1964 Supreme(SC) 11

Supreme Court Of India
G. S. RAMASWAMY, O.H. AMARESH, Girappa PATIL, datta GURUNATH, basannappa GHANTI, chandrashekhar MALLESHAPPA SHANTAGIRI
Versus
Inspector General of Police, mysore State, Bangalore
Decided On : January 21, 1964

The inclusion of a Sub-Inspector's name in an eligibility list does not confer an indefeasible right to promotion and continuance as a Circle Inspector, and reversion due to exigencies of service does not amount to reduction in rank.

Headnote:

REVERSION OF POLICE OFFICERS - ELIGIBILITY LIST - PROMOTION - CONFIRMATION - REDUCTION IN RANK - INTEGRATION OF SERVICES - SENIORITY RULES - DISCRIMINATION - STATES REORGANISATION ACT, 1956 - MYSORE SENIORITY RULES, 1958 - HYDERABAD DISTRICT POLICE ACT, 1923 - HYDERABAD DISTRICT POLICE MANUAL, 1923 - ARTICLE 115, 116 OF THE STATES REORGANISATION ACT, 1956 - RULE 2(C) OF THE MYSORE SENIORITY RULES, 1958 - RULE 399, 400, 401, 402, 403, 486 OF THE HYDERABAD DISTRICT POLICE MANUAL, 1923.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, Sub-Inspectors in the former Hyderabad State, were promoted to Circle Inspectors based on their inclusion in the eligibility list prepared under the Hyderabad District Police Manual. After the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, they continued to serve in the new State of Mysore and were promoted as Circle Inspectors on various dates. However, they were later reverted when senior Circle Inspectors returned to the State. The petitioners challenged the reversion, claiming a right to promotion and continuance as Circle Inspectors based on their inclusion in the eligibility list and alleging reduction in rank.

Finding of the Court:

1. The mere fact that a Sub-Inspector's name is included in the eligibility list does not confer an indefeasible right to promotion as a Circle Inspector. 2. Promotion on a temporary or officiating basis does not give a right to continuance in the post or protection against reversion. 3. Reversion due to exigencies of service, such as the return of senior officers from deputation or leave, does not amount to reduction in rank, especially when the officers were never confirmed in the higher post. 4. The State Government was not bound to make transfers and promotions region-wise until the final integration of services was completed. It could act on the provisional seniority list prepared after the States Reorganisation Act. 5. Rule 2(c) of the Mysore Seniority Rules, 1958, which determines seniority among officiating officers, does not expressly provide for the principle of "last come first go" in cases of reversion. 6. In the peculiar circumstances arising from the integration of services after the States Reorganisation Act, the departure from the normal method of reversion based on seniority was justified. 7. The petitioners' reversion was not discriminatory as they were the juniormost according to the provisional seniority list.

Issues: 1. Whether the inclusion of a Sub-Inspector's name in the eligibility list confers an indefeasible right to promotion and continuance as a Circle Inspector? 2. Whether promotion on a temporary or officiating basis gives a right to continuance in the post or protection against reversion? 3. Whether reversion due to exigencies of service amounts to reduction in rank? 4. Whether the State Government was bound to make transfers and promotions region-wise until the final integration of services was completed? 5. Whether Rule 2(c) of the Mysore Seniority Rules, 1958, applies to cases of reversion and mandates the principle of "last come first go"? 6. Whether the petitioners' reversion was discriminatory?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Hyderabad District Police Manual and Rules do not confer an indefeasible right to promotion or continuance in the post of Circle Inspector based solely on inclusion in the eligibility list. 2. Promotion on a temporary or officiating basis is subject to probation and confirmation, and does not confer a right to continuance in the post. 3. Reversion due to exigencies of service, such as the return of senior officers, does not amount to reduction in rank, especially when the officers were never confirmed in the higher post. 4. The State Government was not bound to make transfers and promotions region-wise until the final integration of services was completed. It could act on the provisional seniority list prepared after the States Reorganisation Act. 5. Rule 2(c) of the Mysore Seniority Rules, 1958, which determines seniority among officiating officers, does not expressly provide for the principle of "last come first go" in cases of reversion. 6. In the peculiar circumstances arising from the integration of services after the States Reorganisation Act, the departure from the normal method of reversion based on seniority was justified. 7. The petitioners' reversion was not discriminatory as they were the juniormost according to the provisional seniority list.

Final Decision: The appeals and writ petitions were dismissed. The Court held that the petitioners did not have an indefeasible right to promotion or continuance as Circle Inspectors, and that their reversion due to exigencies of service did not amount to reduction in rank. The Court also held that the State Government was not bound to make transfers and promotions region-wise until the final integration of services was completed, and that Rule 2(c) of the Mysore Seniority Rules, 1958, did not apply to cases of reversion. The Court further held that the petitioners' reversion was not discriminatory.