TMI Blog1967 (8) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Petitioner : N.C. Chatterjee, K. B. Roastagi, L. M. Singhvi and S. Balakrishnan For the Respondents : C.B. Agarwala, G. C. Kasliwal, Indu Soni, K. Baldev Mehta, N.S. Bindra, A. S. Nambiar and R. N. Sachthey JUDGMENT The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Ramaswami, J.- The petitioner, Sri Sant Ram Sharma has obtained a rule from this Court calling upon the respondents to show cause why a writ under Art. 32 of the Constitution should not be granted for quashing two orders of the State of Rajasthan, one dated March 22, 1966 whereby Sri Hanuman Sharma, respondent No. 3 was promoted as Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan superseding the petitioner, and the other dated April 28, 1966 promoting Sri Sultan Singh, respondent No. 4 as Additional Inspector General of Police superseding the petitioner. The petitioner has also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding respondents 1 2 to consider the petitioner s claim as the senior-most officer in Rajasthan to be promoted to the post of Inspector General of Police. Cause has been shown by Mr. C. B. Agarwala on behalf of the State of Rajasthan and the other respondents to whom notice of the rule was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the orders of the State of Rajasthan in annexures G and H are in violation of the provisions of Rule 6 of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. It was also contended for the petitioner that his claim was not considered in 1955 at the time of confirmation of respondents 3 and 4 as Deputy Inspector General of Police or in 1966 at the time of promotion of respondents 3 and 4 to the posts of Inspector General of Police and Additional Inspector General of Police respectively. It was therefore said that the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Arts. 14 and 16 have been violated and the orders of the State of Rajasthan dated March 22, 1966 and April 28, 1966 should be quashed by the grant of a writ in the nature of certiorari with a direction to the 1st respondent to consider the petitioner s claim afresh for being promoted to the post of Inspector General of Police. The allegations of the petitioner have been controverted by the State of Rajasthan in its counter-affidavit. It was said that the posts of Inspector General of Police, Additional Inspector General of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police are selection posts which carry pay above ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioner was entitled, as of right, to be promoted as Deputy Inspector General of Police in 1955 or as Inspector General of Police in 1966 merely on the ground that his name stood first in the Gradation List prepared under Rule 6 of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. Sub-section (1) of s. 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951 (LXI of 1951) empowers the Central Government to make rules for the regulation of recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to an All-India Service. In exercise of this power the Central Government framed the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. Rule 2 (a) provides that "Cadre" means "an Indian Police Service Cadre constituted in accordance with rule 3 of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954". Rule 2 (d) defines "gradation list" to mean "a gradation list prepared under rule 6". Rule 2(g) defines a "senior post" to mean "a post Included under item 1 of each Schedule to the Indian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955 or any post declared equivalent thereto by the State Government concerned". Rule 3 deals with the assignment of year of allotment and reads ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l be prepared every year for each State Cadre and Joint Cadre a gradation list consisting of the names of all officers borne on that Cadre arranged in order of seniority in accordance with the provisions of rules 4, 5, 5-A and 7". On behalf of the petitioner Mr. N. C. Chatterjee put forward the argument that Rule 6 required that a gradation list should be prepared strictly in order of seniority in accordance with the provisions of Rules 4, 5, 5-A and 7 and it is not open to the State of Rajasthan to disregard the claim of the petitioner who stood first in the Gradation List and to promote respondents 3 4 to the rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police. We are unable to accept the argument put forward on behalf of the petitioner as correct. it is apparent from a perusal of Rules 3 and 8 of the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 1954 read with Part B of Sch. III of those Rules that the posts of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Additional Inspector General of Police and Inspector General of Police in Rajasthan State are selection posts and outside the junior and senior timescales of pay. Rule 2(a) provides that Cadre and Cadre post shall have the meanings respectively ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oncerned the posts of Inspector General of Police, Additional Inspector General of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police are shown as Selection Grade posts carrying pay above the time-scales of pay. It is manifest therefore, on a perusal of Rules 3 and 8 read with Part B of Sch. III, that the three posts of Inspector General of Police, Additional Inspector General of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police in Rajasthan are Selection posts and outside the junior and senior timescales of pay mentioned in Rule 3. This conclusion is also supported by para 1 of Part B of Sch. III which states that "the number of posts in the selection grade in a State Cadre shall be equal to twenty per centum of the total number of senior posts borne on that cadre reduced by the number of posts carrying pay above the time-scale". In support of his contention Mr. N. C. Chatterjee referred to the decision of this Court in P. C. Wadhwa v. Union of India.