http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2273 of 2004

PETITIONER: S.I. Paras Kumar & Ors.

RESPONDENT: S.I. Ram Charan & Ors.   

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12/04/2004

BENCH: S. RAJENDRA BABU , RUMA PAL & B. P. SINGH.

JUDGMENT: J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

(ARISING OUT OF S.L.P. (C) NO. 13389/1998)

[WITH CIVIL APPEALS NOS. \005\005\005.\005\005\005\005\005\005\005\005/2004  (ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NOS. 17591/1998,  19246/1998, 15944/1998, 2083/1999, 18492/2001,  14283/1998, 16514/1998, 16102/1998, 2082/1999,  20840/1998, 15943/1998, 7817-18/1999, 2080/1999,  17648/1999, 15542/1998, 14694-95/1998, 14313/1998,  19245/1998, 20839/1998, 18493-94/2001, 18497/2001,    15945-46/1998 AND 16829/1998]

RAJENDRA BABU,   J.  :

       Leave granted.          The legal validity of ’out of turn promotion’ given to  some Police Officials based upon their courage displayed  during anti-terrorist operations or outstanding  performance in Sports’ is the foremost matter for  judgment in this batch of cases.

Promotions based on courage displayed in Anti  Terrorist Operations:

1. SLP (C) No 17591 OF 1998. [Arising from final  judgment in CWP No. 403/ 97 of the Punjab and Haryana  High Court]  Chander Pal & others v. Ram Charan & others. All together 14 Petitioners are in this case. All of them  were appointed as Constables during the period 1976-’89.  They were promoted as Head Constables on the ground of  showing bravery in anti-terrorist front or on the ground of  outstanding performance in Sports. Show Cause notices  were issued to them and they were reverted to the  original rank.  Their writ petitions were disposed of by the  High Court vide common order in 403/97. Challenging this  order the present SLP is filed.  2. SLP (C) No. 19246 of 1998. [Arising final judgment  in CWP No. 403 of 1997 of the Punjab and Haryana High  Court] Narinder Singh & others v. Ram Charan  Appellants got out-of-turn promotion on the basis of  bravery shown in Anti-Terrorist Front. The original WP was  disposed of along with 403/97. Challenging this the  instant SLP.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11  

3. SLP(C) No. 15944 of 1998 - [Arising final judgment  in CWP No. 403 of 1997 of the Punjab and Haryana High  Court] Sadhu Ram & Others v. Ram Charan & others   All together 16 Petitioners are in this case. All of them got  one rank \026 ’out of turn’ promotion based on their bravery  and exemplary courage during activities on Anti-Terrorist  front. Subsequently the Respondents herein filed writ  petition before the High Court challenging the out of turn  promotion given to these Petitioners. High Court allows  the Writ petition. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment,  the present SLP.

4. SLP (C) No. 2083 of 1999 \026[against final judgment  dated 19/5/98 ] Rameshwar Singh v. State of Haryana Petitioner was originally appointed as a constable and was  promoted as Head Constable. Later was promoted as ASI  on the basis of his bravery. Subsequently reversion order  was passed and he was reverted to the rank of Constable.  This reversion order was challenged. High Court disposed  of the writ vide common order in 403/97. Challenging this  the instant SLP was filed.

5. SLP (C) No. 18492 of 2001. [Against final order  dated 31/8/2002 passed by Hon’ble Division Bench of  Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA No. 1957 of 2001]. Prem Das & others vs. Bachan Singh Randhwa &  others. All the petitioners in this case were given out of turn  promotion on the basis of their meritorious service in Anti- terrorist front as Inspectors on ORP basis. They were not  parties to Writ-Petition/Appeals. In accordance with the  impugned order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High  Court, Government is taking steps to revert the  appellants. To prevent the furtherance of such an action,  they approached the High Court. Both the petition and  subsequent LPA were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same,  the present SLP.       

6. SLP (C) No. 14283 of 1998 \026 [arising from final  judgment dated 19/05/1998 in CWP No. 403/1997 of  Punjab and Haryana High Court].  SI Ramesh Chander & Others v. SI Ram Charan &  others.  Appellants 1 to 6 were given out of turn promotion on the  basis of their courageous act in Anti-Terrorist Front. After  the final judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High court  in CWP No. 403/1997 they were reverted to lower ranks  even without hearing. Present SLP challenges the said  reversion orders.

