JIT SINGH & ORS. versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

Citation: [1979] 3 S.C.R. 194 · Decided: 13-02-1979 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. SHINGAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
n 
c 
D 
F 
G 
H 
194 
JIT SINGH & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS. 
February 13, 1979 
[P. N. SHINGHAL AND D. A. DESAI, JJ.} 
Puniab Police Service Ruf,s, 1959-Rules 6 & 14-Scope of. 
The proviso to r. 6 of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 relating to the· 
appointment to the higher posts of Deputy Superintendents of Police provided' 
that only those. inspectors would be 'eligible for promotion who had got six years' 
oontinuous service (officiating as well as substantive) in the rank of impector. 
Sub-rule (2) required that a Jist (called List 'G') of officer~ considered fit for 
promotion to the ra.nk of Deputy Superint'endent of Police be prepared by the 
State Government in consultation with the State Public Service Commission and 
appointments shall be made by promotion from persons brought on that list. In 
view of an urgent need to m~.ke a number of appointment9 of Deputy Supcrin· 
tende11ts of Police, an executive order was issued in 1965 reducing the period of 
six years continuous service to four yea-rs. Responden:s 4 to 37 were accordingly 
promoted on an ad !zoe basis as officiating Deputy Superintendents of Police. 
The first list 'G' prepared in term of r. 6(2) was sent for approval of me Service· 
Commission on 7th January, 1966 and in Sept'ember, 1966 a supplementary Jist 
of inspectors who had completed four years' service after 7th January, 1966 wa~ 
sent ro the Commission. Both th~ lists were eventually approved by the 
s~rvice· 
Commission in September, 1970. 
The ;-tppellants who were appointed as inspectors in May, 1963 were con·· 
firmed in May, 1966 and completed six years of service in May, 
1969. Their. 
names were not included in either the first or the supplementary list 'G' se•at 
by the State Government to the Service Commission whereas the names of res--
pondents 4 to 37 found a place in the Jist. 
In rejecting the appellants' writ petition the High Court held th~t they had: 
~1ot qualified th'emselves for inclusion of their names in List 'G' at the time 
thut list was drawn up by the State Government in 1966 because they had not"- -·~ 
• 
put in the requisite period of service for being considered for inclusion in it. 
• • 
Dismissing the llppeal, 
HFLD : l. The appellants were not eligible for indusion in List 'G' prepared 
i~1 1966 on the basis of the State Government's recommendation m2.:te in January 
and September of that year because at the relevant time only those insp~ctors: 
who had put in six years of continuou& servi·:e as inspector were eligible for pro-
motion. No further supplement to List 'G' was sent for the Commission's appro-
val after 1966. In other words the final List 'G' related only to the year 1966. 
The aoppellants who by then had ~ot put in even four years' ~ervice could not 
have been promoted. [199 F, HJ 
2. B'ecause of the extraordinary situa1ion which had developed on the borders 
of the State, the State Government \\tls driven to the necessity of making some 
JIT SINGH v. PUNJAB (Shingha/, J.) 
195 
ad hoc or temporary appointments, but it cannot be said that by reason of this, 
A 
.•. 
.. 
the appointments so made were made wilfully in derogation of the requirements 
of the rules or were meant to run down the appellants. [200 B) 
3. However, the appellants' argument that the relaxation contemplated by r. 14 
\las restricted by considerations of "undue hardship" in any "pa-rticular case" 
and that it was not permissible for the State Govemmcnt to reduce in the case of 
the respondents 4 to 37, the requirement of continuous service from six years to 
fall r for the purpose of eligibility for promotion is correct because r. 14 as it 
~tcod at the relevant time when respondenUI 4 to 37 were promoted did not 
;:~ermit any general !'claxation of the nature ordered by the State Government in 
1963 or 1965. The amended r. 14 could not avail the State Government because 
it c8me into force much later in January, 1969. [198 G-H, 199 C] 
- ~ 
~ 4. The argument that only those inspectors who had been confirmed 
as 
inspectors and held that post substantively were eligible for promotion is not 
correct. To accept that would only mean that a.n inspector who had put in six 
years' officiating service would not be eligible for promotion ii he had not been 
confirmed. All that proviso (a) to r. 6 permits is that, in order to be cligib.le 
for promotion, an inspector should have got six years 
"continuous" 
~ervice, 
including service in ;m officiating ~ well a~ 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.