2002 Supreme(SC) 1228

2003(1) Supreme 77
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Kolkata High Court)
Doraiswamy Raju & B.N. Srikrishna, JJ.
State of West Bengal & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Manas Kumar Chakrabarti & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 3335 of 2002
Decided on 13-12-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : Mukul Rohtagi, Additional Solicitor General, Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, Rana Mukherjee and Ms. Sumita Mukherjee, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1 : S.S. Ray and P.P. Rao, Sr. Advocates, Sushil Kr. Jain and G. Balaji, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 2 : Bhaskar P. Gupta, Sr. Advocate, J. Kar, Sidharth Gautam and Goodwill Indeevar, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court s order quashing an order of State Govt. dated 23.5.2001 appointing the 2nd respondent as Director General and Inspector General of Police is erroneous and the order made by Central Administrative Tribunal upholding validity of the appointment of the 2nd respondent as DG and IGP is correct.

Headnote:(i) Service Jurisprudence-Principle of law that no person not holding the substantive rank of Director General of Police (DGP) can be posted as Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG & IP)-Whether laid down in Dinkar case 1999(5) SCC 161? (No) -High Court fell in error.

       Held : We are of the view that Dinkar (Supra) does not lay down as a matter of law that an officer not in the cadre of DGP is ineligible for being posted as DG & IGP. In fact, as we read the judgment in Dinkar, this Court has merely affirmed and reiterated the observations of the Karnataka High Court which in turn were based on the facts admitted. The Central Administrative Tribunal correctly appreciated the facts of Dinkar but the High Court fell into error in thinking that Dinkar had laid down any inexorable proposition of law that an officer not in the cadre of DGP was ineligible to be appointed on the post of DG & IGP in all States. (Para 13)

       Held consequently on facts : As far as the facts of the present case go, it is the case of the appellant, which has been accepted by the Tribunal, that there is neither any rule, nor requirement, that eligibility to hold the post of DG & IGP could be limited only to an officer already substantively in the cadre of DG & IGP. We are, therefore, in agreement with the view expressed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and unable to accept the correctness of the view of the High Court which has been challenged before us. (Para 14)

       (ii) Service Jurisprudence-Post of Director General and Inspector General-Whether a promotional post as contended by 1st respondent and accepted by High Court? High Court holding that 2nd respondent did not fall within the zone of consideration-Whether correct? (No).

       Held : The High Court has also taken the view that the second respondent did not fall within the zone of consideration. This again is erroneous and based on the wrong assumption that the selection for the post of DG & IGP could be made only from amongst officers holding the cadre and rank of DG & IGP. This assumption was based on an erroneous reading of Dinkar s judgment (Supra). (Para 21)

       (iii) Service Jurisprudence- Credible mechanism" for selection of officers to superior posts-Whether High Court fell into error in assuming that a "credible mechanism" had not been established for selection of officers of superior posts? (Yes)-Whether order of CAT upholding validity of the appointment of the second respondent as DG and IGP be affirmed? (Yes) - Appeal allowed accordingly-Application of 1st respondent before CAT dismissed.

       Held : The respondent placed heavy reliance on the judgment of this Court in Vineet Narayan (Supra) and the observations made in paragraph 60 of the said judgment. In the first place, Vineet Narayan was a case in which the question was whether the jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation could be amended or curtailed by executive instructions issued by what was called "Single Directive." With regard to officers at the decision making level, the executive circular prohibited the CBI from investigation unless clearance was taken from the Central Government. While quashing the said circular as wholly opposed to the provisions of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, as also the rule of law in general, this Court laid down detailed guidelines as to how the CBI, Central Vigilance Commission, Enforcement Directorate and Prosecution Agencies attached thereto should function. Incidentally, it also noticed that the situation of rampant executive interference in the matter of police functioning in the States. With a view to ensure that the police agencies were not subjected to executive and political interference, the observations were made in paragraph 60 that every State should set up a "credible mechanism" for selection/appointment tenure, transfer and posting of not merely the Chief of the State Police but also of all police officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police and above. We do not think that the judgment in Vineet Narayan requires that the mechanism which was put in place by this Court in that case should necessarily be reproduced in other States. While there is no doubt that selection to the post of DG & IGP or similar sensitive post must be done through a "credible mechanism", we are unable to accept the contention of the respondent that the process of selection by which the second respondent was selected was not credible in any manner. The process of selection based on suitability was set in motion by the Home Secretary, and further seems to have been effectively considered by Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister (who was also the Home Minister) and all three authorities had opined that the second respondent was more suited for the post of DG & IGP. Nothing has been shown to us that there was any bias or deficiency in the process by which the second respondent was selected for the post of DG & IGP. The only grievance which appears to have been ventilated by the first respondent throughout is that the second respondent was ineligible to be posted as DG & IGP. This grievance, in our view, has no substance. Though a half-hearted attempt appears to have been made before the Tribunal to project that the first respondent had greater merits, we do not think that the attempt succeeded. The Tribunal did not accept the said stand of the first respondent. So far as the High Court is concerned, the High Court has totally side-stepped the issue of the comparative merits of the officers. We, therefore, find it difficult to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that there was a lack of credible mechanism to determine the suitability to hold the post of DG & IGP in West Bengal. In the result, we hold that the High Court erred on both counts. First, it erred in taking the view that there is an inexorable proposition of law that only an incumbent in the post of DGP was eligible to the post of DG & IGP. There is no such requirement either under the rules/ guidelines or practice followed in the State of West Bengal. Secondly, the High Court also erred in assuming that the mechanism by which the second respondent was selected for holding the post of DG & IGP was not credible. We do not think that the mechanism by which the selection was made by the appellant was in any manner not credible. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. We affirm the order made by the Tribunal upholding validity of the appointment of the second respondent as DG & IGP and dismissing the application filed by the first respondent before it. (Paras 23, 24, 25 and 26)