HC HARJINDER SINGH & Anr. v. STATE OF PUNJAB & Ors.

Judgment

1. This petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 15.6.2010 (Annexure P-8), communicated to the petitioners vide letter dated 1.7.2010 (Annexure P-9), whereby the claim of the petitioners for deputing them to undergo Intermediate School Course in Punjab Police Academy and retrospective promotion at par with their juniors, has been declined by the Committee.

2. It transpires that certain disputes in regard to inter-se seniority Civil Writ Petition No.18131 of 2010 2 and for deputing to undergo Intermediate School Course in Punjab Police Academy were brought to this Court by the petitioners. While dealing with the issue in CWP 5965 of 2007, the matter was referred to a Committee constituted in deference to order dated 4.3.2010, passed by

this Court in CWP 566 of 2010 (Ranjit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others). The Committee, consisting of Inspector General of Police (Head Quarters), Punjab Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration), Punjab Police Headquarters and Additional Advocate General, Punjab, was constituted to redress the grievances of police personnel. The Committee had considered the prayer of the petitioners and has decided in the following terms:- “3. In response to the contentions raised by the petitioners, the committee obtained written comments of the PAP. It has been explained therein that in the year 2005 out of a total of 60 seats in the Intermediate School Course, only 3 sports persons were to be deputed against 55 quota reserved for sports persons in the PAP. As per record, there were only 9 sports persons in the rank of Head Constable who were eligible to be considered against these 3 vacancies in the Intermediate School Course. It has been reported by the PAP that the selection of the 3 candidates out of 9 were made by a committee headed by ADGP/PAP who took a considered decision to provide representation from maximum number of disciplines. Accordingly, the committee headed by ADGP/PAP selected one candidate each with sports achievements in Equestrian, Gymnastics and Wrestling events who were recommended for the Inter Immediate Course namely as under:-

1. ASI Youngbir Singh

2. ASI Lalit Kumar - - Equestrian Gymnastic Civil Writ Petition No.18131 of 2010 3

3. HC Balwinder Singh - Wrestler

4. The record of Sh. Harjinder Singh No.13/79 and HC Jagtar Singh No.1/IRB/2 has been perused by the Committee. ASI Jagtar Singh, was repatriated on 3.6.2004 to his parent battalion, 13th Battalion PAP since he had discontinued his participation in Equestrian events at the National/Inter National level since 2002. Hence, he was not eligible to be considered against 5% sports quota. Similarly, the committee considered the credentials of HC Jagat Singh and ASI Youngbir Singh No.1985/PAP on the basis of their sports achievements. The Committee headed by ADGP/PAP on the basis of comparative achievements of HC (ASI/LR) Jagtar Singh and ASI Youngbir Singh selected ASI Youngbir Singh. Since ASI Youngbir Singh is also senior to HC (ASI/LR) Jagtar Singh therefore, there is no ground for interfering with the decision of the selection committee headed ADGP/PAP/Jalandhar.

5. The claim of HC Jagtar Singh to be promoted against Sports Quota as per with ASI Lalit Kumar was also examined. Both officials were promoted as Head Constable on the same date i.e. 1.6.2004. It appears to be a considered decision by the committee headed by ADGP/PAP to select officials from different disciplines. As already discussed in the foregoing para, the committee head by ADGP/PAP selected ASI Youngbir Singh over HC Jagtar Singh both of whom were horse riders and had participated in National level equestrian Championship/ Tournaments. ASI Lalit Kumar was selected on account of his achievement as a Gymnast. The plea ASI/HC Jagtar Singh No.1/IRB/2 is therefore not sustainable. Recommendation of the Committee:- On account of the above, the claim of HC Harjinder Singh and ASI (LR) Jagtar Singh for being deputed qua ASI Youngbir and ASI Lalit Kumar for the Intermediate School Civil Writ Petition No.18131 of 2010 4 Course against 5% sports quota is not made out.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has, essentially, argued that the petitioners being senior to respondents No.3 to 6 were required to be deputed to undergo Intermediate School Course in Punjab Police Academy. The petitioners, as also the private respondents, are from sports quota. Within sports quota, no distinction can be drawn. The Committee could not have considered sports achievements in different fields, such as, Equestrian, Gymnastics and Wrestling.

4. Despite specific query of the court, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to cite any judgment to the effect that within the sports quota, the respondents are required to strictly adhere to the inter-se seniority of the persons competing within that quota.

5. I have considered the reasons that form the basis for passing the order by the Committee. I find that no interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is called for. This Court is not required to substitute its own opinion in regard to a better Gymnast or a better Equestrian. It has not been shown that the orders have been passed beyond the scope of law or by an authority which did not have the jurisdiction.

6. The issue has been considered by a High-powered Committee. There has to be a terminus to every lis. It is for the departmental authorities to consider the parameters to be adopted, however, within the framework of the rules. Since no abrogation of statutory rules can be traced, no ground for interference in writ jurisdiction is made out. Civil Writ Petition No.18131 of 2010 5

7. In view of the above, no ground for judicial review of an administrative action is made out.

8. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. October 06, 2010 Kang ( AJAI LAMBA ) JUDGE

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?