http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: LUXMI DEVI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       31/03/1997

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Leave granted.      We have heard learned counsel on both sides.      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the High court of Punjab & Haryana, made on 31.5.1996 in CWP No. 19006/65.      The  admitted   position  is  that  the  appellant  was appointed as  a constable  initially on 19.11.1981 in Hissar range. She  secured rank  No.2 out  of 218  candidates as an all rounder,  while Asha  Rani, respondent No.6, had secured rank No.85  in the same range. When ’C’ list was prepared in September  1985,   both  of   them  were  promoted  as  Head Constables on   October  3, 1985  and the  confirmation also came to  be made  on January  31, 1988.  In an  Intermediate school Course  conducted by  the authorities,  the appellant was depute  in  September  1989  while  6th  respondent  was deputed in March 1990. The appellant was brought in ’D’ List on April  4, 1990.  The appellant  was promoted as Assistant sub-Inspector on  November 16, 1989 while 6th respondent was confirmed as  ASI on July 31, 1992 but was not confirmed for no reason  whatsoever. But  when she  was  in  Upper  school Course in  April 1991, she become all rounded No.1 while 6th respondent was  sent for  the said  course and  training  in April 1993.  The appellant  was promoted as sub-Inspector on May 29, 1991 from P.T.C while 6th respondent was promoted on August 5, 1992. Thus it could be seen that the appellant has been stealing  a march over respondent No.6 right from March 1989 and  she distinguished  herself in  the posts  held  in several Places much earlier to respondent No.6.      It would  appear that on a requested by 6th respondent, she was  transferred to  Rohtak range  while  the  appellant remained in  Hissar Range and was deputed, being a competent officer, to  train the trainees in the Training School. When deputation period was over, she was sought to be reverted to the  rank   of  Assistant   Sub-Inspector.  The  action  was obviously illegal  and arbitrary. It would, now, appear that after deputation  period was  over, she  was transferred  to Rohtak range  and appointed  as  S.H.O  in  Police  Station, Sonipat, Sixth respondent also has been continuing in Rohtak Range. Thus,  belatedly, the  Mischief is  averted  and  her

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

position is restored.      Under these  Circumstances,  the  respondent  state  is directed to  continue  to  maintain  the  seniority  of  the appellant over  the 6th  respondent in  the respective posts though initially  they were  Temporary, Since  she had given better performance as all rounder.      The appeal is accordingly allowed, No costs.