Holding

Out‑of‑turn promotions not made under the Punjab Police Rules are ultra vires Section 2 of the Indian Police Act, and can only be regularized through the ORP scheme within the statutory quota, while gazetted officers are excluded.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined a batch of appeals challenging out‑of‑turn promotions granted to police personnel in Punjab and Haryana on the basis of bravery in anti‑terrorist operations or outstanding performance in sports. The promotions were effected by circulars and guidelines issued by the Director General of Police, but were not made under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which are framed under Section 2 of the Indian Police Act, 1861. The Court held that regular promotions can only be effected under Section 2 of the Act and the Rules, and any promotion outside that framework is ultra vires. While the DGP can use powers under Section 12 of the Act to confer special status, such ad‑hoc promotions cannot be treated as regular promotions. The Court accepted the State’s "Own Rank and Pay" (ORP) scheme to regularize promotions within the 10% quota of Rule 13.8(2) and to grant ORP status to those beyond the quota, but barred gazetted officers from the scheme. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed and the promotions were to be regularized under the ORP policy.

Issues considered

Whether out‑of‑turn promotions granted by the DGP on the basis of bravery or sports performance are permissible under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and the Indian Police Act, 1861.
Whether the DGP has authority under Section 12 of the Police Act to effect such promotions.
Whether the "Own Rank and Pay" scheme can validly regularize promotions that were ultra vires the Rules.
Whether gazetted officers can be included in the ORP scheme.

Legislation cited

Police Act, 1861s. 12, s. 2
Punjab Police Rules, 1934s. 1.13, s. 13.2A, s. 13.3(1), s. 13.8(2)

Subjects

out‑of‑turn promotionpolice service lawIndian Police ActPunjab Police RulesOwn Rank and Pay schemepromotion quotagazetted officersadministrative law

Judgment

j

S.I. PARAS KUMAR AND ORS. A
v.
S.l. RAM CHARAN AND ORS.

APRIL 12, 2004

[S. RAJENDRA BABU, RUMA PAL AND B.P. SINGH, JJ.] B

Service Law:

Indian Police Act, 1861-Sections 2 and 12:
c
Punjab Police Rules, 1934-Rules 13.2A, 13.8(2) and 13.3(1):

Promotion-Given out of turn-Based on courage and outstanding
performance in sports-Granted by Circulars and Guidelines issued by DGP-
Proposal of 'Own Rank and Pay' (ORP) Scheme by State to encourage and
reward good work-Held: Grant of such promotion :not permissible as the D
same is beyond the purview of the Rules-Hence ultra vires Section 2 of the
Act-Though it cannot be treated as regular promotion, but can be treated as
grant of higher rank in exercise of Section 12-Hence the promotions not
falling under the Rules, could be granted under ORP Scheme-However, the
Gazetted Police Officers cannot come under the Scheme as the power to E
promote such officers vests with local Government.

Promotion to non-existent post-Jn view of long service-Held: such
promotion "is not permissible unless the post is created-However, in view of
long service of the official, promotion is not disturbed-Government directed
to regularize the appointment. F
As per Circular and Guidelines issued by Director General of Police
of Punjab, out of turn promotion was given to the police personnel of the
rank of constables, inspectors and Deputy Superintendent of Police based
upon their courage displayed during anti terrorist operations or
outstanding performance in sports. It was mentioned in the Guideline that G
though there was nQ provision in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 for ad-
hoc promotion, it was necessary that they be given one rank promotion'
on ad-hoc basis. Aggrieved by the out of turn promotion respondents
herein filed Writ Petition in High Court. Some other police officials who
1207 H
1208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] 3 S. C.R.

A got out of turn promotion were ordered to be reverted to the original rank.
They filed other Writ Petitions before High Court. A Constable (Dog
Handler) was promoted as Head Constable (Dog Handler) after 18 years
of service. He was reverted by the authorities on the ground that his
promotion was out of turn. High Court disposing of the Writ Petitions
B directed the authorities to draw working seniority. It ordered that none
of the police officials would be reverted below the rank of Head Constable.
But, if they were found to be beyond 10% quota meant under Rule 13.8(2)
of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 they could be reverted even below the rank
of Head Constable. In ·case of reversion order of Constable (Dog Handler),
High Court held that his promotion was not out of turn as in his promotion
C no one senior to him was promoted. Hence the present appeals. According
to the order passed by this Court during hearing of the cases, the State,
in order to regularize its action, proposed the "Own Rank and Pay" Policy
(ORP).

