Luxmi Devi
Vs. The State of Haryana & Ors [1997] INSC 360 (31 March 1997)
K.
RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
O R D
E R Leave granted.
We
have heard learned counsel on both sides.
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. 19006/65.
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 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 were
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, the appellant was depute in September 1989 while 6th respondent
was deputed in March 1990. The appellant 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 no reason whatsoever. But when
she was in Upper school Course in April 1991, she become all rounded 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 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 requested by 6th respondent, she was transferred to Rohtak
range while the appellant remained in Hissar Range and was deputed, being a
competent officer, to train the trainees in the 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 Rohtak Range. Thus, belatedly, the Mischief is
averted and her position is restored.
Under
these Circumstances, the respondent state is directed to continue to maintain
the seniority of the appellant over the 6th respondent in the respective posts
though initially they were Temporary, Since she had given better performance as
all rounder.
The
appeal is accordingly allowed, No costs.
Back
Pages: 1 2
