appellants and respondent Nos. 1 to 34 were recruited as Constables in Chandigarh Police by the Union Territory, Chandigarh and they are governed by the Rules as applicable to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Rule 13.7 of the Rules which dealt with the promotions to the posts of Head Constables from the Constables prior to amendment of the Rule on 4.3.1982, provided that the names of Police Constables for admission to Lower School Course were required to be entered in List 'B' in order of merit determined by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of test scheme in (i) Parade (ii) written test in general law and (iii) examination of service record. After the amendment of the said Rule a batch of confirmed Constables were sent for Lower School Course at Police Training College, Phillaur. The said course was for six months and it was held twice a year one commencing in April and the other in October. A batch of fifteen Constables duly selected on the basis of the amended Rules was sent for Lower School Course in April, 1988. Thereafter vide notification dated 17.6.1988 the Rule 13.7 was amended by Punjab Police (Chandigarh Amendment) Rules, 1988 which came into force on the date of publication in the Chandigarh Administration Gazette. After the Rule was amended, the Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh Administration issued a letter dated 27.6.1988 to the effect that a test would be held some time in September, 1988 as laid down in the amended Rules.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.