Disposing of the appeals, the Court,
D
HELD: I. Promotions could be made only under Section 2 of Indian
Police Act, 1861 and no other procedure could be adopted for effecting
promotion. Since the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 are framed under Section
2 of the Police Act, the promotion could be made only by following the
procedure established under the relevant Rules. No promotions could be
E made by any procedure outside the scope of Section 2 of the Police Act.

Ram Sharan v. DIG of Police, Ajmer, AIR (1964) SC 1559 and State
of Rajasthan v. Ram Sharan, AIR (1964) SC 1361, referred to. (1220-A-Bl

2. In the instant case since the impugned promotions are not made
F under Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and as a result, those promotions are ultra
vi res Section 2 of the Police Act. Here, the powers exercised by the DGP
could only be traced from Section 12 of the Police Act. Powers under
Section 2 extend to administrative or organizational matters and the
authority for promotion is not vested with the DGP. As per the scheme
G of the Police Act only the State Government is empowered to determine
promotional aspects. Therefore, the impugned promotion made by the
DGP cannot be treated as regular promotion under Chapter 13 of the
Punjab Police. The adhoc promotion carried out in the instant case is only
ornamental in nature. (1220-B-DI

H 3. Though the regular promotion could not be made by the DGP,
S.I. P. KUMAR v. S.l.R. CHARAN 1209
he can definitely forge some methods under Section 12 of the Police Act A
so as to encourage efficient officers who did yeomen service in anti-
terrorist front or who earned laurels to the department. The impugned
adhoc promotion could be treated as one such method to improve the
efficiency of the Police force by according special status for meritorious
officers. Similarly under the Punjab Police Rules, Rule 13A, a subordinate B
(enrolled) police officer could be given next higher rank as local rank, in
the interest of better functioning of the force. Such granting of a next
higher rank is only an exercise of Section 12 powers of the Police Act by
the IG/DGP so as to improve the efficiency of the force or for
administrative convenience. At the same time, it cannot be treated as
regular promotion under Chapter 13 of the Punjab Police Rules. C
(1220-D-F]

4. In the special circumstances of this case, though the impugned
promotions are not promotions under the Rules, the State came up with
a proposal of 'Own Rank and Pay' (ORP) scheme so as to deal with the
out of turn!adhoc promotees. Therefore, those officials who are promoted D
within the 10% limit of Rule 13.8(2) could be given regular promotion
and those who are beyond the 10% limit of Rule 13.8(2) could be given
ORP promotion which is designed to encourage and reward the good work
of meritorious officers without excessively burdening the exchequer.
(1221-H; 1222-B] E
Risha/ Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., JT (1994) 2 SC 157 and
Jagbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., JT (1996) 4 SC 332, referred to.
5. 'Out of turn' or adhoc promotion is to errcourage the subordinate
police officers and shall be given only to subordinate police officers and
shall be given only to 'enrolled police officers' as under Rule 1.13 of the F
Punjab Police Rules i.e., up to the rank of Inspectors. As per Rule 13.3
(1) the power to make promotions among gazetted officers and from non-
gazetted to gazetted rank vests in the local government with the
concurrence of the Governor. Therefore, the 'gazetted police officers' i.e.
Deputy Superintendents and above cannot come under the ORP scheme G
which is essentially an exercise of powers under Section 12 of the Police
J Act. In order to avoid similar controversies in the future, it will be
appropriate for the State government to formulate appropriate rules/
policies so as to streamline the promotion for appreciation. (1222-B-D(

6. There is no provision in the relevant Rules for promotion of H
1210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.CR.

A Constable (Dog Handler) to the post of Head Constable. In view of the
fact that the Respondent had put in long service, the department felt he
should be promoted to the post of Head Constable even in the absence of
Rules enabling the same. In the normal course when he could not have
been promoted to a post which did not exist, the proper course for the
B Government would have been to create a post of Head Constable (Dog
Handler), if necessary, with retrospective effect from the date he was
promoted either by amending the relevant Rules or in exercise of its
executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution. Unless such
exercise is taken he could not be appointed to the post of Head Constable
(Dog Handler). Hence High Court ought to have upheld the order of
C reversion. Since he has been in promoted cadre since the year 1994 and
the High Court has quashed the order of rever~ion of the appellant, that
state of affairs should not be disturbed but the Government is directed to
regularize the appointment. 11222-G; 1223-CJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2273 of2004.
D
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.5.98 of the Punjab and Haryana
High Court in C.W.P. No. 403 of 1997.

