Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CONSTABLE C.P.591 RAM ASHCHARYA PANDEY versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Constable C.P.591 Ram Ashcharya Pandey v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - A No. 27598 of 1995 [2005] RD-AH 4104 (6 October 2005)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27598  of 1995

Constable C.P.591 Ram Ashcharya Pandey

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon.Sanjay Misra.J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

The  has claimed following reliefs in this writ petition.

i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner  at the post of Sub-inspector in citizen police and order dated  March 31,1995 may be quashed. (Annexure-6)  to this writ petition.

ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to give the arrear of difference pay scale between constable and Head Constable to the petitioner since 2.6.1975.

iii) Issue any other suitable writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and interest of justice.

iv) Award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.

The impugned order dated 31.1.1995 has been filed as Annexure-6 to this writ petition. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that grounds for  rejection of the representation of the petitioner was that several constables including the petitioner were approved  for promotion by an order dated 28.5.1982 to the post of Head Constable . However, due to non-availability of any vacancy on the post of Head Constables,  by order dated 24.3.1984, the petitioner was continued as Constable consequently since a Head Constable alone can be promoted as Sub-inspector and therefore,  the petitioner  who was working on the post of Constable  he could not be given  promotion to the post of  Assistant Sub-inspector/ Sub-inspector directly.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out or state as to whether the said order dated 24.3.1984  by which the list dated 28.5.1982 stood cancelled was challenged by him in any forum. In the absence of such information, this Court is bound to come to a conclusion that since the petitioner was working on the post of constable therefore, in view of para 454 and 455 of the U.P. Police Regulations  , he could not have been promoted from constable to Assistant Sub-inspector /Sub-inspector. Learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said order on the ground that it is arbitrary and discriminatory.

In para 12 he has stated that persons junior to him namely  Loha Singh, Jagdish Prasad  and Narayan Gaur have been promoted to the post of Sub-inspector but the petitioner  has not been promoted. Reply given by the  respondent is that promotion to the post of Sub-inspector is granted under para 459 of the Regulation  from the post of Head Constable and since the petitioner was constable hence he could not have been granted the said promotion as in the case of those persons  being Head Constables. The petitioner has stated that he is fully qualified for the post of Sub-inspector and he is senior most constable and has completed more than 33 years service in the department. Learned standing counsel  submits that unless or until the petitioner is holding the post of  Head constable he cannot be promoted to the post of Sub-inspector .

Para 454 and 455  of the U.P. Police Regulations is quoted here under:-

454. The following constables will be eligible for promotion to the rank of head constables.

a) constables of the civil police who qualified before Ist January 1941  in accordance with the rules then in force and who have also passed such course as the Inspector General may prescribe

b) Constables of the armed police who have already obtained a regimental drill certificate and

c) Constables of the civil and armed police who have passed the prescribed course at the Police Training School Sitapur.

455. Specially deserving constables of Civil Police who are unable to qualify for promotion in the manner specified in paragraph 454 may be promoted to the rank of Head Constables with the approval of the Range Deputy Inspector General of Police, provided that the total number of head constables so promoted in the district shall at any one time not exceed d20 percent of the total number of  head constables, Civil Police, sanctioned in the district for Watch and Ward Duty.

Specially deserving constables, Civil Police of the Criminal Investigation Department who are unable to qualify for promotion in the manner specified in paragraph 454, may be promoted to the rank of head constable by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Criminal investigation Department provided that the total number of head constables so promoted in the Criminal Investigation Department shall  not exceed 50 percent of the head constables, Civil Police, sanctioned for the Criminal Investigation Department.

Specially deserving constables of the Armed Police who are unable to qualify for promotion in the manner specified in paragraph 454 may be promoted to the rank of had constable by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Headquarters, provided that the total number of head constables so promoted shall not exceed 2-1/2 percent of the posts of head constables. Armed police sanctioned for the Police Force.

Upon a reading of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that the promotion from the post of constable is to a post of Head Constable and not to the post of Sub-inspector . For the purpose of promotion to the post of Sub-inspector Regulation 459 provides as under :-

      "459. A list of Head Constables,  Mounted Police approved for promotion to the rank of Sub-inspector , Mounted Police will be maintained at the Police Headquarters. Head Constables of not less than 3 years approved service as a Head Constable and not more than 40 years of age will be nominated for inclusion in this list. In exceptional cases the Range Deputy Inspector General of Police  may nominate Head Constables of outstanding merit up to the age of 45 years. Those so nominated will appear at a Central Department Test prescribed by the Inspector General of Police. Only those selected as a result of this Test will be brought on the Approved List.

        All vacancies in the rank of  Sub-Inspector Mounted Police will be filled up by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. Headquarters in order of seniority, by promoting Head Constables whose names are included in the Approved  list. Temporary vacancies of less than three months duration may be filled by the Range Deputy Inspector General of Police by promoting an approved candidate in his range.

         Range Deputy Inspectors General of Police may recommend the removal from the approved list of the name of any Head Constable who, by his subsequent work and conduct is considered unsuitable for promotion. Such a Head Constable may, however, be considered again for inclusion in the Approved List, provided he possesses all the qualifications for reappearing at the Central Departmental Test prescribed for the purpose."

        Therefore in the present case , the petitioner could be promoted only in accordance with Rule 459. Since admittedly the petitioner was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria under Regulation 459 his claim could not have been entertained.

          It has further been stated by the petitioner that the respondents are illegally, arbitrarily ,malafidely not considering the claim of the petitioner for the post of Sub-inspector  In support of  such averments, the petitioner has referred to a disciplinary proceeding which was initiated against him and has stated that in appeal the order of punishment had been quashed. The appellate order has been filed as Annexure-5 to this writ petition. A perusal of the aforesaid appellate order indicates that appeal of the petitioner was admitted on technical grounds only and the impugned misconduct entry was expunged.  It was stated by the appellate authority that it is left open to the Superintendent of Police to initiate proceedings  de-novo if  he so likes. The relevant portion of the appellate order is quoted here under ;

"These irregularities of procedure vitiate the proceedings. The appeal is admitted on technical grounds only and the impugned misconduct entry stands expunged. It has to be so effaced as to be made undecipherable vide para 302 (i) O.M. vide Amendment No. 77/IX-1310-64  dated Feb. 11, 1969. The case is left open to the S.P. to initiate proceedings denovo , if he so likes.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that although his appeal was allowed but due to malafide reasons he has not been granted promotion.  It is noticeable that the appellate order was passed on 13th November 1977 and an order dated 28.5.1982 was an approval for the promotion of various constables to the post of Head Constable after interview. The petitioner's name finds place at serial no.26. However as already found , the said order was modified by the order dated 24.3.1984 due to non-availability of any vacancy and the petitioner  and others in the list continued to work as a constable. Under such circumstances it cannot be said that malafides as alleged by the petitioner were reasons for his non-promotion.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner was entitled for the post of Sub-inspector according to his seniority. In support of such plea, he has not been able to point out any provision in the Police  Regulations or Act wherein it can be said that a constable can be granted promotion directly to the post of Sub-inspector .

For the reasons as aforementioned no illegality or error can be found in the impugned order dated 31.3.1995 and the reliefs claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted.

This writ petition has no force . It is accordingly dismissed. No order is passed as to costs.

Dt.   6 /10/2005

Naim


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.