Chaman Singh Vs. Delhi Administration and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....was already confirmed in earlier branch before transfer - person who has been confirmed in any branch of police department and fulfilled five years' of service is eligible to be considered - held, judgment of tribunal set aside with direction to consider appellant for said promotion. - order 39, rules 1 & 2: [markandey katju & a.k.ganguly,jj] grant of injunction restraining the appellant-defendants from using the words hara qilla and device qilla in their bags/pckets of rice as a trade mark supreme court without going into the merits of the controversy observed that matters relating to trade marks, copyrights and patents, litigation is mainly fought on temporary injunction and this goes on for years. suit is hardly decided finally which is not proper. such matters should be finally decided by trial courts normally within four months by conducting day-to-day hearing. restraint order passed against appellant-defendant in a trade mark matter was not interfered. instead high court was requested to decide the suit within three months. .....essence is five years' experience as head constable in the motor transport branch. the confirmation of a person only gives him a substantive status in the service. there is no benefit to a person to be confirmed twice over in the same service grade and in the same department.5. we, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the tribunal and direct the respondents to consider the appellant for promotion to the post of assistant sub-inspector/mt (operational), with effect from 19-5-1989 when the vacancy occurred and when as a matter of fact, the appellant was considered and was rejected on erroneous ground. the rule specifically states that the post is non-selection. the appellant has to be considered on the basis of his service record.6. we allow the appeal. no costs.

Judgment:

ORDER

1. The appellant was appointed as Constable in Delhi Police on 18-6-1969. He was promoted as Assistant Wireless Operator (HC), with effect from 24-2-1975. He was confirmed in the Grade of Head Constable with effect from 1 -1 -1981. The appellant was transferred to Motor Transport Branch as Head Constable/MT (Operational) on 21-2-1984. Since then he has been working as Head Constable, Motor Transport (Operational). In 1989, a post of Assistant Sub-lnspector/MT (Operational) fell vacant, and eligible Head Constables, Motor Transport (Operational) were considered. The respondents declined to consider the appellant on the ground that he was not eligible under the Rules. The order declining to consider the appellant for the post of ASI/MT (Operational) is as under:

HCs Ramesh Chancier No. 610/L and Chaman Singh No. 337/L may please be informed that their requests for promotion to the post of ASI/MT (Operational) have been considered but could not be acceded to, as they were absorbed in MT Cadre against the post of HC/MT (Ops.) on 25-1 -1989 and 29-2-1989 respectively. According to Rule 17-A(viii) confirmed by HC/MT (Ops.) with 5 years' service in the grade are eligible for promotion to the rank of ASI/MT (Ops.). It is correct that they have completed 5 years' service and also confirmed as HC, but not completed 5 years' service in the grade of HC/MT (Ops.). Thus, their names cannot be considered for promotion to the post of ASI/MT (Ops.).

2. The appellant challenged the order before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed his application. This appeal by way of special leave is against the judgment of the Tribunal.

3. The relevant Rule 17-A(viii) of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1986 is as under:

1. Name of the postM.T. Assistant Sub-Inspector (Operational)2.No. of postsTwo3.ClassificationGroup 'C' (Non-gazetted) (Technical)4.Scale of PayRs. 330-8-370- 10-400-EB- 10-4805.Whether selection post or non-selection postNon-selection6.Whether benefit of added years of service admissible under Rub 30 of the CCS (Pension) Rubs, 1972Not applicable7.Age-limit for direct recruitsNot applicable8.Educational and other qualifications required for direct recruitsNot applicable9.Whether age and educational qualifications prescribed for direct recruits will apply in the case of promoteesNot applicable10.Period of probation, if anyNot applicable11.Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/ transfer and percentage of the vacancies to be filled by various methods.By promotion12.In case of recruitment by promotion/transfer/deputation, grades from which promotion/ deputation/transfer to be madePromotion from amongst Confirmed HC (MT) (Operational) with 5 years' service in the OR Grade confirmed HC (Driver) with 5 years' service in the grade having - (i) current driving licence for heavy vehicle

(ii) Matriculate13.If a DPC exists what is its compositionGroup 'C' DPC List-D(Technical) as provided in Rule 8 of the Delhi Police(Promotion & Confirmation) Rules, 1980.14.Circumstances in which UPSC is to be consulted in making recruitmentsNot applicable

4. It is not disputed by learned Counsel for the respondents that on the date of consideration for promotion the appellant had completed five years' service in the Motor Transport Branch. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondents is that since the appellant was not confirmed in the Motor Transport Branch as Head Constable, he was not eligible for consideration to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector. Rule 17-A(viii)(12) quoted above shows that five years' service in the grade is the eligibility condition which the appellant fulfilled. The only question to be considered is whether it was necessary to have confirmation once again in the Motor Transport Branch when the appellant was already confirmed in another branch from which he was transferred to the Motor Transport Branch. Although the rule is somewhat ambiguous, we are of the view that the only interpretation of this rule consistent with service jurisprudence would be that a person who is already confirmed in any other branch of the Police Department and has completed 5 years of service as Head Constable in the Motor Transport Branch, would be eligible for consideration. What is of the essence is five years' experience as Head Constable in the Motor Transport Branch. The confirmation of a person only gives him a substantive status in the service. There is no benefit to a person to be confirmed twice over in the same service grade and in the same Department.

5. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal and direct the respondents to consider the appellant for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector/MT (Operational), with effect from 19-5-1989 when the vacancy occurred and when as a matter of fact, the appellant was considered and was rejected on erroneous ground. The rule specifically states that the post is non-selection. The appellant has to be considered on the basis of his service record.

6. We allow the appeal. No costs.