Case: DANDUP WANGAIL NEGI Vs. RAMESH CHANDER CHAJTA

The broad facts canvassed are that the appellants were appointed as Inspectors with the Himachal Pradesh Police Service. The case of the appellants is that they are entitled to be promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) in accordance with the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Police Service Rules, 1973.       3. Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules deals with the method of recruitment and it provides as follows:       Method of Recruitment:- (1) Recruitment to the service shall be made in the following manner:-        (a) 40 per cent by direct recruitment, and        (b) 60 per cent from substantive Inspectors who have passed the upper school course from Police Training College and have two year continuous service, in the rank of Inspector (both officiating and substantive), Provided their minimum educational qualification is B.A.        (2) For purposes of calculating vacancies according to the percentages as prescribed in sub-rule (1), the duty posts held either substantively or on probation in a regular manner before the commencement of these rules by Himachal Pradesh Police Service Officer, shall be excluded:        Provided that the post available against direct quota on the commencement of these rules, shall be fixed over a period of four years.        (3) Appointment to the service shall be subject to the orders regarding reservation in services for Scheduled Castes/Sceduled Tribes/Backward Classes issued by the Himachal Pradesh Government from time to time.        4. It is seen from the above that 60% of the posts are to be filled up from substantive Inspectors who have passed the upper school course from Police Training College and have two years continuous service, in the rank of Inspector (both officiating and substantive), provided their minimum educational qualification is B.A. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellants are all graduates.        5. Some time in March 1994, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held for filling up of 5 vacancies. The appellants were not eligible for being considered but their seniors were eligible for being considered and in fact they were considered and recommended for promotion. Notwithstanding this, at least, two persons senior to the appellants could not get their promotions in that year due to insufficient vacancies and subsequently they retired.        6. As far as the appellants are concerned, it appears that due to exigencies of service, they were granted temporary appointments vide notification dated 12.09.1995. The notification of appointment clearly mentions that the appointment of the appellants to the post of DSP was purely on temporary basis for six months in the first instance with immediate effect, in the public interest. It was mentioned that the promotions will not confer any right on the officers to claim seniority or regular promotions etc.        7. The next DPC was held only some time in May, 2000. According to the appellants, if the DPC had been held between 1994 and 2000, the appellants would have been considered for promotion and would in all probability have been promoted to the post of DSP. On these broad facts, the High Court considered the case of the appellants and held that they were not entitled to count their promotion and seniority as DSP from 12.09.1995 but from the date of their regular promotion.        8. We may note that a somewhat similar situation had arisen in two cases of Bharat Singh Negi and Des Raj Sharma. They had approached the State Administrative Tribunal claiming promotion to the post of DSP on the basis of their temporary / ad hoc appointments. The State Administrative Tribunal considered their case by judgment and order dated 01.08.1989 and rejected the original application filed by them on an interpretation of the Rules.        9. Feeling aggrieved by the decision rendered by the State Administrative Tribunal, Des Raj Sharma filed a civil appeal in this Court (being C.A. NO. 3887/1990). This Court considered the relevant Rules including Rules 2(f), (g),(h) and Rules 6, 7, 13, 14, 17 and 18.        10. This Court noted that in so far as Des Raj Sharma is concerned, he had been promoted as DSP against a leave reserve vacancy by Notification dated 21 July, 1980. He was later on selected for appointment to the Himachal Pradesh Police Service as DSP by the DPC in its meeting held on 20th July, 1984. As a consequence, vide notification dated 19th July, 1985 , he was appointed to the service on a regular basis.        11. This Court noted that the State Administrative Tribunal was required to answer the question whether Des Raj Sharma was entitled to seniority in the cadre of the Himachal Pradesh Police Service with effect from July, 1980 or from April, 1985.        12. It was noted that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that Des Raj Sharma was entitled to seniority in the service w.e.f. April, 1985 when he was appointed to the service on regular basis. This Court found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the State Administrative Tribunal.

Reasoning:
13. We find that the view expressed by the State Administrative Tribunal as well as by this Court is fully applicable to the facts of the present case and we see no reason why the appellants should be entitled for their promotions from the date of their temporary appointment.14. Our attention has also been drawn to a communication sent by the Secretary, Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission to the Commissioner cum Secretary (Home), Govt. of Himachal Pradesh on 07.06.1996. In that communication, it has been mentioned that certain Inspectors of Police were given promotion on an ad hoc basis to the post of DSP for a period of six months (as in the case of the appellants before us). However, ad hoc promotion had continued for some time without the consent of the Public Service Commission and so there was an objection raised by the Public Service Commission to the continuation of the ad hoc promotion of the persons concerned through the communication dated 07.06.1996.15. In so far as the present appeal is concerned, we find that there is nothing to indicate that the Public Service Commission was consulted for extending temporary / ad hoc promotion of the appellants to the posts of the DSP beyond the period of six months. As such their continuation may be treated as irregular in view of the communication dated 07.06.1996. However, we need not go into that aspect of the matter.16. In any event, on a consideration of the Rules and the decision rendered by this Court in Des Raj Sharma, we are of the opinion that the appellants are not entitled to claim their seniority / promotion to the rank of DSP from 1995 onwards when the appellants were given temporary promotion. They are entitled only to their regular promotion as DSP and seniority from the date on which the recommendation for promotion by the DPC fructified on the acceptance of the recommendation.