Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
LUXMI DEVI
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 31/03/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
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.