WITH
E C.A. Nos. 2274, 2276-2301/2004.

Kapil Sibal, P.P. Rao, Tapas Ray, V.A. Mohta, H.S. Phoolka, Raj Kumar
Gupta, Sheo Kr. Gupta, A.N. Bardiyar, S.C. Paul, Kanwaljeet Kochhar, Sona)
Mahajan, Brij Bhushan, Hariom Yaduvanshi, Ms. Monika Gusain, Suman
Bala Rastogi, Randhir Singh Jain, Dr. Krishan Singh Chauhan, Raj Singh
F Rana, Varinder Kumar Sharma, S. Srinivasan, Neeraj Kumar Jain, J.P. Dhanda,
Rao Ranjit, Rajeev Sharma, R.S. Suri, Anil Kshetrapal, G.G. Singh, Debasis
Misra and K.K. Gupta for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\-
G RAJENDRA BABU, J. Leave granted. '
The legal validity of 'out of turn promotion' given to some Police
Officials based upon their courage displayed during anti-terrorist operations
or outstanding performance in Sports' is the foremost matter for judgment in
H this batch of cases.
S.I. P. KUMAR v. S.l.R. CHARAN [RAJENDRA BABU, J.] 1211

Promotions based on courage displayed in Anti Terrorist Operations: A
I. SLP (C) No 17591 OF 1998. - [Arising from final judgment in CWP
No. 403/ 97 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court]

Chander Pal and Ors. v. Ram Charan and Ors.
B
All together 14 Petitioners are in this case. All of them were appointed
as Constables during the period 1976-'89. They were promoted as Head
Constables on the ground of showing bravery in anti-terrorist front or on the
ground of outstanding performance in Sports. Show Cause notices were issued
to them· and they were reverted to the original rank. Their writ petitions were
disposed of by the High Court vide common order in 403/97. Challenging C
this order the present SLP is filed.

2. SLP (C) No. 19246 of 1998. [Arising final judgment in CWP No.
403 of 1997 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court]

· Narinder Singh and Ors. v. Ram Charan D

Appellants got out-of-tum promotion on the basis of bravery shown in
Anti-Terrorist Front. The original WP was disposed of along with 403/97.
Challenging this the instant SLP.

3. SLP(C) No. 15944 of 1998 - [Arising final judgment in CWP No. E
403 of 1997 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court]

Sadhu Ram and Ors. v. Ram Charan and Ors.

All together 16 Petitioners are in this case. All of them got one rank
'out of turn' promotion based on their bravery and exemplary courage during F
activities on Anti-Terrorist front. Subsequently the Respondents herein filed
writ petition before the High Court challenging the out of turn promotion
given to these Petitioners. High Court allows the Writ petition. Aggrieved by
the impugned judgment, the present SLP.

4. SLP (C) No. 2083 of 1999 [against final judgment dated 19/5/98] G
Rameshwar Singh v. State of Haryana

Petitioner was originally appointed as a constable and was promoted as
Head Constable. Later was promoted as ASI on the basis of his bravery. H
1212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] 3 S.C.R.

A Subsequently reversion order was passed and he was reverted to the rank of
Constable. This reversion order was challenged. High Court disposed of the
writ vide common order in 403/97. Chalienging this the instant SLP was
filed.

5. SLP (C) No. 18492 of 2001. [Against final order dated 317'8/2002
B passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in
LPA No. 1957 of 2001).

Prem Das and Ors. v. Bachan Singh Randhwa and Ors.

All the petitioners in this case were given out of tum promotion on the
C basis of their meritorious service in Anti-terrorist front as Inspectors on ORP
basis. They were not parties to Writ-Petition/Appeals. In accordance with the
impugned order passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Government
is taking steps to revert the appellants. To prevent the furtherance of such an
action, they approached the High Court. Both the petition and subsequent
D LPA were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present SLP.

6. SLP (C) No. 14283 of 1998. - [arising from final judgment dated 19/
05/1998 in CWP No. 403/1997 of Punjab and Haryana High Court).

SI Ramesh Chander and Ors. v. SI Ram Charan and Ors.
E Appellants 1 to 6 were given out of tum promotion on the basis of their
courageous act in Anti-Terrorist Front. After the final judgment of the Punjab
and Haryana High court in CWP No. 403/1997 they were reverted to lower
ranks even without hearing. Present SLP challenges the said reversion orders.

p 7. SLP (C) No. 16514 of 1998. (Arising. from judgment dated 19/05/
98 in CWP No. 13023/1997).

