CWP No.20117 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.20117 of 2006 Date of decision: 05.11.2008 Kuldip Singh ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Manu K. Bhandari, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (oral) The petitioner has prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to fix his seniority by giving him the deemed date of enlistment as constable from the date, the SPOs, who were juniors to him were given appointments. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as SPO in Patiala District on 1.6.1992 on daily wages due to terrorism in the State of Punjab. His appointment was made in terms of Section 17 of the Police Act, 1861. Some SPOs were absorbed as constables despite being junior due to various reasons (i.e. good work against terrorists, suffered at the hands of terrorists etc.), but their out of turn absorption as constable was challenged by the senior SPOs on the ground that they were not considered for the post of constable. In one of the writ petitions i.e. CWP No.7451 of 1996 SPO Lal Mohammad Vs. Punjab State, reported as 1996 (6) SLR 409, this Court disposed of the said writ petition with a direction that the Superintendent of Police will CWP No.20117 of 2006 2 consider the claim of the petitioners for absorption as constable with effect from the dates, the persons junior to them were appointed. In case the petitioners are found suitable, orders of their appointment shall be issued. The consequential relief for fixation of pay and seniority shall follow. As the aforementioned judgment in SPO Lal Mohammad's case was implemented and all SPOs working in the State of Punjab were considered for the post of constable in July, 1997. Out of 16000 SPOs, 4647 SPOs were found suitable for the post of constable. However, the petitioner in the present writ petition was not found suitable/eligible for the post of constable in the year 1997. Hence, he was not allotted the constabulary number. Subsequently, in the year 2000, the petitioner was out of service due to his discharge from service, so he could not be considered for the post of constable in the year 2000. Again the remaining SPOs were considered by the Central Recruitment Board in the year 2001-02 and 4505 SPOs were found suitable for the post of constable. The petitioner was found suitable in the test held in the year 2002 and accordingly he was allotted constabulary number on 19.7.2002 (Annexure P-5) from fresh date. The petitioner has prayed that he be also granted deemed date of enlistment as constable with effect from the year 1997. A perusal of the aforementioned facts clearly shows that the petitioner was duly considered for the post of constable in the year 1997 alongwith a large number of other SPOs, but as at that time he could not pass the suitability test, hence he could not be appointed as constable. CWP No.20117 of 2006 3 He was appointed as constable when the remaining SPOs were considered by the Central Recruitment Board in the year 2001-02 and the petitioner was found suitable in the year 2002 as is clear from Annexure P-5. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the deemed date of enlistment as constable from 1997. The writ petition is dismissed. (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE November 05, 2008 'rajpal'