IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals others cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits.
2. Where the initial appointment is only adhoc and not according to the rules and made as a stop gap arrangements, the officiation on such post cannot be taken into account for considering the seniority.

Headnote:(i) Special Leave Petition-Condonation of delay-679 days-Impugned judgment granted relief of promotion against law-Judgment likely to affect hundreds of other persons junior to respondents-Dismissing appeal on technical grounds of limitation would not advance interest of justice-Technicalities of law cannot prevent Court from doing substantial justice and undoing illegalities perpetuated-Delay condoned and leave granted.
       Held : Looking into the facts and circumstances of the case, as noticed earlier and with the object of doing substantial justice to all the parties concerned, we are of the opinion that sufficient cause has been made out by the petitioners which has persuaded us to condone the delay in filing the petitions. Dismissing the appeals on technical grounds of limitation would not, in any way, advance the interests of justice but admittedly, result in failure of justice as the impugned judgments are likely to affect not only the parties before us, but hundreds of other persons who are stated to be senior than the respondents. The technicalities of law cannot prevent us from doing substantial justice and undoing the illegalities perpetuated on the basis of the impugned judgments. However, while deciding the petitions, the reliefs, in the case can appropriately be moulded which may not amount to unsettle the settled rights of the parties on the basis of judicial pronouncements made by the Courts regarding which the State is shown to have been careless and negligent. It is paramount consideration of this Court to safeguard the interests of all the litigants and persons serving the Police Department of the State of Bihar by ensuring the security of the tenure and non disturbance of accrual of rights upon them under the prevalent law and the rules made in that behalf. Accordingly delay in filing the petitions is condoned. (Para 13)
       (ii) Service Law-Promotion-Promotion on officiating basis-Stipulation that promotee would be entitled to seniority from date of actual regular selection-Claim to count period of officiating/ad hoc period to determine seniority in promoted post-Whether tenable?-Held, no-If initial appointment/promotion is only ad hoc and not according to rules and made as a stop gap arrangements, officiation on such post cannot be taken into account for considering seniority-High Court not justified in directing State Government to count seniority from date of officiating appointment and give all consequential benefits-High Court s judgment set aside-State Government careless and negligent in defending its case-Service benefits conferred on respondent consequent upon judgment of High Court not to be withdrawn and his promotion not to be disturbed-Bihar Police Manual Rules-Rules 616(c) and 649.
       Facts : The respondents Brij Bihari Prasad Singh and Kameshwar Prasad Singh and one Ramjas Singh were directly recruited as Sub-Inspectors of Police on 2.1.1966. Brij Bihari Prasad Singh was promoted as Inspector of Police on officiating basis on 16.7.1971 with a clear stipulation that he will not get seniority in the rank of Inspector till selected by the IG s Board. Consequently he actually joined on 22.7.1971. Ramjas Singh was promoted as Inspector on 8.7.1972 in terms of Rule 616(c) of the Bihar Police Manual Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") as he had been awarded gallantry award. On 2.7.1978 Brij Bihari Prasad Singh was promoted as Inspector after selection under Rule 649 and was confirmed as such on 1.4.1982. The respondent filed writ petition to consider his case for promotion to the post of Dy. SP treating his date of promotion to the post of Inspector of Police as 27.7.1971, the date when he joined as Inspector of Police consequent upon his initial promotion on officiating basis. The High Court granted relief prayed for and the order came to be implemented allegedly under threat of contempt of Court. Ramjas Singh who was promoted as Inspector out of turn on the basis of gallantry award in terms of Rule 616(c) of the Rules had been promoted as Dy. SP with effect from 25th October, 1975. Alleging that the aforesaid Ramjas Singh was junior to him, the respondent Brij Bihari Prasad Singh filed writ petition No. 697 of 1995 claiming promotion with effect from the date when Ramjas Singh was promoted as Dy. SP. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed on 26th July, 1995 directing promotion of Brij Bihari Prasad Singh as Dy. SP with effect from 25th October, 1975. (Paras 1 & 2)
       Held : Brij Bihari Prasad Singh having been promoted on officiating basis with a clear stipulation that he will not get seniority in the rank of Inspector till finally selected could not have preferred a claim regarding his seniority on the basis of promotion of Ramjas Singh, though initially junior to him yet substantively promoted in accordance with Rule 660C on 8.7.1972 whereas Brij Bihari Prasad Singh was promoted after selection under Rule 649 in 1978. The High Court totally ignored the basic principles governing the service rules and the mandate of law. There was, therefore, no jurisdiction of issuing the directions to direct the promotion of Brij Bihari Prasad Singh while deciding the writ petition No. 697 of 1995 and dismissing the LPA No. 1018/95 vide the judgment impugned in this appeal filed against Brij Bihari Prasad Singh. It appears that the High Court totally lost sight of the fact that in his petitions filed from time to time Brij Bihari Prasad Singh had not impleaded any of his seniors as party-respondents. In the absence of persons likely to be affected by the relief prayed for, the writ petitions should have normally been dismissed unless there existed specific reasons for non impleadment of the affected persons. Neither any reason was assigned by the writ petitioner nor the court felt it necessary to deal with this aspect of the matter. Ignoring such a basic principle of law has resulted in the supersession of 168 Inspectors and 407 Dy. SPs. The writ petition filed by Brij Bihari Prasad Singh being totally misconceived, devoid of any legal force and prayers made being in contravention of the rules applicable in the case deserved dismissible, which was unfortunately not done with the result that the interests of many seniors have been threatened, endangered and adversely, affected. The appeal of the State has, therefore, to be allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment. (Paras 24 & 25)
       It is further contended that as the respondent was, in the meantime, appointed/promoted in the IPS Cadre and as per requirements of the State Government he has already submitted his resignation from the State Service, the acceptance of the appeal and setting aside the directions of the High Court would result in great hardship to him and amount to unsettling his settled service rights particularly when his promotion/appointment to the IPS cadre has not been challenged and is not in dispute. Such a plea by itself cannot be accepted as a ground to dismiss the appeal filed against an order which we have held to be illegal being contrary to law and the Service Rules applicable in the case. Once the judgment is set aside, the consequences have to follow and a person taking advantage or benefit of the wrong orders is to suffer for his own faults which cannot be attributed to anybody-else. However, in appropriate cases this Court can mould the relief to safeguard the interests of a person wherever required. For doing complete justice between the parties, appropriate directions can be given to protect the interests of a person who is found to have been conferred the benefits on the basis of judicial pronouncements made in his favour. As the appellant-State has been found to be careless and negligent in defending its cases, we feel and are inclined to protect the interests of Brij Bihari Prasad Singh, respondent. We are convinced that the interests of justice would be served by holding that despite setting aside the judgments of the High Court his interests be protected by not disturbing his promotions made from time to time. However, judgments passed in his favour cannot be permitted to be made a basis for conferment of similar rights upon other persons who are shown to have filed writ petitions or representations which, if accepted, are likely to adversely affect the interests of more than 150 Inspectors and 400 Officers in the rank of Dy. SP. Similarly, if any benefit has been conferred upon any other person who has superannuated, no useful purpose would be served by directing his demotion retrospectively and recovery of the excess emoluments paid to him. (Para 33)
       (iii) Constitution of India-Article 14-Equality before law-Cannot be enforced in a negative manner-Wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefit.
       Held : The concept of equality as envisaged under Article 14 of the Constitution is a positive concept which cannot be enforced in a negative manner. When any authority is shown to have committed any illegality or irregularity in favour of any individual or group of individuals other cannot claim the same illegality or irregularity on ground of denial thereof to them. Similarly wrong judgment passed in favour of one individual does not entitle others to claim similar benefits. (Para 29)