Jahangir Singh v. State of Haryana

Appellant appointed as Constable. Later promoted as HC and then as
G AS!, his promotion was based on the activities in anti-terrorist front. Show
Cause notice for reversion was served. Later an order of reversion was passed.
Aggrieved by the decision he approached the High Court. High Court did not
allow his prayer. Hence the present SLP.

8. SLP (C) No. 16102 of 1998. [Arising from final judgment in CWP
H No. 12536 of 1997].
S.I. P. KUMAR v. S.l.R. CHARAN [RAJENDRA BABU, J.J 1213
Zile Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana A
All the three petitioners were originally appointed as Constables during
the period 1971-81. Later they were promoted as Head Constables and as
AS!s. It was out of turn promotion based on the ground of bravery, which
they have shown in anti-terrorist front. Later reversion order was passed
whereby they were reverted to the substantive rank of Constables. They B
approached the High Court. High Court disposed of the matter saying that if
they were outside the quota of I 0%, then they might be demoted below the
rank of Head Constable. Aggrieved by this the present SLP.

9. SLP (C) No. 2082 of 1999 [arising from common order in CWP C
403/97].

Chander Bhan and Ors. v. Ram Charan and Ors.

Petitioners got out of turn promotion on the basis of their performances
in Sports or on the ground of bravery displayed in Anti-ierrori.>t operations. D
Later reverted after issuing show cause notices. Their Writ to the High Court
was disposed of by common order in 403/97. Aggrieved by this the present
SLP.

Promotions based on performance in various Sports and Games:

I. SLP (C) No. 20840 of 1998. - [Arising final judgment in CWP No. E
403 of 1997 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court]

Naresh Kumar and Anr v. Ram Charan and Ors.

Petitioner No. I is promoted as Sub-Inspector of Police on the basis of
displaying courage in anti-terrorist operations and Petitioner No. 2 is promoted F
as Head Constable on the basis of perforniance in Sports. Later a Show
Cause notice is issued which is followed by reversion order. Challenging this
the present SLP.

2. SLP (C) No. 15943of1998 - [Arising from final judgment in CWP G
No. 403/1997 of Punjab and Haryana High Court].

Ashok Kumar and Ors v. SI Ram Charan and Ors.

18 Petitioners. All of them were originally appointed as Constables
during the period 1976-'89. Later all of them were promoted to the post of H
1214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A Head Constable on the basis of their performance in various Sports items.
Subsequently the Respondents herein filed writ petition before the High Court
challenging the out of turn promotion given to these Petitioners. High Court
allows the Writ petition. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the present
SLP.

B 3. SLP (C) 7817-18 of 1999. - [Arising from CWP 15548 & 15550/
1997 of Punjab and Haryana HC].

Anoop Singh and Anr. v. DGP of Haryana.

The appellants originally were appointed as Constables. Later were
C promoted to Head-Constables and subsequently as ASJs. Promotion was based
on their performance in Sports. Later they were reverted to the original rank
after serving show-cause notices. The case of appellants was disposed of
along with other cases on 19/5/98 vide the final judgment in CWP No. 403/
1997 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court.
D 4. SLP(C) No 2080/99 of 1999. - [arising from judgment dated 19/5/
98 by Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 12536 of 1997 which
was disposed along with 403/97).

Baljith Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors.
E Appellant got promotion to the rank of Head Constable on the basis or
his performance in Sports. Later he was served with a show-cause notice and
was subsequently reverted to the rank of Constable. He challenges the reversion
order before the High Court. It was disposed by common order in 403/97.
Aggrieved by the same, the present SLP.
F
5. SLP (C) No. 17648/99. - [Arising from final order dated 19/12/97
of Punjab and Haryana High Court in review application No. 292197 in CWP
No. 8672/97).

Shri Harpal Singh v. State of Haryana.
G
Petitioner was originally appointed as Constable. On the basis of his
performance in Sports he was promoted as Head Constable and later as ASL
Order of reversion was served on him. He challenges the reversion order
before the High Court. His case along with other cases was disposed of vide
common order in 403/97. Review petition was also dismissed. Hence SLP.
H
S.I. P. KUMAR v. S.I.R. CHARAN [RA.IENDRA BABU . .1.] 1215

6. SLP (C) No. 15542of1998. - [arising from final judgment dated 25/ A
0511998 in CWP No 13006/97 of Punjab and Haryana High Court].

