Union of India Vs.
K.H. Srinivasan & Ors.  INSC 1605 (19 September 2008)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICITON CIVIL APPEAL NOs. OF 2008 (Arising out of
SLP (C) Nos.20365-20367 of 2005) Union of India ...Appellant Versus K.H.
Srinivasan & Ors. ...Respondents
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT,
in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court
allowing the writ petitions by directing as follows:
"This takes us
to the kind of relief that we may grant in these writ petitions, having regard
to the subsequent developments brought to our notice. It is seen that if the
selection committee were to conduct separate selection process by drawing up
separate list to fill up one vacancy that occurred in the year 1998, the
appellant alone could have been selected to I.P.S.
In as much as the
other two candidates who could have come under zone of consideration were
admittedly found to be 'unfit'. Of the three selected candidates, Sri S.S.
Annegowda, Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14842 of 2001 died during the
pendency of the writ petition.
Since, the two others
including Sri S.S.Annegowda who would have come under zone of consideration
with regard to the vacancy that occurred during the year 1998 are found to be
unfit, they would be unfit for consideration even with regard to the two
vacancies that arose in the year 1999. In that view of the matter, there is no
need to disturb the appointment of the two writ petitioners to the I.P.S. viz.,
K.H. Srinivasan (Petitioner in W.P.No.14837 of 2001) and, H.N.Siddanna
(Petitioner in W.P.No.14843 of 2001.
In the result, we
dispose of these writ petition, and, in substitution of the impugned order of
the Tribunal, we direct the official respondents to appoint the applicant B.
Jkamalanabhan to the IPS against the vacancy that occurred in the year 1998
with effect from 18.01.2000, the date of the Notification impugned before the
Tribunal with all consequential benefits, pecuniary and otherwise, flowing
therefrom. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear
their respective costs."
the High Court it was urged by the respondents as follows:
respondent, namely, Sri B. Kamalanabhan in Writ petition No. 14837 of 2001 is
the applicant in O.A. No. 655 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the
`applicant' for the sake of convenience). The applicant was initially appointed
as Deputy Superintendent of Police, a Group A Junior Scale Post in the
Karnataka State Police Service (hereinafter referred to as `KSPS') in the year
1982. The applicant was promoted as superintendent of police, a Group A Senior
Scale Post in the KSPS in the year 1991. We were told that the applicant
retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31st May, 2003
at the age of 58 years."
to learned counsel for the appellant the effect of the amendment to the
Regulations in 1997 and scope and ambit of Regulation 5 has not been kept in
view by the High Court. The Regulations are Indian Police Service (Appointment
by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (in short the `Regulation').
counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the judgment of the
appears that the High Court placed reliance on the decision of this Court in
Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. [1993 Suppl. (3) SC
575] and Union of India & Ors. v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah [1996(6) SCC
721]. Stand of the appellant-Union of India with the relevant Regulations have
been amended with effect from 1997 by Indian Police Service (Appointment by
Promotion) Amendment Regulations, 1997 (in short `Amendment Regulations'). The
High Court did not consider the effect of the amendment, more particularly, the
proviso (c) to Regulation. Same in its entirety including proviso (c) reads as
of a list of suitable officers:
(1) Each Committee
shall ordinarily meet at intervals not exceeding one year and prepare a list of
such members of the State Police Service, as are held by them to be suitable
for promotion to the service. The number of members of the State Police Service
to be included in the list shall be determined by the Central Government in
consultation with the State Government, and shall not exceed the number of
substantive vacancies as on the first day of January of the year in which the
meeting is held, in the posts available for them under Rule 9 of the
recruitment rules. The date and venue of the meeting of the Committee to make
the Selection shall be determined by the Commission:
Provided that no
meeting of the Committee shall be held, and no list of the year in question
shall be prepared when, (a) there are no substantive vacancies as on the first
day of January of the year in the posts available for the members of the State
Police Service under rule 9 of the recruitment rules;
or (b) the Central
Government in consultation with the State Government decides that no
recruitment shall be made during the year to the substantive vacancies as on
the first day of January of the year in the posts available for the members of
the State Police Service under rule 9 of the recruitment rules; or (c) the
Commission, on its own or on a proposal made in either the Central Government
or the State Government, after considering the facts and circumstances of each
case, decides that it is not practicable to hold a meeting of the Committee to
make the selection to prepare a select list.
Explanation: In the
case of joint cadres, a separate list shall be prepared in respect of each
State Police Service."
stand of the appellant in a nutshell is that Syed Khalid's case (supra) will
not have any application after 1996.
Regulation 5 with the 3rd proviso makes the position clear that the decision in
Syed Khalid's case (supra) and Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah's case (supra) had no
application after the amendment in 1997.
Rule prior to 1997 amendment reads as follows:
of a list of suitable officers - (2) The Committee shall consider for inclusion
in the said list, the cases of members of the State Civil Services in the order
of a seniority in that service of a number which is equal to three times the
number referred to in sub-regulation (1):
Provided that such
restriction shall not apply in respect of a State where the total number of
eligible officers is less than three times the maximum permissible size of the
Select List and in such a case the Committee shall consider all the eligible
6 Provided further
that in computing the numbers for inclusion in the field of consideration, the
number of officers referred to in sub--regulation (3) shall be excluded:
Provided also that
the Committee shall not consider the case of a member of the State Civil
service unless on the first day of January of the year in which it meets he is
substantive in the State Civil Service and has completed not less than eight
years of continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of
Deputy Collector or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by
the State Government.
Provided also that in
terms of any released Emergency Commissioned or short Service Commissioned
Officers appointed to the estate Civil Service, eight years of continuous
service as required under the preceding proviso shall be counted from the
deemed date of their appointment to that service, subject to the condition that
such officers shall be eligible for consideration if they have completed not
less than four years of actual continuous service, on the first day of the
January of the year in which the committee meets, in the post of Deputy
Collector or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the
Explanation - The
powers of the State Government under the third proviso to this sub- regulation
shall be exercised in relation to the members of the State Civil Service of a
constituent State, by the Government of that State."
pre and post amendment Regulation 5 are conceptually different.
the High Court has not considered the effect of the amendment in 1997 and the
applicability of the ratio in Syed Khalid's case (supra) and Vipinchandra
Hiralal Shah's case (supra) thereafter, it would be appropriate to set aside
the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter to it to consider
the matter afresh in the light of the amended Regulations.
appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)