1. Challenge to the promotion and appointment of a junior officer as Director General and Inspector General of Police over a senior officer. (Para 2 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 668
1999(5) Supreme 397
Supreme Court of India
(From Karnataka High Court)
K. Venkataswami and A.P. Misra, JJ.
Government of Karnataka etc. -Appellant
versus
C. Dinakar & Ors. etc. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3115 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17043 of 1998)
With
Civil Appeal No. 3116 of 1999
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 17842 of 1998)
Decided on 14-5-1999
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant in C.A. No. 3115/99 : S. Vijay Shankar, Advocate General, K.R. Nagaraja, K.K. Tyagi, Advocates.
For the Appellant in C.A. No. 3116/99 : P.R. Ramasesh, Advocate.
For the Respondent : C. Dinakar, Cav-in-person.
For the Respondent in C.A. No. 3115/99 : N. Ganapathy, Advocate.
Important Points
Appointments by selection must be based on objective criteria and fair application of mind. When merit is equal between candidates, seniority cannot be ignored. Selection processes that are arbitrary, casual, or violate service rules are unconstitutional and illegal.
Subject
Administrative Law - Selection and Appointment of Public Officers
Act Referred
Headnote
Special Leave Petition-Service Matter-First respondent in appeal challenged promotion and appointment of fourth respondent as DG and IGP-Approached Central Administrative Tribunal - Appeal dismissed-Writ petition-Division Bench of High Court accepted appeal-Quashed impugned notification dated 8.3.1997-Directed to make fresh appointment by selection to the post of DG and IGP by considering cases of all eligible Director Generals-Appeals by Govt. of Karnataka and fourth respondent-On admitted fact as found by High Court no case made out for interference with judgment under appeal-First respondent IPS office of 1964 batch-Fourth respondent junior to first respondent-Contention that appointment of fourth respondent as DG and IGP was order simplicitor assigning duties attached to that post-Repelled-Demonstrated amply before High Court that impugned notification not a mere act of assignment of duties attached to post of DG and IGP-High Court right in holding that impugned notification cannot be sustained on facts of case-Fourth respondent having been promoted as Director General required right to be considered alongwith other eligible candidates-Nothing stands in way of Govt. in promoting fourth respondent from date of impugned notification-Appellant at liberty to constitute committee as per relevant G.O. in force-Appellant to fill up vacancy caused by judgment under appeal in post of DG and IGP within two months - Fourth respondent promoted and appointed as DG and IGP on 6.3.1997 will continue to function in same post.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the appointment was a selection-based process requiring objective merit and eligibility or a mere assignment of duties to an existing Director General. (Para 7 )
3. The selection process was casual, lacked objective merit assessment, ignored seniority where merit was equal, and appointed an ineligible officer not substantively holding the required rank. (Para 7 )
4. Selection for high-ranking posts must be objective, based on relevant records, and respect seniority when merit is equal; appointments of ineligible candidates are unconstitutional. (Para 7 )
5. Appeals dismissed; High Court judgment upheld; vacancy to be filled within two months following valid guidelines. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 )
6. Can an officer be selected for a post if they do not substantively hold the required prerequisite rank at the time of selection?
No. If only a person substantively holding a specific cadre is eligible for appointment by selection, appointing someone who does not hold that rank is discriminatory and unconstitutional. (Para 7 )
7. How should seniority be treated when the merit of multiple eligible candidates for a selection-based appointment is equal?
When merit is found to be equal between rival claimants based on service records, the seniority of the more senior candidate cannot be ignored. (Para 7 )
8. Under what circumstances can a court interfere with the appointing authority's discretion in a selection-based appointment?
While courts generally do not substitute their opinion for the appointing authority's, interference is necessary if the selection is not made objectively, is mechanical, or results from non-application of mind. (Para 7 )
JUDGMENT
K. Venkataswami, J.-Special leave granted.
Both the appeals arise out of the judgment dated 23.10.98 of the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 4264/98. Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17043/98 was preferred by the Government of Karnataka while the other appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 17842/98 was preferred by the fourth respondent in the first mentioned appeal.
2. The reference to the parties hereinafter will be as in the appeal filed by the Government of Karnataka. The first respondent in the appeal challenged the promotion and appointment of fourth respondent as DG and IGP by a Notification dated 6.3.97 by approaching the Central Administrative Tribunal by preferring O.A. No. 200/97. The Tribunal by its order dated 15.1.98 dismissed the O.A. 200/97. Aggrieved by that, the first respondent preferred W.P. No. 4264/ 98. A Division Bench of the High Court accepted the appeal and quashed the impugned Notification promoting and appointing the fourth respondent as DG and IGP.
3. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench, both the Government of Karnataka and the fourth respondent have preferred these appeals.
4. The learned Advocate General for Karnataka extensively argued the matter to sustain the Notification impugned before the Tribunal and also before the High Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant (fourth respondent in the appeal filed by the Government) adopted the arguments advanced by the learned Advocate General. Hence, these appeals are disposed of by this common judgment.
5. After carefully perusing the judgment under appeal and after hearing learned arguments of the counsel appearing in both the appeals and also the first respondent, who is appearing in-person, we are of the view that on the admitted facts as found by the High Court, no case is made out for interference with the judgment under appeal. We shall immediately give our reasons for the above conclusion.
6. Let us set out the undisputed facts. The first respondent is an IPS Officer of 1964 batch. The fourth respondent is junior to the first respondent is an admitted fact. It is stated that there are in all four posts of Director General of Police in the State of Karnataka, which are designated as under :-
(i) Director General and Inspector General of Police
(ii) Director General of Police, Commandant General, Home Guards and Director of Civil Defence and Fire Services.
(iii) Director General of Police, COD, Training Special Units and Economic Offence.
(iv) Chairman and Managing Director of Police Housing Corporation.
7. It is also stated that except the post of Director General of Police, Commandant General, Home Guards and Director of Civil Defence and Fire Services, which post the first respondent was holding at the relevant time, the other two posts were amenable to the supervisory jurisdiction of the DG and IGP. To sustain the promotion and appointment of fourth respondent, the stand taken by the appellant before the Tribunal was that inasmuch as the appointment is by selection the Officers eligible have only a right to be considered and have no right to appointment. It is further stated by the appellant before the Tribunal that while exercising the discretion of selection the Appointing Authority has had due regard to the seniority of all the eligible candidates. It was further claimed by the appellant before the Tribunal that the appointment to the post of DG and IGP has been done on very objective criteria and after a comparative assessment of the service records of all the eligible officers. While so, before the High Court a different stand was taken contending that the appointment of respondent No. 4 as DG and IGP was an order of simpliciter assignment of duties of DG and IGP to the fourth respondent in his capacity as DGP. This vital deviation in the stand was taken note of by the High Court and it came to the conclusion that the contentio