Shamser Singh v._ State of Haryana.

Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Haryana. Later promoted as
Head Constable. On the basis of his distinguished contribution in the field of B
Sports, he was promoted to the post of ASL Later he was demoted as a Head
Constable. Challenges this decision before the High Court. Dissatisfied by
the High Court decision he filed the instant SLP.

7. SLP (C) No 14694-95 of 1998. - [arising from judgment dated 22/
10/97 passed by Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP C
Nos. 12827 of 1997 and 12829 of 1997]

HC Krishan Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana.

Appellants were promoted as Head Constables in the Haryana on the
basis of their distinguished achievements in Sports I Games. They were issued D
' with Show-Cause notice ofreversion. Reversion orders were passed. Appellants
filed CWP Nos. 12827of1997 and 12829of1997 before Punjab and Haryana
High Court. High Court quashed the reversion Order with the finding that the
Show Cause notice issued to the appellants does not properly comply with
the natural justice requirement. At the same time High Court granted liberty E
to Respondents therein to issue fresh show-cause notices and to revert this
Appellants. Aggrieved by this conclusion, the present SLP.

8. SLP (C) No. 14313 of 1998. - [from judgment dated 19/05/1998 by
Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 12536of1997-this was Jisposed
along with CWP No. 403/97]. F
~-

Ku/deep Singh and Ors v. State of Haryana.

Six Petitioners. They got 'out of tum promotion' on the basis of their
distinguished achievements in the field of sports. Were promoted to Head
Constable rank. Show Cause notices were issued and subsequently reverted G
to the rank of Head constable. Petitioners writ before the High Court was
disposed with the common order in 403/1997. Aggrieved by the same the
instant SLP.

9. SLP (C) No. 19245of1998 - [Arising from the judgment dated 22/
10/97 of P&H High Court in CWP No 13014/97] H
,.___
I

1216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] J S.C.R.

A Salinder Singh v. State of Haryana.

Petitioner was originally appointed as Constable on the basis of his
performance in Sports he was promoted to the next higher rank. Later he was
served with Show Cause notice for reversion. Reversion order was passed.
He challenges this decision in a Writ petition before the High Court. Though
B High Court quashed the reversion for want of natural justice requirement,
permitted the State to revisit the decision by issuing fresh show cause notice.
Challenging this the present SLP.

10. SLP (C) No. 20839 of 1998. • [Arising from judgment dated 22/ '
C 10/97 of P&H High Court in CWP No. 12703 of 1997].

Sohan Singh v. State of Haryana •

Petitioner was appointed as Constable. Later promoted as Head Constable
based on his performance in the field of Sports. Subsequently he was served
with a show cause notice and was reverted later to the post of Constable. His
D writ before the High Court was disposed of without allowing his prayer.
Challenging this the present SLP.
-~

11. SLP (C) No. 15945-46 of 1998. - [Arising from final Judgment
dated 23.09.97 of Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 8620/97 and
E 8632 of 1997 which was disposed along with CWP No. 10129/1997]

Ashok Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

There are 14 Petitioners. On the basis of their distinguished contribution
in the field of Sports, all of them were promoted to the post of Head Constable.
F State later served them with Show Cause notices alleging that the promotions
were not covered either by any rules or instructions by DGP and were
subsequently reversed. This was challenged before the High Court. High
Court allowed the petition for the reason but left it open to the State to
initiate fresh proceedings as per law for reverting the Petitioners herein. SLP
filed.
G
Promotions to superior ranks:

I. SLP (C) No 18493-94/2001. • [Arising from final judgment dated
31/8/2001 passed by Punjab and Haryana HC in LPA No. 1957/2001].

H Narinder Pal Singh and Ors v. Bachan Singh Randhawa and Ors.
S.I. P. KUMAR v. S.I.R. CHARAN [RAJENDRA BABU . .I.] J217

Petitioners are SPs and DySPs. They got 'out of tum promotion' on A
ORP basis to the respective present ranks on the basis of their extra ordinary
bravery and courageous acts on Anti-Terrorist front. The respondent. filed
CWP No. 1386/96 before Punjab and Haryana High Court. The learned Single
Judge disposed of the writ saying "creation and granting of ORP ranks are
not in conformity with the rules applicable to Punjab Police Force." Appeal
was preferred before Division Bench (Nos 1957/ 2001 and 1959/2001). The B
same was also dismissed. Aggrieved by this the present SLP.

2. SLP(C) No. 18497 of 2001. - [Arising from final judgment dated 31/
8/2001 passed by Punjab and Haryana HC in LPA No. 1957/2001).

