N.K. Sodhi, J. - (1.) THE dispute herein relates to the seniority of a police officer directly appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police vis -a -vis others who were promoted to that post. Facts giving rise to this petition lie in a narrow compass and may firstly be noticed.
(2.) THE State of Punjab through its Home Department sent a requisition to the Punjab Public Service Commission (for short the Commission) for filing up, among others, 23 posts of Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSP for the sake of brevity). In pursuance to this requisition the Commission issued a public notice initiating applications from eligible candidates as per the conditions contained therein. Petitioner was one of the candidates who applied for a post and after successfully competing in the written examination and also in the interview and physical fitness test he was selected by the Commission and his name was recommended for appointment as per letter dated 11.10.1989. However, because of a stay order granted by a civil court in a suit filed by one of the unsuccessful candidates the appointments to the advertised posts had been stayed. Stay was later vacated and it was on the vacation of the stay order on 30.3.1990 that the selected candidates including the petitioner were issued appointment letter on 6.4.1990 and the petitioner joined the post on 21.4.1990. It is common case of the parties that the petitioner was put on probation for a period of two years with effect from the date of his appointment and that on successful completion of the probationary period he was confirmed as DSP on 21.4.1992. Recruitment of the Public Police Service is regulated by the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 (hereinafter called the Rules). All appointments to this service are made by the Government, As per Rules 80% of the posts are filled by promotion from the rank of Inspectors and 20% by direct appointment. Inspectors (both promoted from subordinate ranks and directly recruited) are eligible for promotion to the rank of DSP provided they have six years continuous service (officiating as well as substantive) in the rank of Inspector: Many posts of DSPs were created in the State of Punjab to meet the operational necessity of terrorist violence but those posts were lying vacant because eligible Inspectors having six years service were not available. The Director General of Police by his memo dated 23.10.1989 sent a proposal to the State Government to relax the condition of experience so as to reduce the period from six years to four years of service for promotion of Inspectors to the rank of DSP as a one time exception under Rule 14 of the Rules. This proposal was accepted by the Government on 3.11.1989 and the condition of six years service as contained in Rule 6(1)(i)(a) of the Rules was relaxed and the same was reduced to four years. This relaxation was extended up to 31.12.1994 on year to year basis. The respondent then promoted on 23.11.1989, 44 Inspectors of Police as DSPs who had more than four -years of service but less than six years. Subsequently, some more promotions were made in the year 1989 and in all 85 Inspectors of Police with less than six years of service were promoted as DSPs from November, 1989 to December, 1989. All these promotions were made under the 80% quota prescribed for the promotees and there was no promotion in excess of the quota. These promotions were made on temporary basis subject to the approval of the Commission. Since the promoted DSPs had not been brought on list 'G' and the approval of the Commission to their promotion had yet to be obtained, the Director General of Police by his letter dated 12.11.1992 wrote to the State Government that the approval be obtained from the Commission so that the names of the promoted DSPs could be brought on list 'G'. It appears that on receipt of this communication the State Government addressed a letter dated 9.2.1993 to the Commission seeking its opinion/approval regarding the promoted DSPs of 1989 batch so that their names could be brought on the select list 'G'. A reminder to this effect was also sent to the Commission on November 22, 1993. The Commission by its letter dated 14.9.1998 accorded approval to the promotion of the DSPs of 1989 batch with effect from 11.2.1993 the date on which the request from the State Government dated 9.2.1993 had been received. Some of the promottee officers were not satisfied with their promotion with effect from 11.2.1993 and they wanted the approval to be accorded by the Commission with effect from the date they were actually promoted as DSPs. They filed Civil Writ Petition No. 5259 of 1998 in this Court with a prayer that they be brought on list 'G' with effect from the date they were promoted as DSPs and the approval be accorded accordingly. During the pendency of that writ petition the Commission accorded approval to all the DSPs of 1989 batch with effect from the date of their promotion except in the case of some officers whose confidential record was not good and with whom we are not concerned in the present writ petition. That writ petition became infructuous and the same was disposed of as such on November 7,2000. The Commission accorded its approval by considering the promotee officers fit for promotion with effect from the date of their promotion on the basis of their confidential record. The Commission, however, made it clear that the approval was being accorded as a one time exception so that the promoted officers could be saved of the hardship they were facing and that in future the Commission would consider only those cases which are sent with complete confidential record prior to the promotion of the concerned officers. On receipt of this approval the names of the DSPs who were promoted during the year 1989 were brought on list 'G' with effect from the date of their promotion and the Director General of Police then addressed a communication dated 1.2.2000 to the State Government to consider them for confirmation in the rank of DSP in accordance with the Rules as they had become eligible for confirmation in that rank. The State Government by its order dated 10.10.2000 confirmed the DSPs of 1989 batch after they had successfully completed the probationary period of two years. The date of their confirmation have been mentioned against their names in the order dated 10.10.2000. It is against this order that the present petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the action of the State Government in granting retrospective confirmation to the private respondents who were promoted as DSPs in the year 1989 thereby making them senior to the petitioner who was appointed to the service as a direct recruit. The petitioner has also impleaded some of the officers who were promoted as DSPs in the years 1987 and 1988 because they along with some of the officers of the 1989 batch have become eligible for consideration for further promotion to the Indian Police Service. The primary contention of the writ petitioner is that the private respondents were temporarily promoted as DSPs in contravention of Rule 6(2) of the Rules in as much as their names were neither brought on list 'G' nor was the approval of the Commission obtained at the time when they were promoted and, therefore, the benefit of the temporary service rendered by them as DSPs which was de hors the Rules could not be given to them. It was also contended that the Commission having once rejected the recommendation of the State Government to grant approval to the promotees retrospectively could not subsequently reconsider the matter and grant approval to them with effect from the date of their promotion.
(3.) IN response to the notice issued by this Court the respondents have filed their separate written statements and the contentions advanced by the petitioner have been controverted though the factual position is by and large admitted.;