Supreme Court of India
DHIRENDER SINGH ETC versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. on 9 December 1996
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
DHIRENDER SINGH ETC.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
A
DECEMBER 9, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.]
B
Service Law-Promotion-Appellant promoted on ad hoc basis against sports quota-Promotion granted by Supe1imendent of Police-Approval of DIG not obtained-Revm·ion-Held valid.
Risha/ Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., IT (1994) 2 SCC 157, held inapplicable.
c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 16846 of 1996 Etc.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.5.96 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 15985 of 1995.
D
B.S. Malik, S.S. Tiwari, Mahabir Singh for the Appellants.
Ajay Siwach, for Prem Malhotra for the Respondents.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
E
Leave granted.
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the F Superintendent of Police had promoted that appellant in the sports quota in view of the outstanding performance in sports, namely, wrestling, on January 16, 1990 on ad hoc basis against an upgraded vacancy. It is also stated that it was clearly mentioned in the order of appointment that the appellant could be reverted at any time without any notice and that he would have no right to seniority in the post. Learned counsel for the G appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Risha/ Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., JT 1994 (2) SCC 157. Therein promotion was given by the D.I.G. to the appellant due to his outstanding merit in sports relying upon rule 13.8(2) of Punjab Police Rule 4734. This Court had held that since the D.I.G. was competent authority to make appointment by promo- H 693
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R.
A lion and having considered the appellant therein as an outstanding sports person had promoted him; it was done in terms of Rule 13.8(2) of the Rules giving power to grant any temporary promotion; the promotion, therefore, though termed to be a temporary promotion, was in effect a regular promotion. Under those circumstances, it was held that his reversion as B Constable was bad in law. Admittedly, in this case, the Superintendent of Police has promoted him and no approval of DIG was obtained. Under those circumstances, the ratio therein has no application to the facts. We do not find any ground warranting interference with the order passed by the High Court.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. If the appellant is c otherwise eligible, this order of dismissal does not stand in his way for consideration of his case according to rules.
C.A. 16847/96 @ SLP (CJ 19421/96:
D Leave granted. Following the above order, this appeal is also dis-missed. No costs.
Appeals dismissed.
T.N.A.