Punjab-Haryana High Court
Narinderpal Singh vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 6 May, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062528
CWP-25436-2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
203-2 CWP-25436-2013
Date of Decision : 06.05.2024
NARINDERPAL SINGH ... PETITIONER
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS ... RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Vikas Kuthiala, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab.
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 07.11.2013
(Annexure P-15) whereby his appointment to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector
(for short 'ASI') has been withdrawn and he has been asked to work as
Constable.
2. The father of the petitioner was working with respondent as ASI
who passed away on 20.09.2006 while on duty. The petitioner completed his
bachelor's degree in 2007 and thereafter, he applied for the post of ASI on
compassionate ground. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Jalandhar vide
communication dated 09.02.2008 forwarded his claim to Director General of
Police, Punjab. It was not only petitioner who claimed appointment on
compassionate ground whereas many similarly situated persons applied on the
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062528
said ground. The respondent offered post of Constable to the petitioner as well
as other similarly situated persons. He was offered appointment letter on
13.07.2009 and he joined as Constable on 18.11.2009. The similarly situated
persons preferred three petitions i.e CWP No.14623 of 2009, CWP No.15034 of
2009 and CWP No.14918 of 2009 before this Court claiming rank of ASI
instead of Constable. During the pendency of aforesaid writ petitions, the
respondent re-considered claim of petitioner and similarly situated employees.
A screening committee was formed which vide report dated 20.04.2010 formed
an opinion that the petitioner is entitled to post of ASI. The respondent issued
him appointment letter dated 10.08.2010 (Annexure P-7). He on 10.10.2010
joined as ASI. Similarly placed employees also joined as ASI, thus, the aforesaid
writ petitions came to be dismissed as infructuous vide order dated 17.10.2011.
3. The petitioner underwent Commando training of one year and six
weeks. The respondent in 2013 formed an opinion that the petitioner as per
policy was entitled to post of Constable and he has been wrongly granted rank of
ASI. The respondent issued a show cause notice dated 22.10.2013 calling upon
him to explain his position within 15 days from the date of receipt of show cause
notice. The respondent without waiting expiry of 15 days, passed impugned
order dated 07.11.2013 (Annexure P-15) whereby appointment of the petitioner
to the post of ASI was withdrawn and he was asked to perform duty as
Constable. This has led to present writ petition.
4. Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate submits that the petitioner was
appointed as ASI by DGP whereas show cause notice dated 22.10.2013 was
issued by SSP and impugned order was also passed by SSP. The authority
below the rank of DGP could not withdraw his appointment letter. The SSP has
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062528
further passed order without waiting expiry of 15 days period granted to file
reply. The act of respondent amounts to violation of principles of natural justice.
Mr.Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr. Advocate, on instructions from petitioner
who is present in Court, submits that petitioner would not claim past service
benefits if in place of reversion, he is considered as ASI from the date of order
passed by this Court.
5. Per contra, Mr. Aman Dhir, DAG, Punjab submits that the petitioner
as per policy in vogue was entitled to the post of Constable and screening
committee by mistake considered his case for the post of ASI. The mistake was
multiplied by offering him letter of appointment. The competent authority in
2013 realised its mistake and impugned order came to be passed. The
appointment on compassionate ground is neither fundamental nor vested right,
thus, authorities were competent to recall order of appointment on the rank of
ASI.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and
perused the record with their able assistance.
7. The conceded position emerging from record is that father of the
petitioner was working with respondent as ASI and he died while on duty. As
per policy for compassionate appointment, the petitioner was entitled to job.
The petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Constable. He joined as
Constable on 18.11.2009. In view of pendency of writ petition of similarly
situated employees, the respondent constituted a screening committee which
formed an opinion that the petitioner and others are entitled to post of ASI. The
petitioner by DGP was offered appointment letter as ASI on 10.08.2010. He
joined as ASI on 10.10.2010. He had undergone Commando training as ASI.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062528
The impugned order has been passed by SSP and it was outcome of show cause
notice dated 22.10.2013.
