Supreme Court of India

DHIRENDER SINGH ETCversusSTATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: 1996 INSC 1449
Decided: 9 December 1996
Disposal: Dismissed
Bench: K RAMASWAMYG T NANAVATI

Holding

A promotion on an ad‑hoc basis under the sports quota made by the Superintendent of Police without DIG approval is valid, and the appeal is dismissed.

Summary

The appellants, police officers, were promoted on an ad‑hoc basis under the sports quota by the Superintendent of Police on 16 January 1990, without the required approval of the DIG. The promotion order stipulated that the officers could be reverted at any time without notice and without seniority rights. The appellants challenged the promotion, relying on the earlier decision in Risha Singh v. State of Haryana, which held a similar promotion by the DIG to be a regular promotion and the subsequent reversion illegal. The Supreme Court observed that in the present case the promotion was effected by the Superintendent, not the DIG, and therefore the ratio of the earlier case did not apply. Consequently, the Court upheld the High Court’s order, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the validity of the promotion and the possibility of reversion.

Issues considered

Whether a promotion on an ad‑hoc basis under the sports quota effected by the Superintendent of Police without DIG approval is valid.
Whether the appellant can be reverted to his previous rank without notice and without seniority.
Whether the ratio of Risha Singh v. State of Haryana (1994) 2 SCC 157 is applicable to the present facts.

Subjects

promotionsports quotaad‑hoc promotionpolice service lawreversionDIG approvaltemporary promotionRule 13.8(2)Supreme Court

Judgment

                     DHIRENDER SINGH ETC.                                   A
                              v.
                  STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

                          DECEMBER 9, 1996

           [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANAVAT!, JJ.]                            B

      Service Law-Promotion-Appellant promoted on ad hoc basis against
sports quota-Promotion granted by Supe1imendent of Police-Approval of
DIG not obtained-Revm·ion-Held valid.

     Risha/ Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., IT (1994) 2 SCC 157, held
                                                                            c
inapplicable.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 16846 of
1996 Etc.
                                                                            D
     From the Judgment and Order dated 8.5.96 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in C.W.P. No. 15985 of 1995.

      B.S. Malik, S.S. Tiwari, Mahabir Singh for the Appellants.

     Ajay Siwach, for Prem Malhotra for the Respondents.                    E
      The following Order of the Court was delivered :

      Leave granted.

      In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the F
Superintendent of Police had promoted that appellant in the sports quota
in view of the outstanding performance in sports, namely, wrestling, on
January 16, 1990 on ad hoc basis against an upgraded vacancy. It is also
stated that it was clearly mentioned in the order of appointment that the
appellant could be reverted at any time without any notice and that he
would have no right to seniority in the post. Learned counsel for the G
appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Risha/ Singh v. State
of Haryana & Ors., JT 1994 (2) SCC 157. Therein promotion was given by
the D.I.G. to the appellant due to his outstanding merit in sports relying
upon rule 13.8(2) of Punjab Police Rule 4734. This Court had held that
since the D.I.G. was competent authority to make appointment by promo- H
                                     693
    694                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.

A   lion and having considered the appellant therein as an outstanding sports
    person had promoted him; it was done in terms of Rule 13.8(2) of the Rules
    giving power to grant any temporary promotion; the promotion, therefore,
    though termed to be a temporary promotion, was in effect a regular
    promotion. Under those circumstances, it was held that his reversion as
B   Constable was bad in law. Admittedly, in this case, the Superintendent of
    Police has promoted him and no approval of DIG was obtained. Under
    those circumstances, the ratio therein has no application to the facts. We
    do not find any ground warranting interference with the order passed by
    the High Court.

c otherwise
        The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. If the appellant is
            eligible, this order of dismissal does not stand in his way for
    consideration of his case according to rules.

    C.A. 16847/96 @ SLP (CJ 19421/96:

D        Leave granted. Following the above order, this appeal is also dis-
    missed. No costs.

    T.N.A.                                                Appeals dismissed.




                                                                                 •

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Try "promotion"Sign in to search