IMPORTANT POINT
The State Government could not have invoked Rule 14 of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 when there was no provision in the said Rules for absorption of Deputationists on permanent basis from Central Reserve Police Force in Punjab Police Service.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW—Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959—Rules 2(b), 6, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 14—Punjab Absorption of Officers of Para Military Forces (Group A) Service Rules, 2005—Absorption of Deputationists—Inter se seniority—One IPS, an officer in Punjab Police Service was killed by terrorists—His sister was appointed on 9-6-1989 as Assistant Commandant in CRPF on probation for two years—She being the only surviving child of her parents was appointed in CRPF as her assignment was relatively safer in CRPF than in Punjab Police Service—On 16/17-8-1993, she was appointed on deputation to the post of Superintendent of Police in Punjab Police—She retained her lien as Assistant Commandant in CRPF till 11-9-1998 when she was absorbed as DSP in Punjab Police—She was allowed all benefits including pay and seniority from 9-6-1989—Whether State Government could have invoked Rule 14 of the Punjab Police Rules when there was no provision in the said Rules for absorption of Deputationists on permanent basis from CRPF in Punjab Police Service—(No)—Deputation is not source of recruitment—Weightage cannot be given, in absence of rules, to the services rendered by her in CRPF —Rule 14 held inapplicable.
Held : Strictly on interpretation of the said 1959 Rules, there is no scope for opening of a third mode of recruitment. Deputation is not the source of recruitment under the said 1959 Rules. It is only as an exceptional case that respondent no. 4 was given the benefit of absorption in Punjab Police Service as Deputy S.P. and we do not find any fault with that exercise. It is the genuine exercise. However, when her services are regularized by the State not from 16/17.8.1993, when she stood appointed as a deputationist, but from 9.6.1989, when she was appointed as Assistant Commandant in CRPF, then infirmity in the action of the State Government crept in. CRPF functions cannot be compared with Punjab Police Service. Apart from policing, an officer of Punjab Police Service has to do the work of investigation of crime detection, which is not within the purview of CRPF. A Deputy S.P. in CRPF need not have the knowledge of CrPC, IPC etc., which an officer in Punjab Police Service needs to possess. The Service Rules governing CRPF are different from the Service Rules which governed Punjab Police Service. Therefore, even functionally, the two cadres are different. In fact, respondent no. 4, Ms. Amrit Brar, has not undergone training as contemplated under Punjab Police Service Rules. However, she has put in 5 years experience as Deputy S.P. in Punjab Police Service between 16/17.8.1993 and 11.9.1998. That experience should be given due weightage. In our view, having examined the above Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, it is clear that deputation is not the source of recruitment. Direct recruitment is the source. Promotion is the source. However, deputation is not the source for recruitment. Moreover, in the present case, we are concerned with the rights of the appellants. We are concerned with the inter se seniority in the said post of Deputy S.P. since that seniority ultimately counts for promotion to the next higher cadre. The post of Deputy S.P. is a feeder post in that sense and when the post is a feeder post, the inter se seniority has the role to play. In the circumstances, if deputation is not the source of recruitment, then even in exceptional cases of this nature, weightage cannot be given, in the absence of the rules, to the services rendered by Ms. Amrit Brar in CRPF. Rule 14 talks of relaxation. However, Rule 14 is not applicable to the rules which do not provide for recruitment through deputation. Rule 14 would have applied if the said 1959 Rules had a third source of recruitment, namely, deputation. There is no such third source of recruitment. Hence, Rule 14 has no application. Rule 14 refers to relaxation of rules. Rule 14 contemplates existence of a rule of recruitment. If there is no such rule providing for third source of recruitment, the Government cannot relax a non existent rule. Therefore, the High Court had erred in treating deputation as a third source of recruitment. There is a difference between direct appointment as a source of recruitment and deputation/ transfer as a source of recruitment. In certain cases, cited before us, weightage has been given to the service put in by the transferee. However, in all those cases, the third source of recruitment was transfer/deputation. In the present case, there is no such rule to that extent. There is an error in the impugned judgment of the High Court. As state above, Ms. Amrit Brar has put in 5 years service as a deputationist in Punjab Police Service between 16/17.8.1993 and 11.9.1998. She is certainly entitled to the weightage for the services rendered by her during these 5 years. However, she is not entitled to weightage of service between 9.6.1989 and 16/17.8.1993, as held by the High Court, for the fixation of inter se seniority.(Para 11)

