Chaman Singh Vs. Delhi Administration and Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6124 of 1995
Petitioner: Chaman Singh
Respondent: Delhi Administration and Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6124 of 1995
Judges: KULDIP SINGH & FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 24, 1996
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1986
Rule 17-A (viii) – Five years’ service in the grade of Head Constable in Motor Transport Branch -Whether eligible for promotion, when confirmed in other branch and not in Motor Transport Branch. Held that he is eligible as he has completed 5 years of service as Head Constable in Mother Transport Branch.
Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1986
Rule 17-A (viii) – Five years’ service in the grade of Head Constable in Motor Transport Branch -Whether eligible for promotion, when confirmed in other branch and not in Motor Transport Branch. Held that he is eligible as he has completed 5 years of service as Head Constable in Mother Transport Branch.
Held:
The only interpre-tation 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’ experi-ence as Head Constable in the Motor Transport Branch. The confir-mation of a person only gives him a substantive status in the service. Allow the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Tribunal.(Para 4, 5)
Held –
JUDGEMENT:
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 trans-ferred to Motor Transport Branch as Head Constable/MT (Operation-al) on 21-2-1984. Since then he has been working as Head Con-stable, Motor Transport (Operational). In 1989, a post of Assis-tant Sub-Inspector/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 Chander 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 (Appoint-ment & Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1986 is as under :
1. Name of the Post M.T. Assistant Sub-
Inspector(Operational)
2. No. of Posts Two
3. Classification Group ‘C’ (Non-
gazetted)(Technical)
4. Scale of Pay Rs. 330-8-370-10-
400-EB-10-480
5. Whether selection post or non- Non-selection
selection post
6. Whether benefit of added years Not applicable
of service admissible under
Rule 30 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972
7. Age-limit for direct recruits Not applicable
8. Educational and other Not applicable
qualifications required for
direct recruits
9. Whether age and educational Not applicable
qualifications prescribed for
direct recruits will apply in
the case of promotees
10. Period of probation, if any Not applicable
11. Method of recruitment whether By promotion
by direct recruitment or by
promotion or by deputation/
transfer and percentage of
vacancies to be filled by
various methods.
12. In case of recruitment by Promotion from
promotion/transfer/deputation, amongst Con- grades from which promotion/ firmed HC
deputation/transfer to be made (MT) (Opera- tional)
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) Matriculate
13. If a DPC exists what is its Group ‘C’ DPC composition List- D (Techni-
cal) as
provided in Rule 8
of the Delhi Police
(Promotion &
Confirmation) Rules,
1980.
14. Circumstances in which Not applicable
UPSC is to be consulted
in making recruitments
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 interpre-tation 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’ experi-ence as Head Constable in the Motor Transport Branch. The confir-mation 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 (Opera-tional), 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.
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 trans-ferred to Motor Transport Branch as Head Constable/MT (Operation-al) on 21-2-1984. Since then he has been working as Head Con-stable, Motor Transport (Operational). In 1989, a post of Assis-tant Sub-Inspector/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 Chander 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 (Appoint-ment & Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 1986 is as under :
1. Name of the Post M.T. Assistant Sub-
Inspector(Operational)
2. No. of Posts Two
3. Classification Group ‘C’ (Non-
gazetted)(Technical)
4. Scale of Pay Rs. 330-8-370-10-
400-EB-10-480
5. Whether selection post or non- Non-selection
selection post
6. Whether benefit of added years Not applicable
of service admissible under
Rule 30 of the CCS (Pension)
Rules, 1972
7. Age-limit for direct recruits Not applicable
8. Educational and other Not applicable
qualifications required for
direct recruits
9. Whether age and educational Not applicable
qualifications prescribed for
direct recruits will apply in
the case of promotees
10. Period of probation, if any Not applicable
11. Method of recruitment whether By promotion
by direct recruitment or by
promotion or by deputation/
transfer and percentage of
vacancies to be filled by
various methods.
12. In case of recruitment by Promotion from
promotion/transfer/deputation, amongst Con- grades from which promotion/ firmed HC
deputation/transfer to be made (MT) (Opera- tional)
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) Matriculate
13. If a DPC exists what is its Group ‘C’ DPC composition List- D (Techni-
cal) as
provided in Rule 8
of the Delhi Police
(Promotion &
Confirmation) Rules,
1980.
14. Circumstances in which Not applicable
UPSC is to be consulted
in making recruitments
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 interpre-tation 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’ experi-ence as Head Constable in the Motor Transport Branch. The confir-mation 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 (Opera-tional), 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.
