According to the appellants, under the said Rules there were only two sources of recruitment, 80 is by promotion and 20 is by direct recruitment.
The above facts show that Ms. Amrit Brar was appointed rightly on companypassionate grounds as an Assistant Commandant in CRPF on 9.6.1989.
In between, Ms. Amrit Brar was promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant in CRPF in March, 1995.
According to the appellants, the companysequences of seniority being given to Ms. Amrit Brar would mean supersession of the appellants.
The appellants herein are officers of Punjab Police Service.
Shri Avinder Singh Brar, IPS was killed by the terrorists.
The appellants main grievance before the High Court was that giving the benefit of seniority to Ms. Amrit Brar from 9.6.1989 would make her senior to almost ten other officers.
These facts are important since they show that the appointment of respondent number 4 was number companypassionate but as an exception.
of Ms. Amrit Brar between 16/17.8.1993 and 11.9.1998.
She was allowed all benefits including pay and seniority from 9.6.1989.
He was an officer in the Punjab Police Service.
She was appointed in CRPF under above tragic circumstances.
She was the only child of her parents.
This companytention was rejected by the High Court saying that the word s direct appointment in the said Rules would include appointment by deputation and, therefore, Rule 14 was applicable to the present case.
11548/96 filed by the appellants herein.
Under the said 1959 Rules, the State Government has number even maintained ACRs.
On 16/17.8.1993, Ms. Amrit Brar was appointed on deputation to the post of Superintendent of Police SP in Punjab Police.
On behalf of the appellants, it was urged that the State Government had violated the appellants fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 1 of the Constitution of India by reason of absorption of Ms. Amrit Brar as Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 9.6.1989.
The appellants challenged the orders of the State Government in the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting absorption to Ms. Amrit Brar, particularly on the ground that the Punjab Police Service Rules did number companytemplate absorption of a deputationist from CRPF.
They are number governed by the said Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959.
Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the appellants have companye to this Court by way of the present civil appeal.
She was appointed in CRPF as her assignment was relatively safer in CRPF than in Punjab Police Service.
Her appointment was to be governed by CRPF Rules.
Ms. Amrit Brar was appointed in 1989 as Assistant Commandant in CRPF on companypassionate ground that her post in Punjab Police was taken out of the purview of Public Service Commission vide Governments Order dated 13.10.1997 and that even the rules of companypetitive examination were relaxed.
She companypleted here probation on companypletion of two years.
The facts giving rise to this civil appeal are as follows.
The appellants challenged the absorption on the grounds that Ms. Amrit Brar was granted benefit of companypassionate appointment as Assistant Commandant in CRPF in 1989 and, therefore, she was number entitled to double benefit of companypassionate absorption in 1998 and that too from 9.6.1989.
On account of the above incident, his sister, Ms. Amrit Brar respondent number 4, stood appointed on 9.6.1989 as Assistant Commandant in CRPF on probation for two years.
According to the appellants a number of companycessions were given to respondent number 4.
One of the main grounds urged by the appellants before the High Court was that regularization of the services of Ms. Amrit Brar with effect from 9.6.1989 and absorption of a deputationist in Punjab Police Service would amount to creation of a separate Method of Recruitment.
Some of the appellants are recipients of the Presidents medal for gallantry for having fought terrorism in the State of Punjab.
She retained her lien as Assistant Commandant in CRPF till 11.9.1998 when she was absorbed as DSP in Punjab Police.
