Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition filed by the petitioners under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking to set aside an order granting ante-dated promotion to respondents and to declare them senior to the respondents concerned. A Single Judge Bench of Jagmohan Bansal J. allowed the same and held that the retrospective promotion of Assistant Sub-Inspectors was illegal, and the Court cannot permit to perpetuate it.
Background
The petitioners joined Intelligence Cadre, Punjab Police as Sub-Inspector (‘SI’) in 2016. The private respondents joined Intelligence Cadre in December 2011 as Assistant Sub-Inspector (‘ASI’) and completed their one-year training in 2012. They were deputed for Upper School Course from August 2016. They were deputed along with ASIs of District Police and Armed Police. Members of different cadres completed Upper School Course in December 2016. The result of Upper School Course was declared in January 2017.
The Departmental Promotion Committee (‘DCP’) met in March 2017and the Director General of Police, Punjab (‘DGP’) issued letter ordering that ASIs who completed Upper School Course in December 2016 might be promoted as SIs from December 2016. The letter concerned was related to District Police and Armed Police with no reference of members of Intelligence Cadre.
The private respondents were promoted as SIs from December 2016 on the ground that they had completed the promotion course. The Head of Intelligence Cadre ordered to enter their names in List E-1 from December.2016 and further promoted them from retrospectively. In the tentative seniority list, the petitioners were senior to private respondents, however, as per final seniority list, they became junior to private respondents. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the petitioners approached this Court.
The respondents contended that the claim of petitioners was hit by doctrine of delay and laches.
Issues, Analysis and Decision
Whether private respondents were deputed for promotion course contrary to Rules?
After considering Appendix ‘B’ specified in Rule 6 of the Punjab Intelligence Cadre (Group ‘C’) Service Rules, 2015 (‘2015 Rules’), the Court stated that 60% posts of SI were earmarked for promotion which was based upon seniority-cum-merit and not through Basic Proficiency Test. Further, promotion through Basic Proficiency Test was possible from the post of Constable to Head Constable.
Further, considering Rule 11 of 2015 Rules, the Court stated that promotion was made on seniority-cum-merit basis on the recommendation of the DPC and according to Appendix ‘C’, promotion would to made through a three-tier system comprising selection for promotional course, successful completion of promotion course and preparation of select list for promotion.
Therefore, the Court held that the private respondents were deputed for Level-III promotional course without completing 5 years’ service after training, thus, they could not be deputed for promotion course. Further, the Court stated that Rule 13.10 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (‘PPR’) created necessity to complete 5 years’ service after training for promotion course whereas Rules 11 & 12 of 2015 Rules prescribed 5 years qualifying service for promotion. So. there was no embargo to depute an ASI for promotion course who had not completed 5 years qualifying service.
Whether private respondents were promoted from the date of their entitlement?
Considering 2015 Rules and PPR, the Court stated that there were prescribed steps for promotion and that no provision permitted entry in List E-1 prior to declaration of result of promotion course as well as to implement the recommendation of DPC from retrospective date.
Therefore, the Court held that the respondent had adopted contradictory stand while promoting private respondents from the date prior to declaration of result of promotion course which was mandatory to claim promotion. The Court further stated that the respondent had wrongly brought names of private respondents on List-E prior to result of promotion course and meeting of DPC. Therefore, the private respondents could be promoted from the date of DPC but not prior to that.
Whether writ petition was liable to be dismissed by the doctrine of delay and laches?
The Court held that the petition was liable to be rejected on the ground that there was recurring cause in favour of the petitioners as promotion of private respondents from retrospective date would adversely affect prospects of the petitioners.
Further, the Court opined that the promotion of private respondents with retrospective effect was made contrary to Rules. The illegality concerned needed to be rectified before being multiplied and the Court would not permit to perpetuate the illegality. The Court stated that if the action of official respondents was not set at naught, it would legalize their action as it would create undue benefit in favour of private respondents as well as encourage officers to follow the same practice. The Court observed that it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution because seniority and promotions are facets of conditions of service.
Therefore, the petition was not hit by doctrine of delay and laches, thus, could not be dismissed on the said ground.
The Court allowed the petition and after considering Rule 8 of Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Service) Rules 1994 held that petitioners ought to be seniors to private respondents in the seniority list of Sub-Inspectors.
[Nivritpal Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 5714, decided on 19-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: Gurminder Singh Gill, Senior Advocate, J.S. Gill, Advocate, R.S. Gill, Advocate, Kharbanda, Advocate, Gaurav Chopra, Senior Advocate, Anurag Chopra, Advocate, Seerat Saldi, Advocate, Devanshi Sharma, Advocate, Vardaan Seth, Advocate, Gauri C. Kaushal, Advocate and Harmeet Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents: Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, Anu Chatrath, Senior Advocate and Nishant Maini, Advocate