Naginder Singh Rana and Ors. v. Bachan Singh Randhwa and Ors. c
All the Petitioners are appointed as DySPs on ORP basis. Respondent
in this case filed petition before the High Court, challenging the promotion
on ORP basis. Learned single Judge and subsequently the Division Bench
were of the opinion that the ORP promotion is beyond J:he scope of the D
relevant rules. Aggrieved by this the present. SLP.
" Background of the present proceeding is as follows:

The Police forces in Punjab, Haryana and in some other States are
covered by the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. On 11/11/1982 the Director General E
of Police (DGP) of Haryana issued a circular saying that Police Personnel
selected to National Team is entitled to special consideration for promotion.
On 09/09/1993 the DGP of Punjab issued guidelines and criteria for giving
one rank promotion to Police Personnel who shows exemplary courage ?.nd
bravery on Anti-terrorist operations. It is also mentioned in the said guideline
that though there is no provision in the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (Police F
Rules) for adhoc promotion, it is necessary that they may be given one rank
promotion on adhoc basis. Based on these Circulars or guidelines some police
officials were given 'out of tum promotion'. But, it is alleged, such promotions
were also given to many other police officials even without citing any reasons.

Several cases were filed before Punjab and Haryana High Ccurt G
challenging the very scheme of 'out of tum promotion.' Before the High
Court, the Respondents herein challenged the 'out of turn promotion' given
to the Appellants herein and some others. They also prayed to restrain the
State from making any promotion that is contrary to the criteria as provided
under Rule 13( 1) of the Police Rules and to fill up the consequent vacancies H
1218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004 j 3 S.C.R.

A according to the procedure prescribed under Rule 13 of the said Rules.
Whereas, the Appellants stated that they got 'out of turn promotion' either on
the basis of bravery that they have shown in Anti-terrorist operation or on
their outstanding performance in Sports. By a common order dated 19/5/98
the High Court disposed of all the cases.

B Relevant portion of the judgment dated 19/5/98 in CWP No. 403/1997
is extracted hereunder:

"It will be in the fitness of things if a working seniority is drawn by
the Respondents of all the Head Constables (Both list C-1 and list C-
11 combine) and then see if any Head Constables juniors to the Writ
c Petitioners is still working as Assistant Sub-Inspectors. If that is so
any person who is senior to such an AS! will not be reverted till such
an ASI is allowed to retain the rank. Learned counsel for the
Respondents further state that the Petitioners whosoever is within the
10% quota of the List C-11 would be deputed to the Intermediate
D School Course in their turn.

The reversion orders in these writ petitions are quashed to the extent
that for the time being none of the pr.titioners would be reverted
below the rank of Head Constable. However, if the petitioners are
found to be beyond 10% quota meant under rule 13.8(2) of the Rules
E they may be reverted even below the rank of Head Constable. If after
making a working seniority of Head Constables (as observed above)
it is found that any Head Constable who is junior to the petitioners
as a Head Constable is still working as an ASI, though even on adhoc
basis, then qua such senior Head Constable the reversion order from
the post of ASI would be deemed to have been quashed, meaning
F thereby as if the reversion order was never passed and such a person
would be allowed to continue as AS! even on officiating basis till his
junior is allowed to continue as ASL"

This decision is impugned before us.

G It is the definite case of these appellants; that their case was not discussed
·-
by the High Court while disposing of the Writ; that their case stands different
since they got promotion on the basis of bravery and showing. exemplary
courage on Anti-terrorist activities or on the basis of their outstanding
performance in Games/Sports; that such promotion altogether stands on a
H different pedestal while comparing with the regular promotions since they
I
_,Jr

S.I. P. KUMAR v. S.l.R. CHARAN [RA.IENDRA BABU . .I.] 1219
got it as a recognition/ reward of their superior work; that in the above dated A
Guideline issued by DGP dated 9/9/1993 it has specifically directed that
promotions made for showing bravery and exemplary courage by Police
"' Officials in dealing with Terrorist activities will be in addition to Police
Rules; that the Writ ought not have been admitted by the High Court due to
the inordinate delay on the part of the Respondents in approaching the High B
Court; that as per the dictum in P.S Sadasivaswamy v. State of Tamilnadu,
(1975] 2 SCR 356: [1975] I SCC 152, a person who is aggrieved by the
promotion of a junior would have to challenge such piOmotion order within
> six months or within a maximum of one year; that therefore it is submitted
that the decision of High Court is liable to be reversed.

