Judgment
As delivered
REPORTABLE
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
JUDGMENT
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Challenge 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 maygrant in these writ petitions, having regard tothe subsequent developments brought to ournotice. It is seen that if the selection committeewere to conduct separate selection process bydrawing up separate list to fill up one vacancythat occurred in the year 1998, the appellantalone could have been selected to I.P.S.inasmuch as the other two candidates whocould have come under zone of considerationwere admittedly found to be 'unfit'. Of the threeselected candidates, Sri S.S. Annegowda,Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 14842 of 2001died during the pendency of the writ petition.Since, the two others including SriS.S.Annegowda who would have come underzone of consideration with regard to the vacancythat occurred during the year 1998 are found tobe unfit, they would be unfit for considerationeven with regard to the two vacancies that arosein the year 1999. In that view of the matter,there is no need to disturb the appointment ofthe 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.14843of 2001.
In the result, we dispose of these writ petition,and, in substitution of the impugned order ofthe Tribunal, we direct the official respondentsto appoint the applicant B. Jkamalanabhan tothe IPS against the vacancy that occurred in theyear 1998 with effect from 18.01.2000, the dateof the Notification impugned before the Tribunalwith all consequential benefits, pecuniary andotherwise, flowing therefrom. In the facts andcircumstances of the case, the parties shall beartheir respective costs."
23. Before the High Court it was urged by the respondents asfollows:
"The fourth respondent, namely, Sri B.Kamalanabhan in Writ petition No. 14837 of2001 is the applicant in O.A. No. 655 of 2000(hereinafter referred to as the `applicant' forthe sake of convenience). The applicant wasinitially appointed as Deputy Superintendentof Police, a Group A Junior Scale Post in theKarnataka State Police Service (hereinafterreferred to as `KSPS') in the year 1982. Theapplicant was promoted as superintendent ofpolice, a Group A Senior Scale Post in theKSPS in the year 1991. We were told that theapplicant retired from service on attaining theage of superannuation on 31st May, 2003 atthe age of 58 years."
4. According 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').
5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
supported the judgment of the High Court.
3
6. It 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 follows:
"5. Preparation of a list of suitable officers:
(1) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet atintervals not exceeding one year and prepare alist of such members of the State PoliceService, as are held by them to be suitable forpromotion to the service. The number ofmembers of the State Police Service to beincluded in the list shall be determined by theCentral Government in consultation with theState Government, and shall not exceed the
4number of substantive vacancies as on thefirst day of January of the year in which themeeting is held, in the posts available for themunder Rule 9 of the recruitment rules. Thedate and venue of the meeting of theCommittee to make the Selection shall bedetermined by the Commission:
Provided that no meeting of the Committeeshall be held, and no list of the year inquestion shall be prepared when,
(a) there are no substantive vacancies as onthe first day of January of the year in the postsavailable for the members of the State PoliceService under rule 9 of the recruitment rules;
or
(b) the Central Government in consultationwith the State Government decides that norecruitment shall be made during the year tothe substantive vacancies as on the first day ofJanuary of the year in the posts available forthe members of the State Police Service underrule 9 of the recruitment rules; or
(c) the Commission, on its own or on aproposal made in either the CentralGovernment or the State Government, afterconsidering the facts and circumstances ofeach case, decides that it is not practicable tohold a meeting of the Committee to make theselection to prepare a select list.
Explanation: In the case of joint cadres, aseparate list shall be prepared in respect ofeach State Police Service."
5
7. The stand of the appellant in a nutshell is that Syed
Khalid's case (supra) will not have any application after 1996.The un-amended 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.
8. The Rule prior to 1997 amendment reads as follows:
"5. Preparation 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 officers:
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 State Government.
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."
7 9. The pre and post amendment Regulation 5 are
10. Since 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
11. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
..............................
............J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)
...........................................J. (Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA) New Delhi:
