LUXMI DEVI
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
MARCH 31, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHAWA, JJ.]
Service Law-Senio1i(JAppellant and respo11dent no. 6 appointed as
Constables-Promotio11 upto the rank of Sub- !11spector-Appellant promoted
as Sub-btspector earlier tha11 6th respo11dent-As Assistant Sub-!11spector
A
B
w/. ile 6th respondent was confinned but appellant 11ot confinned for no C
reason--On a request made by 6th re:,pondent She was tra11sfe1Ted to Rohtak
range while appellant remained i11 Hissar.range-After deputation peiiod was
over appellant appoi11ted as S.H.O. in Rohtak Ra11ge where 6th respo11de11t
was also conti11uin15"""lll these circumsta11ces respondent-State directed to con-
ti11ue to maintai11 the se11ioiity of the appella11t over 6th respondent.
CIVIL APPELLATE :TURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2678 of
1997.
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.5.96 of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 19006 of 1995.
Mahabir Singh for the Appellant.
S.S. Khanduja, Y.P. Dhingra and B.K. Satija for the Respondent.
Jasbir Malik and Prem Malhotra for the Respondent Nos.1-6.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted.
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
D
E
F
G
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division
Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana, made on 31.5.1996 in CWP
No. 19006/95.
The admitted position is that the appellant was appointed as a
Constable initially on 19.11.1981 in Hissar range. She secured rank No.2 H
463
464
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1997) 3 S.C.R.
A out of 218 candidates as an all rounder, while Asha Rani, respondent No.6,
had secured rank No. 85 in the same range. When 'C' list was prepared in
September 1985, both of them lvere promoted as Head Constables on
October 3, 1985 and the confirmation also came to be made on January
31, 1988. In ·an Intermediate School Course conducted by the authorities,
B the appellant was deputi!!d in September 1989 while 6th respondent was
deputed in March 1990. The appellant was brought in 'D' List on Novem-
ber 4, 1989 while 6th respondent was brought in 'D' List on April 4, 1990.
The appellant was promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspector on November 16,
1989 while 6th respondent was confirmed as ASI on July 31, 1992 but was
not confirmed for n!J reason whatsoever. But when she was in Upper
C School Course in April 1991, she became all rounder No. 1 while 6th
respondent was sent for the said course and training in April 1993. The
appellant was promoted as Sub-Inspector on May 29, 1991 from P.T.C.
while 6th respondent was promoted on August 5, 1992. Thus it could be
seen that the appellant has been stealing a march over respondent No. 6
D right from March 1989 and she distinguished herself in the posts held in
several places much earlier to respondent No. 6.
It would appear that on a request made by 6th respondent, she was
transferr.ed to Rohtak range while the appellant remained in Hissar Range
and was deputed, being a competent officer, to train the trainees in the
E Training School. When deputation period was over, she was sought to be
reverted to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector. The action was obviously
illegal and arbitrary. It would, now, appear that after deputation period
was over, she was transferred to Rohtak Range and appointed as S.H.O.
in Police Station, Sonipat, Sixth respondent also has been continuing in
F
Rohtak Range. Thus, belatedly, the mischief is averted and her position is
restored.
U oder these circumstances, the respondent-State is directed to con-
tinue to maintain the seniority of the appellant over the 6th respondent in
the respective posts though initially they were temporary, sirice she had
G given better performance as all rounder.
The appeal is accordingly allowed: No costs.
T.N.A.
Appeal allowed.
Lex