Some other Police Officials who got 'out of tum promotion' were
c
ordered to be reverted to the original rank. They filed the other Writ Petitions
before the High Court challenging the respective reversion orders. Dissatisfied
by the decision, the Petitioners in those cases also preferred to appeal before
this Court. The validity of 'out of tum promotion' given to some officials to
higher ranks such as DSP/SP are to be decided in other connected matters. D
All these cases were clubbed together in the instant appeal.

Consequently, the question for consideration is - Whether out of tum
Promotion based upon 'courage on anti-terrorist front or outstanding
performance in Sports' by the Director General of Police is permissible under
format of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934? E
Punjab Police Rules were framed under section 2 of the Indian Police
Act, 1861 (Police Act). The voluminous Punjab Police Rules cover all aspects
of Police administration. It has withstood the test of time and underwent
many amendments and modificatio:1s. Yet, the basic structure of the Rules F
has not changed. It is worthwhile to mention that the Punjab Police Rules is
still in force in six States in India and even in some provinces in Pakistan.
First of all it has to be clarified that the pay and other conditions of service
of police has to be decided by the State Government under section 2 of the
Police Act. (See generally Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Ram
Sharan v. DIG of Police, Ajmer, AIR (1964) SC 1559 and also State of G
Rajasthan v. Ram Sharan, AIR (1964) SC 1361). The right to be considered
for promotion and procedure to be followed for effecting promotion is a
condition of service. Promotions could be made only under section 2 of the
Police Act and no other procedure could be adopted for effecting promotion.
Since the Punjab Police Rules are framed under section 2 of the Police Act, H
1220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A the promotion could be made only by following the procedure established
under the relevant Rules. No promotions could be made by any procedure
outside the scope of section 2 of the Police Act. Therefore the exercise is to
see whether the impugned promotions are made following the Punjab Police
Rules, which are framed under section 2 of the Police Act.

B Admittedly, even in the Memorandum jssued by the DGP wherein the
impugned adhoc promotion was detailed, it was clarified that the same were
not based on the provisions of the Punjab Police Rules. In the instant case
since the impugned promotions are not made under the Punjab Police Rules
and as a result, those promotions are ultra vires to section 2 of the Police Act.
C Here, the powers exercised by the DGP could only be traced from section 12
of the Police Act. Powers under section 12 extend to administrative or
organizational matters and the authority for promotion is not vested with the
DGP. As per the scheme of the Police Act only the State Government is
empowered to determine promotional aspects. Therefore, the impugned
promotion made by the DGP cannot be treated as regular promotion under
D Chapter 13 of the Punjab Police Rules. The adhoc promotion carried out in
the instant case .is only ornamental in nature.

Though the regular promotion could not be made by the DGP, he can
definitely forge some methods under section 12 of the Police Act so as to
encourage efficient officers who did yeomen service in anti-terrorist front or
E who earned laurels to the department. The impugned adhoc promotion could
be treated as one such method to improve the efficiency of the police force
by according special status for meritorious officers. Similarly under the Punjab
Police Rules, Rule 13.2A, a subordinate (enrolled) police officer could be
given next higher rank as local ·rank, In the interest of better functioning of
p the force. Such granting of a next higher rank is only an exercise of section
12 powers of the Police Act by the IG/DGP so as to improve the efficiency
of the force or for administrative convenience. At the same time, it cannot be
treated as regular promotion under Chapter 13 of the Punjab Police Rules.

Anyhow, in accordance with the earlier-mentioned Circular/Guidelines
G issued by Director General of Police in the States of Haryana and Punjab,
some officials were given out of turn promotion on adhoc basis. On December
6, 2000 while hearing these matters this Court made the following Order:

"After having heard the counsel for the parties for some time, it was
suggested that it would be appropriate for the Government to explore
H the feasibility of regularizing its action in having promoted out of turn
SI. P KUMAR v. S.l.R. CHARAN [RA.IENDRA BABU, J.) 1221
some of the petitioners before us for their exemplary action in showing A
brave and courageous acts on anti terrorist front."

