Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from an ad hoc promotion granted to the appellant in the sports quota by the Superintendent of Police on 16 January 1990 due to his outstanding performance in wrestling, against an upgraded vacancy. The appointment order expressly stated that the appellant could be reverted at any time without notice and that he would have no right to seniority in the post. The appellant challenged his reversion before the High Court, which ruled against him. He then approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The Supreme Court granted leave and examined the counter affidavit filed by the State of Haryana. The appellant's counsel relied on Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana, where promotion by the Deputy Inspector General under Rule 13.8(2) of the Punjab Police Rules was treated as regular due to the competent authority's approval of outstanding sports merit. In that case, the Court had held that although the promotion was termed temporary, it was in effect regular because the DIG, being the competent authority, had considered the employee as an outstanding sportsperson. The Supreme Court distinguished that precedent because in the present case the Superintendent of Police promoted the appellant and no approval of the DIG was obtained. The Court also noted that the appointment order contained explicit terms allowing reversion without notice and denying seniority, which indicated that the promotion remained ad hoc and temporary. The Court reasoned that the ratio of Rishal Singh could not be extended to situations where the promoting authority lacked competence to make regular appointments. It found no ground to interfere with the High Court's order. The appeals were dismissed with no costs. The Court clarified that the dismissal would not preclude the appellant from being considered for future promotion if otherwise eligible according to rules. This decision underscored that ad hoc promotions, particularly those with reversion clauses and lacking approval of the competent authority, do not confer regular status or seniority rights.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Regular vs Ad Hoc Promotion - Punjab Police Rule, 4734, Rule 13.8(2) - Appellant was promoted on ad hoc basis under sports quota by Superintendent of Police, not the competent authority; appointment order expressly stated he could be reverted without notice and had no right to seniority; Supreme Court distinguished Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana where promotion by DIG under Rule 13.8(2) was treated as regular because DIG was competent authority; held that in absence of DIG approval and in presence of explicit reversion clause, promotion remained ad hoc and reversion was valid; appeal dismissed (Paras Not mentioned). B) Service Law - Reversion and Future Consideration - No Bar to Future Consideration - Punjab Police Rule, 4734, Rule 13.8(2) - Supreme Court clarified that dismissal of appeal did not preclude appellant from being considered for promotion in future if otherwise eligible according to rules; held no costs (Paras Not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an ad hoc promotion granted by the Superintendent of Police under the sports quota without approval of the Deputy Inspector General could be treated as a regular promotion under Rule 13.8(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, and whether reversion from such promotion was illegal.
Final Decision
Appeals dismissed with no costs. Dismissal not to bar consideration of appellant's case for future promotion if otherwise eligible according to rules.
Law Points
- Promotion granted on ad hoc basis with explicit reversion clause does not confer regular status
- Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana applies only where promotion by competent authority under Rule 13.8(2) of Punjab Police Rules
- no DIG approval renders promotion irregular
- ad hoc appointee has no right to seniority
- dismissal not bar to future consideration according to rules
