CWP No.19948 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.19948 of 2008 Date of decision: 26.05.2009 Balwinder Singh and others ... Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present: Mrs.Anu Chatrath Kapur, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (ORAL) The petitioners are working as Assistant Sub Inspectors. For promotion to the post of Inspector, they are to be brought on List-E on undergoing promotional course called as Upper School Course. On the basis of the seniority, as many as 14 Assistant Sub Inspectors were deputed for undergoing Upper School Course commencing from October, 2008, their names are mentioned in Para-4. It is alleged that these persons expressed their unwillingness to undergo the course and they were replaced by another batch of 14 officials vide DGP's orders dated 15.10.2008. Petitioners No.1 and 2 appear at Sr.No. 13 and 12 respectively in the DGP's order dated 15.10.2008. Again three persons out of the 2nd batch deputed for undergoing the course, expressed their inability to join the course and CWP No.19948 of 2008 -2- consequently, the DGP vide his order dated 17.10.2008 substituted three persons namely ASI Baljinder Singh, ASI Gurmej Singh (Petitioner No.3) and ASI Balraj Singh (Petitioner No.4). On their deputation to the Upper School Course, all the petitioners joined the course in the 2nd session commencing in October, 2008 at PPA, Phillaur (Jalandhar). While the petitioners were undergoing the courses, the DGP, Punjab vide order dated 17.11.2008 recalled them from the course and some other officials namely Chandi Kaur, ASI, Rajinder Singh, ASI, Jaspal Singh, ASI, Kabul Singh, ASI were deputed for the course in their place. These deputees could not join the course as more than one and a half month training was already over. Aggrieved of the aforesaid order of recalling, the petitioners have filed this petition. Vide interim order dated 24.12.2008, respondents were directed to allow the petitioners to resume the course. However, declaration of the result was stayed. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioners have completed the course. However, their result has not been declared on account of the interim order passed by this Court. The petitioners have also filed CM No. 25196 placed on record documents Annexures P-5, P-6 and P-7. From P-5 and P-6, it appears that three of the deputees to the Upper School Course sent in place of the petitioners namely Harwinder Singh, Chand Kiran and Jaspal Rai, ASIs expressed their unwillingness to join the upper school course. P-7 is report dated 27th November, 2008 wherein it is reported that Kabul Singh, who was deputed for upper school course was sent back as course had already commenced two months ago. Respondents were put up to notice of this application. In the reply filed by the respondents, it is admitted that the petitioners have CWP No.19948 of 2008 -3- completed upper school course. It is also admitted that some of the officials who were deputed in place of petitioners expressed their unwillingness and had not joined the course. It has also come on record in the reply filed by the respondents that petitioners No.1 and 2 were senior to those officials deputed for the course, though, petitioners No.3 and 4 were admittedly juniors to the officials who were later deputed for this course. Since the petitioners have completed the course, it would be in-appropriate to withhold their result. On completion of the course, all the officials are to be brought on List-E for their promotion. Since petitioners No.3 and 4 are junior to some of the officials but on account of their successful completion of the course, they are to rank senior in the List-E. Mr. Chahal has argued on behalf of respondent-State that those officials who are likely to be effected are not parties before this Court. Petitioners No.3 and 4 cannot be given any benefit of the passing of the course to the disadvantage of such persons. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement that petitioners No.3 and 4 will not claim seniority over and above their seniors who might have substantial right for promotion to the next higher post. In view of the above statement, this petition is dispose of with the following directions:- (i) The result of the petitioners on successful completion of the course be declared within a period of four weeks if not already declared. (ii) They be brought on list-E in accordance with the rules. Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners No.3 and 4 have successfully completed the Upper School Course, they will not be entitled to seniority and promotion over and above such of the officials who are CWP No.19948 of 2008 -4- otherwise senior to them as ASI and have better claim for promotion to the post of SI. 26th May, 2009 (Permod Kohli) shamsher Judge