Seniority row: PPS officers slug it out in high court
The Punjab Police Services (PPS) officers, whose names had been recommended by the government to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for empanelment as Indian Police Services (IPS) officers have approached the Punjab and Haryana high court to vacate the stay granted by it in December.chandigarh Updated: Jan 12, 2015 22:32 IST
The Punjab Police Services (PPS) officers, whose names had been recommended by the government to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for empanelment as Indian Police Services (IPS) officers have approached the Punjab and Haryana high court to vacate the stay granted by it in December.
They have contended that the stay was obtained by the promottee officers by concealing the facts. “The petitioners had been on the look-out for an opportunity to obtain an interim order; incidentally, such an opportunity fell to them during the vacation period, as is apparent from the facts,” the directly recruited officers, whose names have been forwarded to the UPSC, have submitted, questioning the timing of the stay obtained by the promottee officers, adding that similar tactics were adopted by some of them in the past as well.
On December 29, the stay orders were passed by Justice Kuldip Singh on a petition by one Gurdial Singh, assistant inspector general (crime), and six others appointed as deputy superintendents of police (DSPs) from the promottee quota. The stay was granted after the promottee officers submitted that they were appointed as DSPs prior to the appointment of direct recruits. But the direct recruits were shown senior in the official list released by the government in 2013.
They had also submitted that the departmental promotion committee (DPC) of the UPSC started the process of promoting the five PPS officers (out of these 15) based on a “wrong seniority list” that was being challenged in the high court, further arguing that the UPSC proceeded with the process even though the state director general of police wrote on November 20 and December 10 to the state government, requesting to first resolve the seniority dispute.
In the application moved to vacate the stay granted by the vacation bench, the directly recruited officers have submitted that the counsel for promottee officers had also argued for stay during the HC proceedings on December 16 and December 24 last year, but had failed to get relief.
They have alleged that the promottee officers deliberately concealed the fact in the December 29 application and got the stay. They have termed the stay application (December 29) as “the gross misuse and abuse of the process of law”.
During the hearing on Monday, the lawyers representing the promottee officers sought time to file a reply on the fresh application from the other side, following which the hearing in the case was adjourned to next Monday.