Pursuant to this order, after due deliberations the State proposed the
"Own Rank and Pay" policy (ORP). The relevant portion of the affidavit
submitted on behalf of the State before this Court wherein the ORP policy
is explained as hereunder: B
"After examining the pros and cons of the matter, it has now been
decided that Constables promoted within the prescribed quota of l 0%
under P.P.R 13.8, may be granted regular promotion as per decision
of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP No. 14844
of 1997 titled Lachhrnan Singh v. State of Haryana. Those Head C
Constables who have been promoted on adhoc basis and are in excess
on 10% quota prescribed under rule 13.8 of PPR and ASls, Sis and
Inspectors who have been granted adhoclout of tum promotion shall
continue to wear badges of their present rank against their substantive
rank and pay. This will be known as promotion in their 'Own Rank D
and Pay'. A person who has been promoted in his own rank and pay
for all intents and purposes shall be treated as an official in his
substantive rank and will not consume or exhaust any substantive
post of higher ranks in the regular channel of promotion ..... However,
in order to avoid financial hardship in respect of the officials falling
in category (a) above, the pay of such officials will be fixed in the E
substantive rank and the difference of the existing pay as on 1-12-99
and their substantive pay will be adjusted as their personal pay ....
They would get their regular promotions as HCs, AS!s, Sis and
Inspectors as per their tum and s~J)iority subject to passing promotional
courses on their own ....."
F
This Court had occasion to look into the validity of promotion to a Police
Officer in accordance with Rule 13.8(2) in Risha! Singh v. State of Haryana
and Ors., JT (1994) 2 SC 157. Here it was held that a promotion within the
10% quota as provided in Rule 13.8(2) could only be treated as a regular one
and not as an adhoc/temporary promotion. It is also held that the language G
in which the ·appointment order is couched is irrelevant and such a promotion
could never be an adhoc/temporary one. This view was again followed in
Jugbir Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors., JT (1996) 4 SC 332. In the
special circumstances of this case, though the impugned promotions are not
promotions under the Rules, the State came up with a proposal of the ORP
scheme so as to deal with the out of turn/adhoc promotees. Therefore, we are H
1222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 3 S.C.R.

A of the opinion that those officials who are promoted within the I0% limit of
Rule 13.8(2) could be given regular promotion and those who are beyond the
!0% limit of Rule 13.8(2) could be given ORP promotion which is designed
to encourage and reward the good work of meritorious officers without
excessively burdening the exchequer.

B Before parting with the case it has to be clarified that 'Out of turn' or adhoc
promotion is to encourage the subordinate police officers and shall be given
only to 'enrolled police officers' as under Rule 1.13 of the Punjab Police
Rules i.e., up to the rank of Inspectors. As per Rule 13.3(1) the power to
make promotions among gazetted officers and from non-gazetted to gazetted
C rank vests in the local government with the concurrence of the Governor.
Therefore, the 'gazetted police officers' i.e., Deputy Superintendents and
above cannot come under the ORP scheme which is essentially an exercise
of powers under Section 12 of the Police Act. In order to avoid similar
controversies in the future, it will be appropriate for the State government to
formulate appropriate rules/policies so as to streamline the promotion for
D appreciation.
The appeals shall stand disposed of accordingly. •
SLP (C) No. 16829 of 1998. - [Arising from judgment dated 3. 12.97
passed by Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP 8460/97]
E
State of Haryana v. Dayal Chand

Respondent served in Indian Army between 1970 and 1975. On
September 30, 1976 he was recruited as a Constable (Dog Handler) in the
dogs squad. After 18 years he was promoted as Head Constable (Dog
F Handler). Authorities served a reversion order to him saying that he was
promoted 'out of turn'. High Court noted that the Department ignored no
person senior to him while this respondent was promoted, and quashed the
reversion. State has filed the present appeal by special leave.

There is no provision in the relevant Rules for promotion of Constable
G (Dog Handler) to the post of Head Constable. In view of the fact that the
Respondent had put in long service, the department felt he should be promoted
to the post of Head Constable even in the absence of Rules enabling the
same. In the normal course when he could not have been promoted to a post -
which did not exist, the proper course for the Government would have been
H to create a post of Head Constable (Dog Handler), if necessary, with
S.I. P. KUMAR v. S.l.R. CHARAN [RAJENDRA BABU, .I.] 1223
retrospective effect from the date he was promoted either by amending the A
relevant Rules or in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the
Constitution. Unless such exercise is taken he could not be appointed to the
post of Head Constable (Dog Handler). Hence High Court ought to have
upheld the order of reversion.

Now that he has been in promoted cadre since the year 1994 and the B
High Court has quashed the order of reversion of the appellant, we do not
think we should disturb that state of affairs but direct the Government to
regularize the appointment made as indicated by us in the course of this
order.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly. c
K.K.T. , Appeals qisposed of.