7. SLP (C) No. 16514 of 1998. [Arising from judgment  dated 19/05/98 in CWP No. 13023/1997].  Jahangir Singh v. State of Haryana Appellant appointed as Constable. Later promoted as HC  and then as ASI, his promotion was based on the activities  in anti-terrorist front.  Show Cause notice for reversion  was served. Later an order of reversion was passed.  Aggrieved by the decision he approached the High Court.  High Court did not allow his prayer. Hence the present  SLP. 8. SLP (C) No. 16102 of 1998. [Arising from final  judgment in CWP No. 12536 of 1997]. Zile Singh and others v. State of Haryana

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11  

All the three petitioners were originally appointed as  Constables during the period 1971-81. Later they were  promoted as Head Constables and as ASIs. It was out of  turn promotion based on the ground of bravery, which  they have shown in anti-terrorist front. Later reversion  order was passed whereby they were reverted to the  substantive rank of Constables. They approached the High  Court. High Court disposed of the matter saying that if  they were outside the quota of 10%, then they might be  demoted below the rank of Head Constable. Aggrieved by  this the present SLP.  

9. SLP (C) No. 2082 of 1999 \026 [arising from common  order in CWP 403/97]. Chander Bhan & others v. Ram Charan & others Petitioners got out of turn promotion on the basis of their  performances in Sports or on the ground of bravery  displayed in Anti-terrorist operations. Later reverted after  issuing show cause notices.  Their Writ to the High Court  was disposed of by common order in 403/97. Aggrieved  by this the present SLP.  

Promotions based on performance in various  Sports and Games:

1. SLP (C) No. 20840 of 1998. [Arising final judgment  in CWP No. 403 of 1997 of the Punjab and Haryana High  Court] Naresh Kumar & another v. Ram Charan & others.  Petitioner No. 1 is promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on  the basis of displaying courage in anti-terrorist operations  and Petitioner No. 2 is promoted as Head Constable on the  basis of performance in Sports. Later a Show Cause notice  is issued which is followed by reversion order. Challenging  this the present SLP.

2. SLP (C) No. 15943 of 1998 - [Arising from final  judgment in CWP No. 403/1997 of Punjab and Haryana  High Court]. Ashok Kumar & others v. SI Ram Charan & others  18 Petitioners. All of them were originally appointed as  Constables during the period 1976-’89. Later all of them  were promoted to the post of Head Constable on the basis  of their performance in various Sports items.  Subsequently the Respondents herein filed writ petition  before the High Court challenging the out of turn  promotion given to these Petitioners. High Court allows  the Writ petition. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment,  the present SLP.

3. SLP (C) 7817-18 of 1999. [Arising from CWP 15548  & 15550 / 1997 of Punjab and Haryana HC].  Anoop Singh and another v. DGP of Haryana.  The appellants originally were appointed as Constables.  Later were promoted to Head-Constables and  subsequently as ASIs. Promotion was based on their  performance in Sports. Later they were reverted to the  original rank after serving show-cause notices. The case of  appellants was disposed of along with other cases on  19/5/98 vide the final judgment in CWP No. 403/1997  before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

4. SLP(C) No 2080/99 of 1999 \026[arising from  judgment dated 19/5/98 by Punjab and Haryana High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11  

Court in CWP No. 12536 of 1997 which was disposed  along with 403/97]. Baljith Singh v. State of Haryana & others Appellant got promotion to the rank of Head Constable on  the basis of his performance in Sports. Later he was  served with a show-cause notice and was subsequently  reverted to the rank of Constable. He challenges the  reversion order before the High Court. It was disposed by  common order in 403/97. Aggrieved by the same, the  present SLP.

5. SLP (C) No. 17648/99. [Arising from final order  dated 19/12/97 of Punjab and Haryana High Court in  review application No. 292/97 in CWP No. 8672/97]. Shri Harpal Singh v. State of Haryana.  Petitioner was originally appointed as Constable. On the  basis of his performance in Sports he was promoted as  Head Constable and later as ASI. Order of reversion was  served on him. He challenges the reversion order before  the High Court. His case along with other cases was  disposed of vide common order in 403/97. Review petition  was also dismissed. Hence SLP.

