CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 1996 › Dhirender Singh v. State of Haryana

Dhirender Singh v. State of Haryana

Supreme Court of India · 9 December 1996 · [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 693

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
9 December 1996
Case no.
C.A. No. 16846 of 1996
Reported as
[1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 693
Result
Dismissed
Bench
K. Ramaswamy, G.T. Nanavati
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

PETITIONER:
DHIRENDER SINGH ETC.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/12/1996
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI

ACT

HEADNOTE

JUDGMENT

with

Civil Appeal No. 16847..../96

(Arising out of SLP (c) No.19421/96)

ORDER

Leave granted.

In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the Superintendent of Police had promoted the appellant in the sports quota in view of the outstanding performance in sports, namely, wrestling, on January 16, 1990 on ad hoc basis against an upgraded vacancy. It is also stated that it was clearly mentioned in the order of appointment that the appellant could be reverted at any time without any notice and that he would have no right to seniority in the post. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Rishal Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors. [JT 1994 (2) SCC 157]. Therein promotion was given by the D.I.G. to the appellant due to his outstanding merit in sports relying upon Rule 13.8 (2) of Punjab Police Rule, 4734. This Court had held that since the D.I.G. was competent authority to make appointment by promotion and having considered the appellant therein as an outstanding sportsperson had promoted him; it was done in terms of Rule 13.8 (2) of the Rules giving power to grant any temporary promotion; the promotion, therefore, though termed to be a temporary promotion, was in effect a regular promotion. Under those circumstances, it was held that his reversion as Constable was bad in law. Admittedly, in this case, the Superintendent of Police has promoted him and no approval of DIG was obtained. Under those circumstances, the ratio therein has no application to the facts. We do not find any ground warranting interference with the order passed by the High Court.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No cost. If the appellant is otherwise eligible, this order of dismissal does not stand in his way for consideration of his case according to rules.

C.A. 16847/96 .@ SLP (C) 19421/96:

Leave granted. Following the above order this appeal is also dismissed. No costs.

Ask CaseMinister about Dhirender Singh v. State of Haryana

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp