ALLAHABAD: The Allahabad high court on Monday declared as illegal all "out of turn promotions" made in the police department to the post of inspectors, sub-inspectors and head constables since 2008.
Dismissing a writ petition filed by Prem Kumar Upadhya and others who were recommended for out of turn promotions but were not promoted, Justice Sudhir Agarwal said that there was no provision in the UP (Civil Police) Constables and Head Constables Service Rules, 2008, and Sub-inspector and Inspector Service Rules to make out of turn promotion and therefore any promotion made was against the provisions of law.
The court, therefore, issued directions to the principal secretary home and the DGP to constitute a committee to find out whether any 'out of turn' promotion has been allowed after enforcement of UP (Civil Police) Constables and Head Constables Service Rules, 2008, and Sub-Inspector and Inspector Service Rules.
The court directed that "if such appointments have been made, though it is impermissible in law, in view of the discussion, appropriate corrective measures shall immediately be taken by recalling such order after giving due opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned in accordance with law".
The court further directed that this exercise shall be completed within six months so that no person may continue to retain an illegal benefit, affecting discipline, rank and file in a force, like, Uttar Pradesh Police Service, which otherwise would have a negative impact on the disciplined and orderly behavior of police officers of subordinate ranks.
Though the petitioners were recommended for out of turn promotions, they were not promoted and hence filed the present writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that "the claim of the petitioners is squarely covered by policy of "out of turn" promotion but police authorities concerned have denied the same arbitrarily and illegally. An illegal benefit conferring higher status and rank to some while denying to others, would disturb the entire edifice which is foundation of strict discipline, based on seniority, rank, status. It is of utmost importance in a disciplined uniform police".
Dismissing the writ petitions, the court observed, "Time and again, in a most discriminatory and selective manner, such 'out of turn' promotions have been allowed to a large number of police officials. It is well settled that if a wrong has been committed by the respondents in respect to some other persons that will not provide a cause of action to claim parity on the ground of equal treatment since the equality in law under Article 14 is applicable for claiming parity in respect to legal and authorized acts. Two wrongs will not make one right".
The court further said, "Moreover, if respondents have done something wrong or illegal, the principle of equality is not attracted to claim a negative parity, i.e., parity in the matter of illegality. One cannot claim that since in respect to other persons, an illegality has been committed, therefore, it should be repeated in his case also.
Article 14 (right to equality) as provided in the Constitution of India does not contemplate an equality of opportunity in the matter of illegality. One cannot have a legal right compelling an authority to do something wrong in his case also which such authority has done in respect to one or more others. Moreover, this Court has no justification to compel an authority to do something, which is patently illegal by taking recourse to Article 14 (right to equality) provided Constitution of India. Such assumption on the part of petitioners for claiming parity is clearly misconceived and erroneous."
Dismissing a writ petition filed by Prem Kumar Upadhya and others who were recommended for out of turn promotions but were not promoted, Justice Sudhir Agarwal said that there was no provision in the UP (Civil Police) Constables and Head Constables Service Rules, 2008, and Sub-inspector and Inspector Service Rules to make out of turn promotion and therefore any promotion made was against the provisions of law.
The court, therefore, issued directions to the principal secretary home and the DGP to constitute a committee to find out whether any 'out of turn' promotion has been allowed after enforcement of UP (Civil Police) Constables and Head Constables Service Rules, 2008, and Sub-Inspector and Inspector Service Rules.
The court directed that "if such appointments have been made, though it is impermissible in law, in view of the discussion, appropriate corrective measures shall immediately be taken by recalling such order after giving due opportunity of hearing to all parties concerned in accordance with law".
The court further directed that this exercise shall be completed within six months so that no person may continue to retain an illegal benefit, affecting discipline, rank and file in a force, like, Uttar Pradesh Police Service, which otherwise would have a negative impact on the disciplined and orderly behavior of police officers of subordinate ranks.
Though the petitioners were recommended for out of turn promotions, they were not promoted and hence filed the present writ petition.
Counsel for the petitioners contended that "the claim of the petitioners is squarely covered by policy of "out of turn" promotion but police authorities concerned have denied the same arbitrarily and illegally. An illegal benefit conferring higher status and rank to some while denying to others, would disturb the entire edifice which is foundation of strict discipline, based on seniority, rank, status. It is of utmost importance in a disciplined uniform police".
Dismissing the writ petitions, the court observed, "Time and again, in a most discriminatory and selective manner, such 'out of turn' promotions have been allowed to a large number of police officials. It is well settled that if a wrong has been committed by the respondents in respect to some other persons that will not provide a cause of action to claim parity on the ground of equal treatment since the equality in law under Article 14 is applicable for claiming parity in respect to legal and authorized acts. Two wrongs will not make one right".
The court further said, "Moreover, if respondents have done something wrong or illegal, the principle of equality is not attracted to claim a negative parity, i.e., parity in the matter of illegality. One cannot claim that since in respect to other persons, an illegality has been committed, therefore, it should be repeated in his case also.
Article 14 (right to equality) as provided in the Constitution of India does not contemplate an equality of opportunity in the matter of illegality. One cannot have a legal right compelling an authority to do something wrong in his case also which such authority has done in respect to one or more others. Moreover, this Court has no justification to compel an authority to do something, which is patently illegal by taking recourse to Article 14 (right to equality) provided Constitution of India. Such assumption on the part of petitioners for claiming parity is clearly misconceived and erroneous."
No comments:
Post a Comment