6. SLP (C) No. 15542 of 1998 \026 [arising from final  judgment dated 25/05/1998 in CWP No 13006/97 of  Punjab and Haryana High Court].  Shamser Singh v. State of Haryana: Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Haryana. Later  promoted as Head Constable. On the basis of his  distinguished contribution in the field of Sports, he was  promoted to the post of ASI. Later he was demoted as a  Head Constable.  Challenges this decision before the High  Court. Dissatisfied by the High Court decision he filed the  instant SLP.  

7. SLP (C) No 14694-95 of 1998 \026 [arising from  judgment dated 22/10/97 passed by Division Bench of  Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP Nos. 12827 of  1997 and 12829 of 1997]  HC Krishan Kumar & Others v. State of Haryana.  Appellants were promoted as Head \026 Constables in the  Haryana on the basis of their distinguished achievements  in Sports / Games. They were issued with Show-Cause  notice of reversion. Reversion orders were passed.  Appellants filed CWP Nos. 12827 of 1997 and 12829 of  1997 before Punjab and Haryana High Court. High Court  quashed the reversion Order with the finding that the  Show Cause notice issued to the appellants does not  properly comply with the natural justice requirement. At  the same time High Court granted liberty to Respondents  therein to issue fresh show-cause notices and to revert  this Appellants. Aggrieved by this conclusion, the present  SLP.  

8. SLP (C) No. 14313 of 1998 \026 [from judgment dated  19/05/1998 by Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP  No. 12536 of 1997 \026 this was disposed along with CWP  No. 403/97].  Kuldeep Singh & others v. State of Haryana  Six Petitioners. They got ’out of turn promotion’ on the  basis of their distinguished achievements in the field of  sports. Were promoted to Head Constable rank. Show  Cause notices were issued and subsequently reverted to  the rank of Head constable. Petitioners writ before the  High Court was disposed with the common order in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11  

403/1997. Aggrieved by the same the instant SLP.  

9. SLP (C) No. 19245 of 1998. \026[Arising from the  judgment dated 22/10/97 of P&H High Court in CWP No  13014/97] Salinder Singh v. State of Haryana  Petitioner was originally appointed as Constable on the  basis of his performance in Sports he was promoted to the  next higher rank. Later he was served with Show Cause  notice for reversion. Reversion order was passed. He  challenges this decision in a Writ petition before the High  Court. Though High Court quashed the reversion for want  of natural justice requirement, permitted the State to  revisit the decision by issuing fresh show cause notice.  Challenging this the present SLP.  

10. SLP (C) No. 20839 of 1998. [Arising from judgment  dated 22/10/97 of P&H High Court in CWP No. 12703 of  1997].  Sohan Singh v. State of Haryana  Petitioner was appointed as Constable. Later promoted as  Head Constable based on his performance in the field of  Sports. Subsequently he was served with a show cause  notice and was reverted later to the post of Constable.   His writ before the High Court was disposed of without  allowing his prayer. Challenging this the present SLP.  

11.     SLP (C) No. 15945-46 of 1998.  [Arising from  final Judgment dated 23.09.97 of Punjab and Haryana  High Court in CWP No. 8620/97 and 8632 of 1997 which  was disposed along with CWP No. 10129/1997] Ashok Kumar and Others v. State of Haryana &  others There are 14 Petitioners.  On the basis of their  distinguished contribution in the field of Sports, all of them  were promoted to the post of Head Constable.  State later  served them with Show Cause notices alleging that the  promotions were not covered either by any rules or  instructions by DGP and were subsequently reversed.  This  was challenged before the High Court.  High Court allowed  the petition for the reason but left it open to the State to  initiate fresh proceedings as per law for reverting the  Petitioners herein.  SLP filed. Promotions to superior ranks: 1. SLP (C) No 18493-94/2001[Arising from final  judgment dated 31/8/2001 passed by Punjab and Haryana  HC in LPA No. 1957/2001].  Narinder Pal Singh & others v. Bachan Singh  Randhawa & others  Petitioners are SPs and DySPs. They got ’out of turn  promotion’ on ORP basis to the respective present ranks  on the basis of their extra ordinary bravery and  courageous acts on Anti-Terrorist front.  The respondent  filed CWP No. 1386/96 before Punjab and Haryana High  Court. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ  saying "creation and granting of ORP ranks are not in  conformity with the rules applicable to Punjab Police  Force." Appeal was preferred before Division Bench (Nos  1957/ 2001 and 1959/2001). The same was also  dismissed. Aggrieved by this the present SLP.  2. SLP(C) No. 18497 of 2001[Arising from final  judgment dated 31/8/2001 passed by Punjab and Haryana  HC in LPA No. 1957/2001].  Naginder Singh Rana& others v. Bachan Singh  Randhwa & others.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11  

