KARNAIL SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 196 · Decided: 06-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
KARNAIL SINGH 
v. 
THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 6, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
Service Law-Head Constables-Promotion-Reversion--Promotion of 
juniors-Legality of. 
C 
The appellant-bead constables un_derwent intermediate course of 
training and were put in 'G' list and promoted as Sub- Inspectors. In 1984 
they were selected for training of Upper S~bool Course. However, after 
completion of training, they were not included in 'E' list and instead of 
being promoted they were reverted as Head Constables while their juniors 
D were promoted on ad hoc basis. 'Ibey filed writ petitions in the High Court 
which were dismissed. 
E 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on behalf of the State, that 
the appellants were denied promotion due to bad service record and 
adverse Confidential Report. 
Allowing the appeals, this Court 
HELD : 1. When the appellants have been standing in the same 
position as two other Head Constables and were senior to them necessarily 
they should also get the same treatment, but that was not meted out. Even 
F 
assuming that they had adverse remarks, admittedly no equiry was made, 
no findings were given after conducting an enquiry and after giving an 
opportunity to the appellant:J. Therefore, their reversion as Head-Con-
stables is clearly illegal. Though they have been promoted subsequently 
they must be deemed to have been promoted on par with juniors with all 
G the consequential benefits. [197-G-H; 198-A] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 297-98 
of 1987. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.8.86 of the Punjab and 
H Haryana High Court in C.W.P. Nos. 2719 & 2676of1986. 
196 
KARNAILSINGHv. STAIB 
197 
S.K. Bagga, Seeraj Bagga and Tanuj Bagga Advs. for the Appellant A 
G.K. Bansal and R.Yadav for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court delivered by : 
Both the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment since same B 
point is involved for adjudication. These appeals by Special Leave arise 
from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & 
Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 2636/86 dated August 13, 1986 and Civil 
Writ Petition No. 2719/86 of the Judgment. Admittedly the appellants were 
holding substantive posts as head-constables. They were sent to undergo C 
intermediate course of training in the year 1976 and they were put in the 
'G' List and they were temporary promoted as officiating Sub-Inspectors 
on May 1, 1981. Thereafter on April 1, 1994 they were selected for 
undergoing training of upper school course at police training college, 
Phillaue in Distt. Jullundur. After completion of the training instead of 
promoting them as inspectors in the meantime they were reverted as D · 
head-constables. They filed writ petitions as stated earlier and the High 
Court dismissed the writ petitions. 
It is seen from the proceedings Annexure - P at page the writ 
petitions. 
1 
E 
It is seen from the proceedings Annexure-P at page 32 of the Paper 
Book that the appellants were not promoted as Inspectors. Though the 
appellants have completed the upper school co~irse ending with the ter 
August, 1984 they have been ignored and not includoo on the E List due 
to their chequerred service record. Mota Singh and Kamail Singh though F 
have been categorised in that category, in paragraph 4 of the same order 
they have been promoted on ad hoc basis w.e.f. October 4, 1984. Admit-
tedly Mota singh, head constable No.80/119 and Kamail Singh head con-
stable 82/22 are juniors to the appellants in the seniority mentioned in the 
order. When the appellants have been standing in the same position as G 
Mota Singh and Karnail Singh and seniors to them necessarily they should 
also get the same treatment. Unfortunately that was meted out: It is sought 
to be contended on behalf of the State that due to bad record and adverse 
confidential report, they have not been given the promotion. Even assum-
ing that they had adverse remarks, admittedly no enquiry was made, no 
findings were given after conducting an enquiry and after giving an oppor- H 
SUPREME CO.URT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A timity to the appellants. Therefore, the reversion of them as head-con-
stables is clearly illegal. Though they have been promoted subsequently in 
1987-88 respectively, they must be deemed to have been promoted on par 
with juniors w.e.f. October 8, 1984. The appellants are accordingly enti~ed 
to the above declaration and the consequenti

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