Judgement Key Points

The concept of equality under Article 14 is a positive concept that cannot be enforced in a negative manner; illegality or irregularity committed in favour of one individual or group does not entitle others to claim the same on grounds of denial, and a wrong judgment in favour of one does not entitle others to similar benefits. [IMPORTANT POINTS] (!) [judgement_subject][judgement_act_referred] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000045500028]
Where initial appointment or promotion is ad hoc, not according to rules, and made as a stopgap arrangement, the period of officiation cannot be counted for determining seniority in the promoted post. [IMPORTANT POINTS][judgement_subject] (!) (!) (!) [1000045500022]
Delay in filing special leave petition condoned (679 days) where impugned judgment granted relief against law, likely affecting hundreds of juniors/seniors, to advance substantial justice and undo illegalities, rather than dismissing on technical grounds of limitation. [judgement_act_referred] (!) [1000045500012] (!) (!) (!)
Promotion on officiating/ad hoc basis with stipulation that seniority accrues only from date of regular selection by competent board cannot be reckoned from officiating date for higher promotion/seniority claims; High Court not justified in directing otherwise with consequential benefits. [judgement_subject] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000045500014][1000045500015][1000045500016][1000045500017][1000045500023][1000045500024] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Writ petitions claiming seniority/promotion benefits by analogy to prior illegal/erroneous judgments misconceived if not impleading affected seniors, leading to supersession of many (e.g., 168 Inspectors, 407 Dy.SPs); such petitions liable to dismissal. (!) (!) [1000045500006][1000045500024][1000045500026] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000045500029]
State careless/negligent in defending cases; while High Court judgments set aside as illegal, relief moulded to protect beneficiary's interests by not withdrawing conferred benefits, not disturbing promotions/IPS appointment, or acting against retired persons with similar benefits, to avoid unsettling settled rights and do complete justice. (!) (!) [1000045500032] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)
Claim for seniority/promotion over junior promoted out-of-turn under specific rules (e.g., gallantry) untenable if claimant's own promotion was ad hoc/officiating without regular selection. (!) [1000045500001][1000045500023] (!) (!) (!)
Seniority in promoted cadre reckoned from substantive promotion date per rules (e.g., Rule 649 selection), not initial officiating/ad hoc date; confirmation follows probation/vacancy availability. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) [1000045500019][1000045500020]

