GURDEV SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

GURDEV SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB

The reversion of the appellant to his substantive post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was justified on administrative grounds and not as a punishment. Inclusion in List II did not guarantee continuation as Superintendent of Police for five years, nor immediate absorption or associated rights. The scheme allowed for reversion in case no substantive post was available, and no discrimination was found against the appellant.

Parties
Appellant: Gurdev Singh; Respondent: State of Punjab
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
27 January 1971
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Judgment and Decree of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 358 of 1964
Outcome
dismissed
Legal Topics
Reversion in Service, Indian Police Service Scheme, Protection Under Article 311, Seniority and Discrimination in Promotions
Service Law Constitutional Law Reversion in Service Indian Police Service Scheme Protection Under Article 311 Seniority and Discrimination in Promotions

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurdev Singh

Appellant

State of Punjab

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From Judgment and Decree of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 358 of 1964

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inclusion in List II under the Indian Police Service Scheme conferred a right to continue as Superintendent of Police for five years
  2. 2 Whether reversion to substantive post amounted to punishment within Article 311 of the Constitution
  3. 3 Whether there was discrimination against the appellant in the matter of reversion

Ratio Decidendi

The reversion of the appellant to his substantive post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was justified on administrative grounds and not as a punishment. Inclusion in List II did not guarantee continuation as Superintendent of Police for five years, nor immediate absorption or associated rights. The scheme allowed for reversion in case no substantive post was available, and no discrimination was found against the appellant.

Court Disposition

dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs