Punjab Police Rules, 1934: rr. 12.10, 13.1, 13.7 – Promotion to Head Constable – Promotion under the 10% quota of outstanding performance for inclusion in the B-I List – Recommendation power of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) – Power of Inspector General of Police (IG) to review or substitute the recommendations of Superintendent of Police (SP) – Appellant was appointed as a Head Constable in the year 1995 – His name was recommended by the SP under the 10% quota of outstanding performance for inclusion in the B-I List for promotion to the post of Head Constable in the year 2004 – However, his name was dropped down by the IG – Three years later, i.e., in 2007, his name was again forwarded by the SP and this time it was passed by the IG, by virtue of which he was granted promotion and was made the Officiating Head Constable from 2008 – Appellant filed writ petition in 2011 seeking retrospective promotion with effect from 2004, his grievance was that he should have been promoted in the year 2004 itself and that the delay in appointing him in 2008 is illegal and arbitrary – High Court dismissed the petition on the ground that selection is not a matter of right – Held: In view of the clear procedure laid down under Rule 13.7, the claim of the appellant fail as the assumption that the recommendation of DPC headed by the SP is final and that the IG has no power to review or substitute the decision is misconceived – The Rule itself clarifies the position that the recommendation of the SP is not final until the same is approved by the IG – Further, the powers of the IG are elucidated clearly in r.13.7(14) – It is stated that the ‘approval’ is by the Cadre Controlling Authority of the SP – It is the IG, who shall accord ‘approval’ only upon scrutiny – This means if the IG is not satisfied, he shall not accord approval – The scope of the power vested in the IG is also indicated in the Rule which provides that he can seek clarifications from the DPC and also refer the list back to the SP for corrections/omissions if he thinks it is necessary – Thus, the recommendation of the DPC is not final and does not give any indefinite right to be appointed as Head Constable – Service law.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In view of the clear procedure laid down under the Rule 13.7, the contentions of the Appellant must fail as the assumption that the recommendation of DPC headed by the SP is final and that the IG has no power to review or substitute the decision is misconceived. The Rule itself clarifies the position that the recommendations of the SP are not final until the same is approved by the IG. Further, the powers of the IG are elucidated clearly in Rule 13.7(14). It is stated that the ‘approval’ is by the Cadre Controlling Authority of the SP. It is the IG, who shall accord ‘approval’ only upon scrutiny. This means if the IG is not satisfied, he shall not accord approval. The scope of the power vested in the IG is also indicated in the Rule which provides that he can seek clarifications from the DPC and also refer the List back to the SP for corrections/omissions if he thinks it is necessary. The recommendation of the DPC is not final. It is also evident that the recommendation of the DPC does not give any indefinite right to be appointed as Head Constable. [Para 8, 8.1][286-F-H; 287-A-B]
1.2 The third stage of scrutiny before a constable is selected as a Head Constable. requires the candidate to be sufficiently high in the State Level Comparative Merit of the candidates to be selected under the 10% quota. Therefore, it can never be contended that mere recommendation of the SP at the initial stage is sufficient to claim a right for promotion. The further contention of the Appellant is that the power of the IG is “not discretionary but mandatory” is also incorrect as Sub-rule 14 of Rule 13.7 clearly empowers the IG to exercise the power of scrutiny and grant approval. This power would also extend to not granting an approval if the IG is not satisfied. Therefore, the power is not be rested solely on the basis of the word “through” in Rule 13.7(9). [Para 8.2][287-B-D]
1.3 As far as the contention of Appellant that the subsequent recommendation was also on the very same outstanding performance is concerned, it is to be noted that the merits and accolades of the candidates recommended for promotion vary from year to year on a comparative merit scale. The competitive environment differs from year to year. The scrutiny is dynamic and cannot be adjudged on the basis of a previous year’s performance. The Appellant’s accolades may not have made a fit case to be recommended in the year 2004 but the same could make a fit case to be considered in a subsequent year. It is the domain of the IG as also the CDPC to analyse, consider and clear the names of the candidates found fit to be promoted in the List B-I for that year and it must best be left to the discretion of the said authorities. [Para 8.3][287-E-F]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.