All the Petitioners are appointed as DySPs on ORP basis.  Respondent in this case filed petition before the High  Court, challenging the promotion on ORP basis. Learned  single Judge and subsequently the Division Bench were of  the opinion that the ORP promotion is beyond the scope of  the relevant rules.  Aggrieved by this the present SLP.         Background of the present proceeding is as follows: The Police forces in Punjab, Haryana and in some  other states are covered by the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.  On 11/11/1982 the Director General of Police (DGP) of  Haryana issued a circular saying that Police Personnel  selected to National Team is entitled to special  consideration for promotion. On 09/09/1993 the DGP of  Punjab issued guidelines and criteria for giving one rank  promotion to Police Personnel who shows exemplary  courage and bravery on Anti-terrorist operations. It is also  mentioned in the said guideline that though there is no  provision in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (Police Rules)  for adhoc promotion, it is necessary that they may be  given one rank promotion on adhoc basis. Based on these  Circulars or guidelines some police officials were given ’out  of turn promotion’.  But, it is alleged, such promotions  were also given to many other police officials even without  citing any reasons.  

       Several cases were filed before Punjab and Haryana  High Court challenging the very scheme of ’out of turn  promotion.’ Before the High Court, the Respondents  herein challenged the ’out of turn promotion’ given to the  Appellants herein and some others. They also prayed to  restrain the State from making any promotion that is  contrary to the criteria as provided under Rule 13(1) of  the Police Rules and to fill up the consequent vacancies  according to the procedure prescribed under Rule 13 of  the said Rules. Whereas, the Appellants stated that they  got ’out of turn promotion’ either on the basis of bravery  that they have shown in Anti-terrorist operation or on  their outstanding performance in Sports. By a common  order dated 19/5/98 the High Court disposed of all the  cases.  

       Relevant portion of the judgment dated 19/5/98 in  CWP No. 403/1997 is extracted hereunder:  " \005It will be in the fitness of things if a working  seniority is drawn by the Respondents of all the  Head Constables (Both list C-I and list C-II  combine) and then see if any Head Constables  juniors to the Writ Petitioners is still working as  Assistant Sub-Inspectors. If that is so any  person who is senior to such an ASI will not be  reverted till such an ASI is allowed to retain the  rank. Learned counsel for the Respondents  further state that the Petitioners whosoever is  within the 10% quota of the List C-II would be  deputed to the Intermediate School Course in  their turn.  The reversion orders in these writ petitions are  quashed to the extent that for the time being  none of the petitioners would be reverted below  the rank of Head Constable. However, if the  petitioners are found to be beyond 10% quota  meant under rule 13.8(2) of the Rules they  may be reverted even below the rank of Head  Constable. If after making a working seniority  of Head Constables (as observed above) it is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11  

found that any Head Constable who is junior to  the petitioners as a Head Constable is still  working as an ASI, though even on adhoc  basis, then qua such senior Head Constable the  reversion order from the post of ASI would be  deemed to have been quashed, meaning  thereby as if the reversion order was never  passed and such a person would be allowed to  continue as ASI even on officiating basis till his  junior is allowed to continue as ASI."  

This decision is impugned before us.

