DHIRENDER SINGH ETC.
v.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
DECEMBER 9, 1996
[K. RAMASWAMY AND G.T. NANA VAT!, JJ.]
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.
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.
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 :
Leave granted.
A
B
c
D
E
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.
c
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. If the appellant is
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.
T.N.A.
Appeals dismissed.
•
Lex