- (1.) Petitioner has approached this Court impugning the order dated 24.11.2010 passed by the Director General of Police, Haryanarespondent No. 2 (Annexure P-6) with a further prayer for directing the respondents to promote the petitioner w.e.f. 21.05.2004 i.e. the initial date of her promotion as Inspector.
(2.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector on 21.05.2004 when one clear vacancy was available in the regular cadre of Lady Inspector. He has referred to the recommendation of the claims of all the Lady SubInspectors done by the respondents while considering the cases of Sub-Inspectors according to their seniority for promotion to the post of Inspector (Annexure P-1). According to the said consideration, petitioner although was at Sr. No. 2 of the seniority list but was found suitable and recommended for promotion to the post of Inspector as the one above her at Sr. No. 1 Krishna Devi, Lady Sub-Inspector was not eligible as she was under currency of the punishment of stoppage of one increment and a vacancy was kept reserved for her.
(3.) His contention is that even if the said vacancy was kept reserved for her, the fact remains that the petitioner continued on the post of Inspector on her promotion from 21.05.2004 till the date of her reversion i.e. 26.06.2006 as Sub-Inspector. He contends that on the said date, the clear vacancy, which was kept reserved for Krishna Devi, had become available to her as her claim was not found to be made out. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the information supplied to her under the Right to Information Act (Annexure P-7), which is the noting dealing with the claim of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector and setting aside her reversion order. Averment has also been made in paras 8 and 13 of the writ petition where it has been specifically averred that on the date of reversion of the petitioner i.e. 26.06.2006, a clear vacancy of Inspector was available, on which the petitioner could be adjusted which fact is not disputed by the respondents in their reply. He, on this basis, contends that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the claim, as made by the petitioner in pursuance to the order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3118 of 2008, deserves to be accepted.;