Supreme Court of India
DHIRENDER SINGH ETC versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
- Decided
- 9 December 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.T. NANAVATI
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 9 S.C.R. 693 · 1996 INSC 1449
- Also cited as
- (1997) 2 SCC 712
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
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.
Leave granted.
p. 693, margin E
In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents it is stated that the Superintendent of Police had promoted that 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 Risha/ 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 promolion and having considered the appellant therein as an outstanding sports person 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.
pp. 693–694, margin F
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 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 (CJ 19421/96:
p. 694, margin C
Leave granted. Following the above order, this appeal is also dismissed. No costs. T.N.A. Appeals dismissed.
p. 694, margin D