JUDGMENT

Kapadia, J.—A short question which arises for determination in this civil appeal is whether the State Government could have invoked Rule 14 of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 (dealing with the power of relaxation) when there was no provision in the said Rules for absorption of Deputationists on permanent basis from Central Reserve Police Force (“CRPF”) in Punjab Police Service.

2. The facts giving rise to this civil appeal are as follows.

Shri Avinder Singh Brar, IPS was killed by the terrorists. He was an officer in the Punjab Police Service. On account of the above incident, his sister, Ms. Amrit Brar-respondent no. 4, stood appointed on 9.6.1989 as Assistant Commandant in CRPF on probation for two years. She was appointed in CRPF under above tragic circumstances. She was the only child of her parents. She was appointed in CRPF as her assignment was relatively safer in CRPF than in Punjab Police Service. These facts are important since they show that the appointment of respondent no. 4 was not compassionate but as an exception. Her appointment was to be governed by CRPF Rules. She completed here probation on completion of two years. On 16/17.8.1993, Ms. Amrit Brar was appointed on deputation to the post of Superintendent of Police (SP) in Punjab Police. She retained her lien as Assistant Commandant in CRPF till 11.9.1998 when she was absorbed as DSP in Punjab Police. She was allowed all benefits including pay and seniority from 9.6.1989. In between, Ms. Amrit Brar was promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant in CRPF in March, 1995.

3. The appellants herein are officers of Punjab Police Service. Some of the appellants are recipients of the President’s medal for gallantry for having fought terrorism in the State of Punjab. The appellants challenged the orders of the State Government in the Punjab and Haryana High Court granting absorption to Ms. Amrit Brar, particularly on the ground that the Punjab Police Service Rules did not contemplate absorption of a deputationist from CRPF. The appellants challenged the absorption on the grounds that Ms. Amrit Brar was granted benefit of compassionate appointment as Assistant Commandant in CRPF in 1989 and, therefore, she was not entitled to double benefit of compassionate absorption in 1998 and that too from 9.6.1989. The appellants’ main grievance before the High Court was that giving the benefit of seniority to Ms. Amrit Brar from 9.6.1989 would make her senior to almost ten other officers. According to the appellants, the consequences of seniority being given to Ms. Amrit Brar would mean supersession of the appellants. According to the appellants, Ms. Amrit Brar stood appointed to Class I post in the CRPF as Assistant Commandant on compassionate ground and, therefore, there was no cause for second exercise of this power by the State Government after almost nine years. The appellants further submitted before the High Court that there were many officers on deputation with Punjab Police Service from various Para Military Forces, including CRPF, most of whom had come on deputation even prior to Ms. Amrit Brar. Appellants further contended before the High Court that, in fact, the State Government had notified Punjab Absorption of Officers of Para Military Forces (Group A) Service Rules, 2005 and under the said Rules, the State Government had created ex-cadre posts for absorption of Para Military Forces officers, who were on deputation with the State of Punjab and who were to be absorbed in Punjab Police Service. According to the appellants, if the benefit of seniority was to be given to Ms. Amrit Brar from 9.6.1989 then even in the matter of absorption she would supersede a number of other officers.

4. By the impugned judgment dated 24.1.2006, the High Court dismissed CWP No. 11548/96 filed by the appellants herein. One of the main grounds urged by the appellants before the High Court was that regularization of the services of Ms. Amrit Brar with effect from 9.6.1989 and abs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 444

IMPORTANT POINTThe State Government could not have invoked Rule 14 of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 when there was no provision in the said Rules for absorption of Deputationists on permanent basis from Central Reserve Police Force in Punjab Police Service.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
The State Government could not have invoked Rule 14 of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959 when there was no provision in the said Rules for absorption of Deputationists on permanent basis from Central Reserve Police Force in Punjab Police Service.