Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

KARNAIL SINGH versus THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANR.

Decided
6 September 1994
Judges listed
K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Appeal(s) allowed

Citations

Official
[1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 196 · 1994 INSC 363

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Both the appeals are disposed of by a common judgment since same point is involved for adjudication. These appeals by Special Leave arise from the order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Writ Petition No. 2636/86 dated August 13, 1986 and Civil Writ Petition No. 2719/86 of the Judgment. Admittedly the appellants were holding substantive posts as head-constables. They were sent to undergo intermediate course of training in the year 1976 and they were put in the 'G' List and they were temporary promoted as officiating Sub-Inspectors on May 1, 1981. Thereafter on April 1, 1994 they were selected for undergoing training of upper school course at police training college, Phillaue in Distt. Jullundur. After completion of the training instead of promoting them as inspectors in the meantime they were reverted as head-constables. They filed writ petitions as stated earlier and the High Court dismissed the writ petitions.

p. 197, margin B

It is seen from the proceedings Annexure - P at page the writ petitions.

p. 197, margin C

It is seen from the proceedings Annexure-P at page 32 of the Paper Book that the appellants were not promoted as Inspectors. Though the appellants have completed the upper school co~irse ending with the ter August, 1984 they have been ignored and not includoo on the E List due to their chequerred service record. Mota Singh and Kamail Singh though have been categorised in that category, in paragraph 4 of the same order they have been promoted on ad hoc basis w.e.f. October 4, 1984. Admittedly Mota singh, head constable No.80/119 and Kamail Singh head constable 82/22 are juniors to the appellants in the seniority mentioned in the order. When the appellants have been standing in the same position as Mota Singh and Karnail Singh and seniors to them necessarily they should also get the same treatment. Unfortunately that was meted out: It is sought to be contended on behalf of the State that due to bad record and adverse confidential report, they have not been given the promotion. Even assuming that they had adverse remarks, admittedly no enquiry was made, no findings were given after conducting an enquiry and after giving an opportimity to the appellants. Therefore, the reversion of them as head-constables is clearly illegal. Though they have been promoted 1987-88 respectively, they must be deemed to have been promoted with juniors w.e.f. October 8, 1984. The appellants are accordingly to the above declaration and the consequential benefits. The allowed and writ issued. No· costs. · T.N.A.

pp. 197–198, margin E