- (1.) The petitioners 1 to 3 are Head Constables in Gurdaspur Range, who have a grievance that the private respondents 8 to 11, who had been juniors to the petitioners, had been selected for Intermediate School Course in the year 1992 that made possible for them to claim their promotions, but the petitioners were left out of consideration. The petitioners' claim is made on the basis that the first petitioner joined as a Constable on 24.09.1980 and promoted asHead Constable on 14.12.1988 after passing the lower school course. The second petitioner was a Constable on 23.10.1981 and promoted as a Head Constable on 19.09.1985 and confirmed as such on 01.01.1991. The third petitioner joined as Constable on 18.01.1982 and promoted as Head Constable on 17.10.1989. All the petitioners would claim that they had outstanding ability in sports and had obtained all India positions in police meet in athletics.
(2.) To bring favourable comparison with the respondents, it is pointed out that the 8th respondent joined on 17.12.1987 as a Constable, 9th respondent had joined in 1985, 10th respondent in 1986 and 11th respondent joined on 01.09.1981. As regards the 11 th respondent, it must immediately be pointed out that both as regards entry as a Constable and as regards the time when he was posted as a Head Constable, he ranked above the petitioners 2 and 3. The petitioners' grievance is that the respondents had never been promoted on ad hoc basis in 1987-88 as Head Constables and even before confirmation in the respective posts, they had been sent to the Intermediate School Course. The counsel would refer to a Full Bench decision in Sardul Singh, Head Constable Versus Inspector General of Police, Punjab and others, 1970 SLR 505that lays down that every Head Constable had a right to be deputed for Intermediate School Course and the same shall be considered only in the order of seniority. The Full Bench held that in the order of preference, the first category shall be confirmed Head Constable, the second category shall be Head Constable on probation and the last of all, the officiating Head Constables. The contention is that the respondents 8 to 11 were all merely officiating Head Constables and they could not have been sent to the intermediate school course. I do not think this argument is going to be any help, because it is not as if the decision prohibits an officiating Head Constable to be sent; the decision merely sets out priorities. It must be noticed that none of the petitioners had been confirmed as Head Constables at the relevant time and they were all holding merely posts on ad hoc basis. The issue, however, should be that if the respondents were also ad hoc, then there must be yet another consideration, namely, a consideration of seniority from the time of induction in service which would seem breached if the date of entry alone were to be taken as relevant criterion. The butt of objection is that the petitioners who were officiating Head Constables and who were left out of reckoning ought to have been preferred to respondents 8 to 10, all of whom were also ad hoc or officiating Head Constables and whose entry into service as Constables had been after the petitioners' entry and the date when 'C' list was prepared. The petitioners 1 and 2 were still placed higher than respondents 9 and 10, who had been included in 'C' list only subsequent to the petitioners and the 8th and 11th respondent had not been put in 'C' list at all but from the ad hoc officiation as Head Constables, they had been directly sent for Intermediate School Course.
(3.) This is answered by the State in a simple fashion, namely, as per Punjab Police Rules 12.1(4), the Head Constables and Constables in each district shall be borne on district rolls and shall receive district constabulary numbers. The contention, therefore, is that the seniority is maintained at the range level and the respondents 8 to 10 belonged to different range and not in the range of the petitioners who belonged to Gurdaspur Range. The affirmation is on the ground that nobody in Gurdaspur, who was junior to the petitioners, had been sent to Intermediate School Course and the petitioners cannot compare themselves on an issue of seniority by reference to the date of entry in various ranges. The counsel would downplay this essential difference by stating that both the petitioners and the respondents were not being considered with reference to range-wise seniority but as one category of sports persons, who had gained entry or participation in sports events at national levels. The State would also join issues on how the petitioners themselves had been detached from the sports wing even in the year 1987, that was, before the consideration was undertaken to prepare a list of persons eligible for the Intermediate School Course. The contention through the affidavit filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police is that the first petitioner had taken part in sports only upto 1987 but since his performance was below average, he had been detached from the sports wing in the year 1987. As regards petitioner No.2, he was detached or removed from the sports wing even in the year 1985. The 3rd petitioner had represented All India Police Games in the year 1987 and achieved only 4th position. All the petitioners have come by promotions subsequently over a period of time when they had been sent for Intermediate School Course and obtained the necessary qualifications.;