(1) But the ratio of that case has no bearing on the question presented for determination in the present case. The question involved in that case was whether under the relevant rules governing the Indian Police Service, a member thereof was en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re the merit of the officers is judged to be equal and no other criterion is therefore available. The administrative practice with regard to selection posts is laid down in a letter of the Government of India dated July 31 ,August, 3, 1954 as follows: - "If a person, though senior in the gradation list, is appointed to the selection post later than his junior, this is presumably because he is superseded as a matter of selection. If this is so, it would certainly not be unjustified to regard the officer so selected earlier, though junior in the gradation list, as senior to the other officer, as far as the selection posts are concerned". Another communication dated June 1, 1955 states: "All super-time scale posts are selection posts and appointment thereto need not follow the order of seniority". In another letter No. 7/6/56-AIS(1) dated October 5, 1956 the Government of India has reiterated the principle of promotion to selection grade posts as follows: "I am directed to say that the Government of India have recently had. occasion to consider the question of the principles to be followed in the matter of promotion of I.P.S. Officers to the selection Grade when some of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Siem was not an administrative function of the District Council and that the District Council could only act by making a law with the assent of the Governor so far as the appointment and removal of a Siem was concerned. In this connection, the High Court relied on para. 3(1)(g) of the Schedule, which lays down that the District Council shall have the power to make laws with respect to the appointment and succession of Chiefs and Headmen. The High Court seems to be of the view that until such a law is made there could be no power of appointment of a Chief or Siem like the respondent and in consequence there would be no power of removal either. With respect, it seems to us that the High Court has read far more into para. 3(1)(g) than is justified by its language. Paragraph 3(1) is in fact something like a legislative list and enumerates the subjects on which the District Council is competent to make laws. Under para. 3(1)(g) it has power to make laws with respect to the appointment or succession of Chiefs or Headmen and this would naturally include the power to remove them. But it does not follow from this that the appointment or removal of a Chief is a legislative act or that no app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tually considered before promotion to those selection posts was actually made. It was said by Mr. C. B. Agarwala on behalf of the respondents that an objective evaluation of the merit of the officers is made each year and promotion is made on scrutiny of the record sheets dealing with the competence, efficiency and experience of the officers concerned. In the present case, there is no specific allegation by the petitioner in the writ petition that his case was not considered along with respondents 3 4 at the time of promotion to the posts of Deputy Inspector General of Police in 1955 or to the rank of Inspector General of Police or Additional Inspector General of Police in 1966. There was, however, a vague suggestion made by the petitioner in paragraph 68 of his rejoinder petition dated July 17, 1967 that "the State Government could not have possibly considered my case, as they considered and even in this counter-affidavit consider Shri Hanuman Sharma and Sri Sultan Singh senior to me by the new type of seniority they have invented for their benefit". Even though there is no specific allegation by the petitioner that there was no consideration of his case, respondent No. 1 has de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orrect balance between seniority and merit in a proper promotion-policy. In this connection Leonard D. White has stated as follows:- "The principal object of a promotion system is to secure the best possible incumbents for the higher positions, while maintaining the morale of the whole Organisation. The main interest to be served is the public interest, not the personal interest of members of the official group concerned. The public interest is best secured when reasonable opportunities for promotion exist for all qualified employees, when really superior civil servants are enabled to move as rapidly up the Promotion ladder as their merits deserve and as vacancies occur, and when selection for promotion is made on the sole basis of merit. For the merit system ought to apply as specifically in making promotions as in original recruitment. Employees often prefer the rule of seniority, by which the eligible longest in service is automatically awarded the promotion. Within limits, seniority is entitled to consideration as one criterion of selection. It tends to eliminate favouritism or the suspicion thereof; and experience is certainly a factor in the making of a successful employe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