8. The petitioner was appointed ASI vide order dated 10.08.2010
passed by DGP who is head of the Force. The show cause notice dated
22.10.2013 calling upon the petitioner to explain his position was issued by SSP.
The impugned order recalling order of appointment has been passed by SSP.
There is substance in the argument of the petitioner that appointment order
passed by DGP could not be revoked by SSP.
9. The petitioner was appointed as ASI on 10.08.2010. The said
appointment letter was issued by DGP and it was on the basis of report of
screening committee which was constituted by respondent. The order of
appointment was passed by DGP i.e. head of the organisation. The petitioner
joined as ASI on 10.10.2010 and since then he is working as ASI. The
respondent after the expiry of 03 years from the date of appointment, formed an
opinion that the petitioner should be appointed as Constable instead of ASI. The
petitioner is part of an Armed Force and it is well known that rank in the Armed
Forces is a very important factor. Reduction in rank is considered major penalty.
Initially for a period of 03 years, the respondent permitted the petitioner to work
as ASI and since 2013, he is working under the order of this Court. In this way,
the petitioner has already worked for almost 14 years as ASI. He has gained a
long experience of working as ASI though in view of interim orders of this
Court, he had received salary of Constable.
10. A Constitution Bench of Sivanandan C.T. and others Vs. High
Court of Kerala and others 2023 SCC OnLine SC 994 had occasioned to
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062528
consider validity of rules and appointment of Judicial Officers. Though the
Court held that the respondents have made appointment in violation of law yet
appointment of already selected candidates was not set aside. The relevant
extracts of the judgment read as:
"58. The question which now arises before the Court is in
regard to the relief which can be granted to the petitioners.
The final list of successful candidates was issued on 6 March
2017. The candidates who have been selected have been
working as District and Sessions Judges for about six years.
In the meantime, all the petitioners who are before the Court
have not functioned in judicial office. At this lapse of time, it
may be difficult to direct either the unseating of the
candidates who have performed their duties. Unseating them
at this stage would be contrary to public interest since they
have gained experience as judicial officers in the service of
the State of Kerala. While the grievance of the petitioners is
that if the aggregate of marks in the written examination and
viva-voce were taken into account, they would rank higher
than three candidates who are respondents to these
proceedings, equally, we cannot lose sight of the fact that all
the selected candidates are otherwise qualified for judicial
office and have been working over a length of time.
Unseating them would, besides being harsh, result in a
situation where the higher judiciary would lose the services
of duly qualified candidates who have gained experience over
the last six years in the post of District Judge.
59. For the above reasons, we have come to the conclusion
that it would not be possible to direct the induction of the
petitioners into the Higher Judicial Service at the present
stage. Many of the petitioners would have since joined the
Bar and would be in active practice. It needs to be clarified
that their having failed to gain selection to the Higher
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:062528
Judicial Service in the process which was initiated on 30
September 2015, is not a reflection either on their merits or
ability and shall not come in the way of their being
considered for any other office, judicial or otherwise, in the
future."
11. Reversion of petitioner to the post of Constable would neither be in
his interest nor in the interest of State as well as public at large because he has
gained a long experience as ASI and State would lose that experience if he is
reverted to the post of Constable.
12. Considering the length of service of petitioner as ASI, his
concession with respect to date of appointment as ASI, his appointment by DGP
and impugned order by SSP as well as judgment of Constitution Bench in
Sivanandan C.T.'s case (supra), this Court finds it appropriate to modify the
impugned order to the extent that the petitioner would be considered as ASI with
effect from today i.e. 06.05.2024. He since 2013 in view of interim orders of
this Court, is getting salary as Constable. He, would not be entitled to salary as
ASI for the past period, however, from today onwards, he would be entitled to
salary as ASI.
13. Disposed of in above terms.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
06.05.2024
anju
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
6 of 6
