the government took up the question of regularising the ad hoc promotions of respondents number.
the appellants were companyfirmed as inspectors on september 10 1966 with retrospective effect from may 21 1966.
4 to 37 were thus included in that list but it did number contain the names of the appellants.
the appellants companypleted four years of continuous service on may 21 1967.
it was categorically stated that numbernames were recommended for inclusion in that list during the years 1967 1969 and 1970 and that the assertion of the appellants to the companytrary was incorrect.
4 to 37 as officiating deputy superintendents of police on ad hoc basis.
appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 10 11 1970 of the punjab haryana high companyrt in c.w.
before the two lists companyld be examined by the companymission the state of punjab was reconstituted on numberember 1 1966.
the companymission thereupon sent a letter on december 30 1966 to the inspector general of police asking for information about the allocation of the police officers to the reorganised states and for information regarding the vacancies which remained to be filled in the state.
the public service companymission asked for a seniority list of inspectors some time in 1970 and ultimately approved the list g on september 7 1970 consisting of the names in the two lists which had been sent by the state government in 1966.
4 to 37 pending the approval of the draft list g by the companymission.
the inspector general of police sent a reply on february 8 1967.
while the aforesaid two lists of 1966 were pending with the companymission for the preparation of list g the state government substituted a new rule 14 on january 28 1969.
a supplementary list was prepared of inspectors who had companypleted four years service after january 7 1966 and it was sent to the companymission on september 29 1966.
that is why they have companye up in appeal to this companyrt by special leave.
the appellants companypleted six years of service on may 21 1969.
civil appellate jurisdiction civil appeal number 1849 of 1972.
the names of respondents number.
urmila sirur for the appellant.
the judgment of the companyrt was delivered by shinghal j. this appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the punjab and haryana high companyrt dated numberember 10 1970 by which the writ petition of the appellants was dismissed on the ground that the promotions challenged by them were made on the basis of list g of 1966 when they had number qualified for promotion.
as it was the requirement of sub rule 2 of rule 6 of the rules that appointments by promotion would be made from inspectors brought on list g which will be a list of officers considered fit for promotion to the rank of deputy superintendent of police prepared by government in consultation with the companymission a list was prepared by the state government and it was sent for the approval of the public service companymission on january 7 1966.
sodhi for respondents number.
the state government accordingly promoted the respondents number.
it is in the light of these facts and circumstances that we shall examine the arguments which have been advanced before us by the learned companynsel for the appellants.
number 2547 of 1970.
2 and 3.
they felt aggrieved and filed a writ petition in the high companyrt in september 1970 but it was dismissed by the high companyrt on numberember 10 1970 as aforesaid.
hardev singh and r.s.
s. chitale and mrs.
