Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court addressed an appeal by special leave arising from the dismissal of two writ petitions by the Punjab & Haryana High Court concerning the de-confirmation of a Head Constable in the Haryana Police. The appellant was recruited as a Constable against the sports quota on September 15, 1977. He was promoted as Head Constable on July 4, 1984, keeping in view his performance in sports, and was confirmed as Head Constable on August 31, 1987. A show cause notice was issued on August 11, 1988, asking why he should not be de-confirmed as Head Constable with effect from August 31, 1987. In the meanwhile, he was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector on ad hoc basis on November 22, 1990. While continuing as Assistant Sub-Inspector, he was selected to undergo an intermediate school course commencing September 15, 1993. During the training, his name was deleted from the list of Head Constables. After unsuccessful representations, he filed Writ Petition No. 1575/94 challenging a second show cause notice dated December 14, 1993, and another writ petition challenging de-confirmation. The High Court dismissed both petitions on March 31, 1994. The Supreme Court noted the admitted position that the appellant was recruited under the sports quota and promoted thereunder, and that his promotion was according to rules. It referred to Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., where it was held that though an order indicated promotion was on ad hoc basis, in view of Rule 13.1(1) of Chapter XIII of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to Haryana, the promotion was regular and could not be considered ad hoc. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to confirmation. The Supreme Court applied this legal position, allowed the appeals, and directed that the appellant be deemed regularised as Head Constable with all consequential benefits. No costs were awarded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Regular vs Ad Hoc - Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 13.1(1) - The appellant was recruited as a Constable under sports quota and later promoted as Head Constable, then de-confirmed - Court held that promotion under sports quota is regular and cannot be treated as ad hoc; relied on Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana; directed regularization and consequential benefits (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether promotion of a police constable under sports quota was regular or ad hoc under Rule 13.1(1) of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and whether de-confirmation as Head Constable was valid
Final Decision
Appeals allowed; appellant deemed to have been regularised as Head Constable; all consequential benefits to be given; no costs.
Law Points
- Promotion under sports quota is regular under Rule 13.1(1) of Punjab Police Rules
- 1934
- ad hoc promotion under the rules is regular promotion
- de-confirmation of a regularly promoted employee is invalid
- employee entitled to confirmation and consequential benefits
