The inclusion of a Sub-Inspector's name in an eligibility list does not confer an indefeasible right to promotion or continuance as a Circle Inspector. Promotions are subject to fitness and can be made on a temporary or officiating basis. The fact that a Sub-Inspector is promoted does not give them a right to continue in the post beyond the probationary period unless they are confirmed by the competent authority.

Headnote:
REVERSION OF POLICE OFFICERS - PROMOTION FROM ELIGIBILITY LIST - RIGHT TO PROMOTION AND CONTINUANCE - REVERSION DUE TO EXIGENCIES OF SERVICE - REDUCTION IN RANK - INTEGRATION OF SERVICES - SENIORITY RULES - APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Sub-Inspectors in the former Hyderabad State, were promoted to Circle Inspectors based on an eligibility list prepared under the Hyderabad District Police Manual. After the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, they were transferred to the new State of Mysore. The State Government continued to promote Sub-Inspectors from the eligibility lists received from various States, including Hyderabad, on an ad hoc basis pending integration of services. A provisional integrated seniority list of Sub-Inspectors was prepared in 1958. When senior Circle Inspectors returned from deputation or leave, some officiating Circle Inspectors, including the petitioners, were reverted to make way for them. The petitioners challenged their reversion, claiming that they had an indefeasible right to promotion and continuance as Circle Inspectors based on their inclusion in the eligibility list and that the reversion amounted to reduction in rank.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the inclusion of a Sub-Inspector's name in the eligibility list did not confer an indefeasible right to promotion or continuance as a Circle Inspector. Promotions were subject to fitness and could be made on a temporary or officiating basis. The fact that a Sub-Inspector was promoted did not give them a right to continue in the post beyond the probationary period unless they were confirmed by the competent authority. The reversion of the petitioners was not a reduction in rank as they were never confirmed as Circle Inspectors and the reversion was due to exigencies of service, not due to any fault on their part.
Issues: 1. Whether the inclusion of a Sub-Inspector's name in the eligibility list conferred an indefeasible right to promotion and continuance as a Circle Inspector? 2. Whether the reversion of the petitioners amounted to reduction in rank? 3. Whether the State Government was bound to make promotions and transfers region-wise till the final integration of services was made? 4. Whether the Mysore Seniority Rules, Rule 2(c), applied to the reversion of the petitioners?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The eligibility list did not confer an indefeasible right to promotion or continuance as a Circle Inspector. Promotions were subject to fitness and could be made on a temporary or officiating basis. The fact that a Sub-Inspector was promoted did not give them a right to continue in the post beyond the probationary period unless they were confirmed by the competent authority. 2. The reversion of the petitioners was not a reduction in rank as they were never confirmed as Circle Inspectors and the reversion was due to exigencies of service, not due to any fault on their part. 3. The State Government was not bound to make promotions and transfers region-wise till the final integration of services was made. The State could treat the whole State as one unit and make transfers as it thought fit. 4. Rule 2(c) of the Mysore Seniority Rules did not apply to the reversion of the petitioners as it only provided for seniority between persons officiating in a higher rank and did not expressly provide for the principle of "last come first go" in case of reversions.
Final Decision: The appeals and writ petitions were dismissed. The Court held that the petitioners had no indefeasible right to promotion or continuance as Circle Inspectors, their reversion was not a reduction in rank, the State Government was not bound to make promotions and transfers region-wise till the final integration of services, and Rule 2(c) of the Mysore Seniority Rules did not apply to their reversion.

Judgement

WANCHOO, J.: These appeals and writ petitions raise common questions and will be dealt with together. The appeals arise out of six writ petitions filed in the Mysore High Court and six of the writ petitions filed in this Court are by the same petitioners who applied in the Mysore High Court. Two writ petitions (Nos. 173 and 174) have been filed by two others. They also filed writ petitions in the High Court, though they have not filed appeals from the decision of the High Court. They will all be referred to as petitioners hereafter.

2. The case before the High Court was briefly this. All the petitioners were appointed Sub-Inspectors in the former Hyderabad State, under S. 6 of the Hyderabad District Police Act (No. X of 1329 (Fasli). Under R. 399 of the Hyderabad District Police Manual, issued by the Government of Hyderabad under S. 10 of the Hyderabad District Police Act, posts of Circle-Inspectors were to be filled by promotion from the rank of Sub-Inspectors. The subsequent Rules provided for the procedure for this purpose. The names of selected Sub-Inspectors who were considered fit for promotion were sent by the Deputy Inspectors-General of Police and the Commissioner of City Police of Hyderabad to the Inspector-General of Police. Thereafter a Board consisting of the Inspector-General of Police and all the Deputy Inspectors-General of Police, Commissioner of City Police, Hyderabad and Assistant Inspector-General of Police interviewed the candidates and prepared an approved list of Sub-Inspectors fit for promotion. This approved list used to be called the eligibility list and promotions to the post of Circle Inspector used to be made from this list. The case of the petitioners in the High Court was that their names were included in the eligibility list published in the month of October 1956 before the States Reorganisation Act (No. XXXVII of 1956) came into force on November 1, 1956. They therefore contended that in view of the entry of their names in the eligibility list they were entitled as of right to promotion to the post of Circle Inspector as and when vacancies occurred. On the coming into force of the States Reorganisation Act, certain areas from the States of Bombay, Hyderabad, Madras and the whole of Coorg were made part of the new State of Mysore in addition to the existing State of Mysore. In consequence, certain public servants belonging to these States from which areas were added to the old State of Mysore were transferred to the new State of Mysore thus formed out of the old State of Mysore and the areas to it. Among these were the petitioners.

3. Under S. 115 of the States Reorganisation Act, public servants so transferred were deemed to serve in connection with the affairs of the principal successor State. Provision was also made for the establishment of one or more advisory boards for the purpose of assistance in regard to the division and integration of services amongst the new States and the ensuring of fair and equitable treatment to all persons affected by the States Reorganisation Act. Section 115 further provided that the conditions of service applicable immediately before the appointed day (namely, November 1, 1956), shall not be varied to the disadvantage of any person transferred to the new State except with the previous approval of the Central Government. Section 116(1) provided for the continuance of public servants in the same posts; but Sub-s. (2) there of laid down that nothing in Sub-s. (1) shall prevent a competent authority after the appointed day from passing in relation to any such person any order affecting his continuance in such post or office thereby recognising the right of the successor inter alia to transfer officers anywhere in the new State after November 1, 1956.

4. The petitioners continued to serve in the new State and as they were in the eligilibity list referred to above they were promoted as Circle Inspectors on various dated after November 1, 1956. It may be mentio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document