CWP No.8685 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP No.8685 of 2006 Date of decision: 05.11.2008 Hardeep Singh and others ..Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. S.K. Laddi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior DAG, Punjab. Ashutosh Mohunta, J. (oral) The petitioners have prayed that direction be issued to the respondents to fix their seniority by giving them the deemed date of enlistment as constable from the date, the SPOs, who were juniors to them were given appointments. Briefly the facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as SPOs in Patiala and Barnala Districts on 01.10.1993, 01.10.1993, 06.02.1992, 16.10.1993, 23.09.1992 and 28.10.1993 respectively on daily wages due to terrorism in the State of Punjab. Their appointments were 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 CWP No.8685 of 2006 2 direction that the Superintendent of Police will 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 petitioners in the present writ petition were not found suitable/eligible for the post of constable in the year 1997. Hence, they were not allotted the constabulary number. Subsequently, the Inspector General of Police vide his letter dated 16.9.1999 (Annexure R-1) and letter dated 19.4.2000 (Annexure R-2), requested the Director General of Police, Punjab to accord approval to recruit the petitioners as constables under Standing Order No.2 of 1997. The Director General of Police, Punjab granted approval for absorption of the petitioners as constables after giving them the necessary relaxation. Accordingly, the petitioners were allotted constabulary numbers on out of turn basis on 9.12.1999, 9.12.1999, 15.12.2000, 5.5.2000, 8.6.2000 and 8.5.2000 respectively being members of Cultural Troupe. However, the deemed date of absorption as constables was granted in compliance of the judgment in SPO Lal Mohammad's case only to those SPOs who passed the suitability test for the post of constable in the year 1997. The petitioners have prayed that they be also granted CWP No.8685 of 2006 3 deemed date of enlistment as constable with effect from the year 1997. A perusal of the aforementioned facts clearly shows that the petitioners were duly considered for the post of constable in the year 1997 alongwith a large number of other SPOs but as at that time they could not pass the suitability test, hence they could not be appointed as constables. They were appointed as constables after granting them the relaxation in the years 1999 and 2000, vide Annexures R-1 & R-2. Hence, the petitioners are 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'