Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
UNION OF INDIA
Versus
MOHAN LAL KAPOOR
Decided on : September 26, 1973
Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 – Regulations 4 to 7 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Articles 133, 226 – Promotion – Reversion – Members of the U. P. State Police Service, who were brought on a select list for promotion to the Indian Police Service in 1961 and 1962 since when they officiated on cadre posts of the Indian Police Service as Superintendents of Police for a number of years. – They were eligible to be considered for promotion under Regulation 4 of Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, and came on the select list through the procedure for selection by a Select Committee confirmed by the Union public service commission, and, finally approved by the State government. The whole procedure is set out in Regulations 4 to 7 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, under which the select lists are to be revised and reviewed every year. – Both M. L. Capoor and K. N. Misra continued on the select list until the list for 1968 was prepared in December 1967, when they were suddenly dropped from this list. – Consequently, they filed petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High court for quashing orders of alleged reversion. – Held, Fact that the State government should terminate the appointment when the central government makes the direction to do so, can be considered only as vesting a power to make the direction which it would not otherwise have but for the sub-rule. – It does not mean that the State government would lose its power to terminate the appointment if the central government does not make a direction. – In other words, the vesting of the power in the central government to give a binding direction does not take away the power of the State government as appointing authority to terminate the appointment. – Court do not think it necessary to express any opinion on the question whether the removal of the names of the respondents from the select list of 1968 was per sesufficient for the State government to terminate their officiating appointment to the Cadre posts. – Court do not think that in making selection or in reviewing or revising the select list, as a fresh list has to be prepared on the basisof merit and suitabil ability of all eligible candidates including those whose names remain in the previous list, with due regard to seniority, there is no question of notice being given to a senior when he is proposed to be passed over. – No vested right is involved ; no interest recognized and protected by law is in jeopardy. – Court is not prepared to lay down as a general proposition that whenever a selection is made on the basis of merit and suitability with due regard to seniority, notice to a senior will be required if he is proposed to be passed over in favour of a junior on the ground of his greater merit and suitability. – No precedent, has been cited in support of the proposition. – On a balance of all the relevant factors; court do not think it expedient to extend the horizon of natural justice involved in the audi alteram partem rule to the twilight zone of mere expectations, however great they might be. – There can be no question of supersession when a senior is passed over, as the selection is based primarily on merit and suitability, the expression was used probably to indicate that seniority is a factor of great weight to be taken into consideration for inclusion in the select list. – Order Accordingly
Judgment
BEG, J.
( 1 ) THE five appeals before us - one by the Union of India and four by the State and the Chief secretary to the government of Uttar Pradesh-are directed against a common judgment given by division bench of the Allahabad High court, on two Writ Petitions, one by M. L. Capoor and the other by K. N. Misra, and two special appeals, one by Ganesh Singh Seth and the other by Basant Kumar Joshi. As all the cases, resting upon similar facts, raised common questions of law they were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment which has come up before us on grant of certificates of fitness of the cases by the Allahabad High court under Art. 133 (l) (c) of the Constitution of India for appeal to this court.
( 2 ) M. L. Capoor and K. N. Misra, have been members of the U. P. State Police Service, who were brought on a select list for promotion to the Indian Police Service in 1961 and 1962 since when they officiated on cadre posts of the Indian Police Service as Superintendents of Police for a number of years. They were eligible to be considered for promotion under Regulation 4 of Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, and came on the select list through the procedure for selection by a Select Committee confirmed by the Union public service commission, and, finally approved by the State government. The whole procedure is set out in Regulations 4 to 7 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, under which the select lists are to be revised and reviewed every year. Both M. L. Capoor and K. N. Misra continued on the select list until the list for 1968 was prepared in December 1967, when they were suddenly dropped from this list. Consequently, they filed petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Allahabad High court for quashing orders of alleged reversion. These Writ Petition were referred to a division bench which decided them with the special appeals of Ganesh Singh Seth and Basant Kumar Joshi involving the same questions of law on similar facts.
( 3 ) GANESH Singh Seth and Basant Kumar Joshi have been members of the U. P. Civil (Executive) Service. They were brought on the select list of the Indian Administrative Service in 1961 and 1962 under Regulations 4 to 7 of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. These two officers, who had officiated as District Magistrates for a number of years. had also been dropped from the select list for 1968 prepared indecember. 1967, after having continued in that list since 1961 and 1962. They had filed Writ Petition against their alleged reversions which were dismissed by a learned Judge of the Allahabad High court on 23/05/1968. Their special appeals were heard by a division bench with Writ Petition of M. L. Capoor and K. N. Misra, because, as already observed, common questions of law were involved These appeals were allowed by the common judgment now under appeal before us.
( 4 ) THE division bench had quashed the select lists of the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service for the year 1968 and the orders reverting the four officers concerned to their substantive posts in the State Services. For considering the questions of law raised before us it is enough to set out the relevant regulations of the Indian Administrative Service. The only material differences between the two otherwise identical sets of Regulations are that different appellations-e. g. civil Service and police Service are used in respective Regulations for recruitment by promotion to the All India Service concerned and there are certain special provisions in Explanations to Regulation 4 in each of the two sets, with which we are not concerned, and they are only applicable to officers of the respective services dealt with there. Our interpretation of one set of the relevant parts of Regulations will, therefore, be equally applicable to the corresponding provisions of the other set.
( 5
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