JUDGMENT

Sethi, J.-The respondents Brij Bihari Prasad Singh and Kameshwar Prasad Singh and one Ramjas Singh were directly recruited as Sub-Inspectors of Police on 2.1.1966. Brij Bihari Prasad Singh was promoted as Inspector of Police on officiating basis on 16.7.1971 with a clear stipulation that he will not get seniority in the rank of Inspector till selected by the IG s Board. Consequently he actually joined on 22.7.1971. Ramjas Singh was promoted as Inspector on 8.7.1972 in terms of Rule 616(c) of the Bihar Police Manual Rules (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") as he had been awarded gallantry award. On 2.7.1978 Brij Bihari Prasad Singh was promoted as Inspector after selection under Rule 649 and was confirmed as such on 1.4.1982. The aforesaid respondent filed Writ Petition No. 6873 of 1990 in the High Court of Patna praying for direction to the respondents therein to consider his case for promotion to the post of Dy. SP treating his date of promotion to the post of Inspector of Police as 27.7.1971, the date when he joined as Inspector of Police consequent upon his initial promotion on officiating basis. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by the High Court on 30th November, 1990 directing Brij Bihari Prasad Singh to file representation and the petitioner-State to dispose of the same within three months. On 14.5.1991 the Director General of Police directed seniority of the aforesaid respondent in the rank of Inspector to be reckoned with effect from 27.7.1971. However, on 13.4.1993 the DGP modified the aforesaid order and directed confirmation of Brij Bihari Prasad Singh in the rank of Inspector with effect from 2.7.1978 when he was substantively promoted under Rule 649 of the Rules and placed him at Sl. No. 86 Ka in the seniority list of Inspectors. Feeling aggrieved, the aforesaid respondent filed Writ Petition No. 4108 of 1991 in the High Court which was allowed on 8.4.1994 with a direction of reckoning his seniority as Inspector with effect from 27.7.1971 and grant of all consequential benefits to him. As the directions were not complied with, contempt petition being MGC No. 1360 of 1994 was filed in the High Court and according to the petitioners the order of the High Court passed in Writ Petition No. 4108/91 was implemented allegedly under the threat of contempt.

2. Ramjas Singh who was promoted as Inspector out of turn on the basis of gallantry award in terms of Rule 616(c) of the Rules had been promoted as Dy. SP with effect from 25th October, 1975. Alleging that the aforesaid Ramjas Singh was junior to him, the respondent Brij Bihari Prasad Singh filed writ petition No. 697 of 1995 claiming promotion with effect from the date when Ramjas Singh was promoted as Dy. SP. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed on 26th July, 1995 directing promotion of Brij Bihari Prasad Singh as Dy. SP with effect from 25th October, 1975. The Letters Patent Appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 22nd March, 1996 vide the judgment impugned in the SLP 12013/98.

3. There being delay of 679 days in filing the SLP, the appellants have also filed Application being IA No. 1/98 seeking condonation of delay in filing the SLP. It is submitted in the application that the order of the Division Bench of the High Court could not be challenged earlier allegedly due to the fear of contempt and various coercive orders passed by the High Court against the State and its officials. It is contended that as consequent upon the judgment of the High Court in Brij Bihari Prasad Singh s case, a number of writ petitions have been filed in the High Court of Patna for the grant of similar benefits, the State had no option left except to approach this Court. It is contended that the judgment impugned has been passed in violation of the provisions of law and the rules applicable and it has become a havoc in the Department and Government is facing great trouble in compliance of such type of direc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2000 Supreme(SC) 880

Cases Referred (25)