IMPORTANT POINTS
Law declared by Supreme Court is binding on all courts in the country. Such law has to be followed unless it is overruled, specifically or impliedly or is per incurium.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India – Article 141 – Law declared by Supreme Court is binding on all courts in the country – Such law has to be followed unless it is overruled, specifically or impliedly or is per incurium – Paramjit Singh specifically taken note in B.S.Yadav but not overruled – High Court following Paramjit Singh – No infirmity. (Para 30)
       (1979) 3 SCC 478 – Relied upon
       1980 Suppl. SCC 524 – Referred
       (b) Punjab Police Service Rules 1959 – Rule 10 – Seniority – Depends upon date of confirmation – Necessary to introduce roster by giving four vacancies to promotees and five vacancies to direct recruit – To be adhered to strictly. (Para 34)
       (1979) 3 SCC 478 – Relied upon
       (c) Punjab Police Service Rules 1959 – Rules 3,4,6,8 and 10 – These rules need to be read harmoniously – On such reading rightly held that quota rule was operative both at the time of initial appointment and at the time of confirmation – However, quota should be co-related to the vacancies – A roster had to be introduced which has to continue while giving confirmation. (Para 32, 33)
       (1979) 3 SCC 478 – Relied upon
       1980 Suppl. SCC 524; (1995) 2 SCC 745; (2000) 7 SCC 561 – Referred
       (d) Administration of Justice – Judicial Review – Doctrine of stare decisis – Promotee class initially challenging Rule 10 and demanding quota in confirmation – Now the same class demanding reconsideration of quota rule in confirmation – Anathema to the principle of doctrine of stare decisis – Not permissible. (Para 35)
       (e) Administration of Justice – Binding precedence – Parmajit Singh rather approved by Constitution Bench in B.S.Yadav – Binding on the High Court as well as a coordinate Bench of Supreme Court. (Para 35)
       (f) Rule 10 – Quota rule – Promotion to IPS – Ratio of promotee and direct officers making it to IPS – cannot be seen a discrimination resulting from quota rule in 1959 Rules – Operation of rules may result in harsh consequences for some – To avoid, Court cannot keep on interpreting a rule differently. (Para 37)
       (2000) 2 SCC 552 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       The perennial dispute of seniority between the direct recruits and promotees has once again arises in this batch of cases.
       Finding of the Court:
       The approach of the High Court in following the dicta laid down in Paramjit Singh was perfectly justified. Finding no merit in these appeals, the same are hereby dismissed.

JUDGMENT

A.K.SIKRI,J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The perennial dispute of seniority between the direct recruits and promotees, that keeps showing its fang time and again in one form or the other, has surfaced in these batch of appeals as well. Having regard to the nature of the dispute, we deem it proper to narrate the facts sequentially and while doing so, we will also be stating the respective positions which the parties to this lis have taken. In this manner by the time statement of facts is over, we shall have crystallized the issues as well, which need to be answered.

3. Genesis of the dispute lies in the Punjab Police Service Rules 1959 (hereinafter referred to as "1959 Rules") and the origin can be traced to the judgment of this Court in the case of Paramjit Singh & Ors. vs. Ram Rakha 1979 (3) SCC 478. The dispute before us relates to seniority in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) between the direct recruits and promotees in these proceedings, which was the subject matter of the aforesaid decision as well. However, before discussing the nature of dispute we would like to take stock of the relevant provisions of 1959 Rules.

4. 1959 Rules are framed by the Governor of Punjab in exercise of powers vested by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. Rule 2 which is definition clause defines "Service to mean the Punjab Police Service Rule 2 (f)". As per Rule 3 the Service shall comprise of the posts specified in Appendix 'A' to these Rules which shows 62 posts in the cadre of DSP. Method of recruitment is stipulated in Rule 6 as per which 80% posts are to be filled by promotion from the rank of Inspectors and 20% by direct recruitment. Rule 8 provides that both promotees and direct recruits would be on probation for a period of two years and in case of promotees, the Government may by special order in each case permit period of officiating appointment to the Service to count towards the period of probation. This rule also empowers the Government to extend the period of probation by not more than one year, if it deems fit. Rule 10, which is the most crucial provision and would remain fulcrum of the discussion hereinafter, provides for fixation of seniority and reads as under:

"SENIORITY OF MEMBERS OF SERVICE :-

10. The Seniority of members of the Service shall be determined by the date of confirmation in the service. Provided that if two or more members are confirmed on the same date;

(i) a member who is appointed to the Service by promotion shall be senior to the members appointed otherwise;

(ii) in the case of members who were appointed by direct appointment, the seniority shall be determined in accordance with their position in the competitive examination;

(iii) in the case of members who were appointed to the service by promotion, the seniority shall be determined in accordance with the date of their entry in position list 'G' ." As is clear from the above, date of confirmation in Service is the relevant date and determinative factor for assigning seniority.

5. This very rule of seniority in a dispute between direct recruits and promotees, came up for consideration before this Court in Paramjit Singh's case. Respondents 1 and 2 in the said case, who were promotees to the cadre of DSPs of February 1961 and January 1961 respectively, had filed the Writ Petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh praying for a direction to confirm them in the Service. Apart from impleading State functionaries, six other persons who were direct recruits were also impleaded as respondents.

These direct recruits were appointed as DSPs between May 1961 and May 1965. The grievance of the said two promotees was that quota rule of 80% by promotion and 20% by direct recruitment was not adhered to at the time of confirmation in the Service, and therefore, even though they were members of the Service since a period earlier to the said direct recruits, they were not confirmed though the latter were confirmed and, as a consequen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2014 Supreme(SC) 400

IMPORTANT POINTSLaw declared by Supreme Court is binding on all courts in the country. Such law has to be followed unless it is overruled, specifically or impliedly or is per incurium.

Cases Referred (8)

IMPORTANT POINTS
Law declared by Supreme Court is binding on all courts in the country. Such law has to be followed unless it is overruled, specifically or impliedly or is per incurium.