Karnail Singh v. the State of Punjab and Anr.

The following Order of the Court delivered by : Both the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment since same B point is involved for adjudication. These appeals by Special Leave arise from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 2636/86 dated August 13, 1986 and Civil Writ Petition No. 2719/86 of the Judgment. Admittedly the appellants were holding substantive posts as head-constables. They were sent to undergo C intermediate course of training in the year 1976 and they were put in the 'G' List and they were temporary promoted as officiating Sub-Inspectors on May 1, 1981. Thereafter on April 1, 1994 they were selected for undergoing training of upper school course at police training college, Phillaue in Distt. Jullundur. After completion of the training instead of promoting them as inspectors in the meantime they were reverted as D · head-constables. They filed writ petitions as stated earlier and the High Court dismissed the writ petitions. It is seen from the proceedings Annexure - P at page the writ petitions. 1 E It is seen from the proceedings Annexure-P at page 32 of the Paper Book that the appellants were not promoted as Inspectors. Though the appellants have completed the upper school co~irse ending with the ter August, 1984 they have been ignored and not includoo on the E List due to their chequerred service record. Mota Singh and Kamail Singh though F have been categorised in that category, in paragraph 4 of the same order they have been promoted on ad hoc basis w.e.f. October 4, 1984. Admit­ tedly Mota singh, head constable No.80/119 and Kamail Singh head con­ stable 82/22 are juniors to the appellants in the seniority mentioned in the order. When the appellants have been standing in the same position as G Mota Singh and Karnail Singh and seniors to them necessarily they should also get the same treatment. Unfortunately that was meted out: It is sought to be contended on behalf of the State that due to bad record and adverse confidential report, they have not been given the promotion. Even assum- ing that they had adverse remarks, admittedly no enquiry was made, no findings were given after conducting an enquiry and after giving an oppor- H SUPREME CO.URT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A timity to the appellants. Therefore, the reversion of them as head-con­ stables is clearly illegal. Though they have been promoted subsequently in 1987-88 respectively, they must be deemed to have been promoted on par with juniors w.e.f. October 8, 1984. The appellants are accordingly enti~ed to the above declaration and the consequential benefits. The appeals. arc allowed and writ issued. No· costs. · T.N.A. Appeal allowed