SAROJ BALA LADY Vs. DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
LAWS(P&H)-1993-8-216
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on August 19,1993

Saroj Bala Lady Head Constable Appellant
VERSUS
DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. - (1.) The petitioner prays for the issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus for directing respondents No. 1 and 2 to send her for the Intermediate School Course. A few facts may be noticed.
(2.) The petitioner was recruited as a constable on November 9, 1981. A test was held in the year 1987 for selecting constables for being deputed for the Lower School Course. The petitioner avers that she had appeared in the test and had stood first in order of merit. In spite of that, she was not deputed for the course. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, she filed C.W.P. No. 8496 of 1987 which was allowed by this Court vide orders dated November 26, 1987. The petitioner qualified the Lower School Course and was promoted as a Head Constable on September 15, 1988. She was ordered to be reverted on November 10, 1988. Aggrieved by the order of reversion, she again approached this Court vide CWP No. 10156 of 1988. This writ petition was allowed by a learned single Judge of this Court on May 8, 1992. The order of reversion was quashed. As a result, the petitioner is to be deemed to have continued as Head Constable since September 15, 1988.
(3.) Another fact that deserves mention here is that the petitioner was originally posted in Hissar Range. In October-November 1989 she was posted in Gurgaon Range. It is stated that on June 5, 1992 the petitioner was transferred to Gurgaon district. The petitioner avers that respondent No. 3 Smt. Prem Devi was also recruited as a constable on November 9, 1981. The said respondent was promoted as Head Constable with effect from November 30, 1988. Respondent No. 3 having been promoted after the petitioner, was junior to her. In spite of this, respondent No. 3, was deputed for the Intermediate School Course in preference to the petitioner vide order dated October 16, 1992. The petitioner claims that the action of the respondents is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.