       It is the definite case of these appellants; that their  case was not discussed by the High Court while disposing  of the Writ; that their case stands different since they got  promotion on the basis of bravery and showing exemplary  courage on Anti-terrorist activities or on the basis of their  outstanding performance in Games/Sports; that such  promotion altogether stands on a different pedestal while  comparing with the regular promotions since they got it as  a recognition/ reward of their superior work; that in the  above dated Guideline issued by DGP dated 9/9/1993 it  has specifically directed that promotions made for showing  bravery and exemplary courage by Police Officials in  dealing with Terrorist activities will be in addition to Police  Rules; that the Writ ought not have been admitted by the  High Court due to the inordinate delay on the part of the  Respondents in approaching the High Court; that as per  the dictum in P.S Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamilnadu  1975(2) SCR 356: 1975 (1) SCC 152, a person who is  aggrieved by the promotion of a junior would have to  challenge such promotion order within six months or  within a maximum of one year; that therefore it is  submitted that the decision of High Court is liable to be  reversed. Some other Police Officials who got ’out of turn  promotion’ were ordered to be reverted to the original  rank. They filed the other Writ Petitions before the High  Court challenging the respective reversion orders.  Dissatisfied by the decision, the Petitioners in those cases  also preferred to appeal before this Court. The validity of  ’out of turn promotion’ given to some officials to higher  ranks such as DSP/SP are to be decided in other  connected matters. All these cases were clubbed together  in the instant appeal.              Consequently, the question for consideration is -  Whether out of turn Promotion based upon ’courage on  anti-terrorist front or outstanding performance in Sports’  by the Director General of Police is permissible under  format of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934?          Punjab Police Rules were framed under section 2 of  the Indian Police Act, 1861 (Police Act). The voluminous  Punjab Police Rules cover all aspects of Police  administration. It has withstood the test of time and  underwent many amendments and modifications. Yet, the  basic structure of the Rules has not changed. It is  worthwhile to mention that the Punjab Police Rules is still  in force in six states in India and even in some provinces  in Pakistan. First of all it has to be clarified that the pay  and other conditions of service of police has to be decided  by the State Government under section 2 of the Police

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11  

Act. (See generally Constitution Bench decision of this  Court in Ram Sharan v. DIG of Police, Ajmer AIR 1964 SC  1559 and also State of Rajasthan v. Ram Sharan AIR 1964  SC 1361). The right to be considered for promotion and  procedure to be followed for effecting promotion is a  condition of service. Promotions could be made only under  section 2 of the Police Act and no other procedure could  be adopted for effecting promotion. Since the Punjab  Police Rules are framed under section 2 of the Police Act,  the promotion could be made only by following the  procedure established under the relevant Rules. No  promotions could be made by any procedure outside the  scope of section 2 of the Police Act. Therefore the exercise  is to see whether the impugned promotions are made  following the Punjab Police Rules, which are framed under  section 2 of the Police Act.     

       Admittedly, even in the Memorandum issued by the  DGP wherein the impugned adhoc promotion was detailed,  it was clarified that the same were not based on the  provisions of the Punjab Police Rules. In the instant case  since the impugned promotions are not made under the  Punjab Police Rules and as a result, those promotions are  ultra vires to section 2 of the Police Act. Here, the powers  exercised by the DGP could only be traced from section 12  of the Police Act. Powers under section 12 extend to  administrative or organizational matters and the authority  for promotion is not vested with the DGP. As per the  scheme of the Police Act only the State Government is  empowered to determine promotional aspects. Therefore,  the impugned promotion made by the DGP cannot be  treated as regular promotion under Chapter 13 of the  Punjab Police Rules. The adhoc promotion carried out in  the instant case is only ornamental in nature.  

       Though the regular promotion could not be made by  the DGP, he can definitely forge some methods under  section 12 of the Police Act so as to encourage efficient  officers who did yeomen service in anti-terrorist front or  who earned laurels to the department. The impugned  adhoc promotion could be treated as one such method to  improve the efficiency of the police force by according  special status for meritorious officers. Similarly under the  Punjab Police Rules, Rule 13.2A, a subordinate (enrolled)  police officer could be given next higher rank as local  rank, in the interest of better functioning of the force.  Such granting of a next higher rank is only an exercise of  section 12 powers of the Police Act by the IG/DGP so as to  improve the efficiency of the force or for administrative  convenience. At the same time, it cannot be treated as  regular promotion under Chapter 13 of the Punjab Police  Rules.  

       Anyhow, in accordance with the earlier-mentioned  Circular/Guidelines issued by Director General of Police in  the States of Haryana and Punjab, some officials were  given out of turn promotion on adhoc basis. On December  6, 2000 while hearing these matters this Court made the  following Order:  "After having heard the counsel for the  parties for some time, it was suggested  that it would be appropriate for the  Government to explore the feasibility of  regularizing its action in having promoted  out of turn some of the petitioners before

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11  

us for their exemplary action in showing  brave and courageous acts on anti  terrorist front."   

