Shinghal, J. - (1.)This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated Nov. 10, 1970, by which the writ petition of the appellants was dismissed on the ground that the promotions challenged by them were made on the basis of list "G" of 1966 when they had not qualified for promotion. It has therefore to be examined whether that view of the High Court is incorrect in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(2.)A list of dates bearing on the controversy has been furnished by Mr. Y. S. Chitale, learned counsel for the appellants, and we have been told by the learned counsel for the respondents that it is correct. The facts which emerge from that list may be stated briefly for learned counsel agree that they are quite sufficient for the disposal of the appeal.
(3.)All the three appellants were appointed Inspectors of Police, by direct recruitment, on May 21, 1963, on a probationary period of three years. At that time the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, hereinafter referred to as the Rules, were in force, providing for appointment to the higher post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. For purposes of this appeal, it will be sufficient to say that R. 6 of the Rules provided that recruitment to the Punjab Police Service, consisting of the cadre of Deputy Superintendents of Police, shall be made by promotion to the extent of eighty per cent from the rank of Inspector and twenty per cent by direct appointment. That was subject to the proviso that only those Inspectors would be eligible for promotion who had put in six years continuous service. It appears that as there were many vacancies in the posts of Deputy Superintendents of Police, the State Government took a decision on Aug. 21, 1963, that the minimum requirement of six years continuous service for eligibility for promotion may be reduced to four years if about fifty per cent of the vacancies were to be filled in any year; and an executive order to that effect was issued some time in 1965 under R. 14 of the Rules as it stood until its amendment on January 28, 1969. The State Government accordingly promoted the respondents Nos. 4 to 37 as officiating Deputy Superintendents of Police on ad hoc basis. As it was the requirement of sub-rule (2) of R. 6 of the Rules that appointments by promotion would be made from Inspectors "brought on list 'G' which will be a list of officers considered fit for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, prepared by Government in consultation with the Commission", a list was prepared by the State Government and it was sent for the approval of the Public Service Commission on Jan. 7, 1966. The appellants were confirmed as Inspectors on Sep. 10, 1966, with retrospective effect from May 21, 1966. The Government took up the question of regularising the ad hoc promotions of respondents Nos. 4 to 37 pending the approval of the draft list 'G' by the Commission. A supplementary list was prepared of Inspectors who had completed four years service after January 7, 1966, and it was sent to the Commission on Sep. 19, 1966. Before the two lists could be examined by the Commission, the State of Punjab was reconstituted on Nov. 1, 1966. The Commission thereupon sent a letter on Dec. 30, 1966, to the Inspector General of Police, asking for information about the allocation of the Police Officers to the re-organised States and for information regarding the vacancies which remained to be filled in the State. The Inspector-General of Police sent a reply on Feb. 8, 1967. The appellants completed four years of continuous service on May 21, 1967. While the aforesaid two lists of 1966 were pending with the Commission for the preparation of list 'G', the State Government substituted a new R. 14 on Jan. 28, 1969. The appellants completed six years of service on May 21, 1969. The Public Service Commission asked for a seniority list of Inspectors some time in 1970, and ultimately approved the list 'G' on Sep. 7, 1970, consisting of the names in the two lists which had been sent by the State Government in 1966. The names of respondents Nos. 4 to 37 were thus included in that list but it did not contain the names of the appellants. They felt aggrieved and filed a writ petition in the High Court in Sep. 1970, but it was dismissed by the High Court on Nov. 10, 1970, as aforesaid. That is why they have come up in appeal to this Court by special leave.