1996 JTR(SC) 2110
1997 AIR(SC) 3654 ; 1997 AIR(SCW) 1573 ; 1996 11 JT 534 ; 1997 LIC 1540 ; 1997 2 LLN 25 ; 1997 1 Scale 46 ; 1997 2 SCC 712 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 753 ; 1996 Supp9 SCR 693 ; 1997 2 SCT 116 ; 1997 2 SLJ 28 ; 1997 1 SLR 576 ; 1997 KHC 1717 ; 1997 1 Supreme 513
1997(1) Supreme 513
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.T. Nanavati, JJ.
Dhirender Singh etc. -Appellant
versus
State of Haryana & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 16846 of 1996 etc.
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16936 of 1996)
With
Civil Appeal No. 16847/96
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19421/96)
Decided of 9-12-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : B.S. Malik, Sr. Adv., S.S. Tiwari, Mahabir Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Ajay Siwach, Adv. for Prem Malhotra, Advocate.
Act
Referred
:PUNJAB POLICE RULES : R.13, R.8(2)
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The relevant statutory framework comprises Service Law, Punjab Police Rule R.13, and Punjab Police Rule R.8(2). The impugned order involves the promotion of an appellant under the sports quota on an ad hoc basis, where the appointment order expressly stated that the appellant could be reverted at any time without notice and that no seniority rights would attach to the post. The court examines the validity of such reversion in light of its earlier decision in Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., where a promotion granted under Rule 13.8(2) on grounds of outstanding sports performance was held to operate as a regular promotion, rendering reversion bad in law. The present case is distinguished by the fact that the promotion was effected by the Superintendent of Police without obtaining the required approval of the Director General of Police, so the earlier ratio does not apply to the facts of this case.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) promotions in the police service may be granted on a temporary or ad hoc basis under Rule 13.8(2) where the appointing authority is competent; (ii) if the promotion is effectively regular in nature, subsequent reversion to a prior rank is unsustainable; (iii) the competence of the authority and procedural compliance determine the validity of such appointments; and (iv) an ad hoc promotion lacking the mandated higher-level approval does not attract the protections recognized in respect of regular promotions.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was promoted by the Superintendent of Police in the sports quota on an ad hoc basis on January 16, 1990, against an upgraded vacancy in wrestling, with the appointment order expressly stating that the appellant could be reverted at any time without notice and that the appellant would have no right to seniority in the post. The respondents contended that this promotion was valid and that reversion was not permissible.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the promotion was effected by the Superintendent of Police without obtaining approval from the Director General of Police, distinguishing the present facts from the earlier case of Rishal Singh. It held that there were no grounds to interfere with the High Courts order and that the appeal lacked merit.
Issues:
Whether an ad hoc promotion granted by a lower authority without the required higher-level approval can be lawfully reverted, and whether the principles laid down in Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. are attracted to the facts of this case.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the promotion in this case was granted by the Superintendent of Police without the necessary approval of the Director General of Police, the earlier ratio from Rishal Singh regarding sports-based regular promotions does not apply, and the order of reversion cannot be challenged on the same grounds.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs, and the impugned order of the High Court is upheld.
(A) The relevant statutory framework comprises Service Law, Punjab Police Rule R.13, and Punjab Police Rule R.8(2). The impugned order involves the promotion of an appellant under the sports quota on an ad hoc basis, where the appointment order expressly stated that the appellant could be reverted at any time without notice and that no seniority rights would attach to the post. The court examines the validity of such reversion in light of its earlier decision in Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., where a promotion granted under Rule 13.8(2) on grounds of outstanding sports performance was held to operate as a regular promotion, rendering reversion bad in law. The present case is distinguished by the fact that the promotion was effected by the Superintendent of Police without obtaining the required approval of the Director General of Police, so the earlier ratio does not apply to the facts of this case.
(B) Key legal principles include: (i) promotions in the police service may be granted on a temporary or ad hoc basis under Rule 13.8(2) where the appointing authority is competent; (ii) if the promotion is effectively regular in nature, subsequent reversion to a prior rank is unsustainable; (iii) the competence of the authority and procedural compliance determine the validity of such appointments; and (iv) an ad hoc promotion lacking the mandated higher-level approval does not attract the protections recognized in respect of regular promotions.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was promoted by the Superintendent of Police in the sports quota on an ad hoc basis on January 16, 1990, against an upgraded vacancy in wrestling, with the appointment order expressly stating that the appellant could be reverted at any time without notice and that the appellant would have no right to seniority in the post. The respondents contended that this promotion was valid and that reversion was not permissible.
Findings of Court:
The court noted that the promotion was effected by the Superintendent of Police without obtaining approval from the Director General of Police, distinguishing the present facts from the earlier case of Rishal Singh. It held that there were no grounds to interfere with the High Courts order and that the appeal lacked merit.
Issues:
Whether an ad hoc promotion granted by a lower authority without the required higher-level approval can be lawfully reverted, and whether the principles laid down in Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. are attracted to the facts of this case.
Ratio Decidendi:
Since the promotion in this case was granted by the Superintendent of Police without the necessary approval of the Director General of Police, the earlier ratio from Rishal Singh regarding sports-based regular promotions does not apply, and the order of reversion cannot be challenged on the same grounds.
Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs, and the impugned order of the High Court is upheld.
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the Superintendent of Police had promoted the appellant in the sports quota in view of the outstanding performance in sports, namely, wrestling, on January 16, 1990 on ad hoc basis against an upgraded vacancy. It is also stated that it was clearly mentioned in the order of appointment that the appellant could be reverted at any time without any notice and that he would have no right to seniority in the post. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors.1. Therein promotion was given by the D.I.G. to the appellant due to his outstanding merit in sports relying upon Rule 13.8 (2) of Punjab Police Rule, 4734. This Court had held that since the D.I.G. was competent authority to make appointment by promotion and having considered the appellant therein as an outstanding sportsperson had promoted him; it was done in terms of Rule 13.8 (2) of the Rules giving power to grant any temporary promotion; the promotion, therefore, though termed to be a temporary promotion, was in effect a regular promotion. Under those circumstances, it was held that his reversion as Constable was bad in law. Admittedly, in this case, the Superintendent of Police has promoted him and no approval of DIG was obtained. Under those circumstances, the ratio therein has no application to the facts. We do not find any ground warranting interference with the order passed by the High Court.
3. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. If the appellant is otherwise eligible, this order of dismissal does not stand in his way for consideration of his case according to rules.
C.A. 16847/96 @ SLP (C) 19421/96
Leave granted. Following the above order, this appeal is also dismissed. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
*******