       Pursuant to this order, after due deliberations the  State proposed the "Own Rank and Pay" policy (ORP). The  relevant portion of the affidavit submitted on behalf of the  State before this Court wherein the ORP policy is  explained as hereunder: "\005After examining the pros and cons of the  matter, it has now been decided that  Constables promoted within the prescribed  quota of 10% under P.P.R 13.8, may be  granted regular promotion as per decision  of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High  Court in CWP No. 14844 of 1997 titled  Lachhman Singh v. State of Haryana.  Those Head Constables who have been  promoted on adhoc basis and are in excess  on 10% quota prescribed under rule 13.8  of PPR and ASIs, SIs and Inspectors who  have been granted adhoc/out of turn  promotion shall continue to wear badges of  their present rank against their substantive  rank and pay. This will be known as  promotion in their ’Own Rank and Pay’. A  person who has been promoted in his own  rank and pay for all intents and purposes  shall be treated as an official in his  substantive rank and will not consume or  exhaust any substantive post of higher  ranks in the regular channel of promotion\005 \005However, in order to avoid financial  hardship in respect of the officials falling in  category (a) above, the pay of such  officials will be fixed in the substantive  rank and the difference of the existing pay  as on 1-12-99 and their substantive pay  will be adjusted as their personal pay.  \005They would get their regular promotions  as HCs, ASIs, SIs and Inspectors as per  their turn and seniority subject to passing  promotional courses on their own\005"

This Court had occasion to look into the validity of  promotion to a Police Officer in accordance with Rule  13.8(2) in Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana and others, JT  1994 (2) SC 157. Here it was held that a promotion within  the 10% quota as provided in Rule 13.8(2) could only  treated as a regular one and not as an adhoc / temporary  promotion. It is also held that the language in which the  appointment order is couched is irrelevant and such a  promotion could never be an adhoc/temporary one. This  view was again followed in Jagbir Singh v. State of  Haryana and others, JT 1996 (4) SC 332. In the special  circumstances of this case, though the impugned  promotions are not promotions under the Rules, the State  came up with a proposal of the ORP scheme so as to deal  with the out of turn / adhoc promotes. Therefore, we are  of the opinion that those officials who are promoted within  the 10% limit of Rule 13.8(2) could be given regular  promotion and those who are beyond the 10% limit of  Rule 13.8(2) could be given ORP promotion which is

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11  

designed to encourage and reward the good work of  meritorious officers without excessively burdening the  exchequer.

       Before parting with the case it has to be clarified that  ’Out of turn’ or adhoc promotion is to encourage the  subordinate police officers and shall be given only to  ’enrolled police officers’ as under Rule 1.13 of the Punjab  Police Rules i.e., up to the rank of Inspectors. As per Rule  13.3(1) the power to make promotions among gazetted  officers and from non-gazetted to gazetted rank vests in  the local government with the concurrence of the  Governor. Therefore, the ’gazetted police officers’ i.e.,  Deputy Superintendents and above cannot come under  the ORP scheme which is essentially an exercise of powers  under Section 12 of the Police Act. In order to avoid  similar controversies in the future, it will be appropriate  for the State government to formulate appropriate  rules/policies so as to streamline the promotion for  appreciation.  

       The appeals shall stand disposed of accordingly.

       SLP (C) No. 16829 of 1998. [Arising from  judgment dated 3.12.97 passed by Punjab and Haryana  High Court in CWP 8460/97] State of Haryana v. Dayal Chand.         Respondent served in Indian Army between 1970  and 1975. On September 30, 1976 he was recruited as a  Constable (Dog Handler) in the dogs squad. After 18 years  he was promoted as Head Constable (Dog Handler).  Authorities served a reversion order to him saying that he  was promoted ’out of turn’. High Court noted that the  Department ignored no person senior to him while this  respondent was promoted, and quashed the reversion.  State has filed the present appeal by special leave.  

       There is no provision in the relevant Rules for  promotion of Constable (Dog Handler) to the post of Head  Constable.  In view of the fact that the Respondent had  put in long service, the department felt he should be  promoted to the post of Head Constable even in the  absence of Rules enabling the same. In the normal course  when he could not have been promoted to a post which  did not exist, the proper course for the Government would  have been to create a post of Head Constable (Dog  Handler), if necessary, with retrospective effect from the  date he was promoted either by amending the relevant  Rules or in exercise of its executive power under Article  162 of the Constitution.  Unless such exercise is taken he  could not be appointed to the post of Head Constable (Dog  Handler).  Hence High Court ought to have upheld the  order of reversion.         Now that he has been in promoted cadre since the  year 1994 and the High Court has quashed the order of  reversion of the appellant, we do not think we should  disturb that state of affairs but direct the Government to  regularize the appointment made as indicated by us in the  course of this order.

       The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11