IMPORTANT POINTS
When a compilation of Government Orders (GO) is called Regulation, it does not become superior to any other GO.
There is no law as to the ratio of number of vacancies to the number of candidates called for interview, though it may be a rule of prudence. Calling larger number of candidates for interview does not vitiate selection process.
Candidates participating in interview cannot challenge procedures after results became known.
Sealed cover procedure was devised to prevent prejudice to candidates facing proceedings.
Awarding consolidated marks at the interview instead of separate marks by each Panel member becomes questionable but it cannot be a ground to quash entire selection process.

Headnote:(a) Administrative law – UP Police Regulations – Only compilation of Government orders – Cannot have superiority over other Government orders merely by virtue of being called Regulations. (Para 10)
       (b) Service law – Selection – GO dated 23.01.1999 – Prescribing procedure for selection for the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police – GO dated 27.02.1999 superseding GO dated 23.01.1999 and giving new procedure – Candidates securing 40% marks in each subject and 50% in aggregate to be called for the interview – Restriction of calling 4 persons to interview for each post removed – Procedure not requiring members of selection panel to give separate marks for each candidate – Selection as per latest circular – No infirmity. (Para 14)
       (2013) 15 SCC 1 – Distinguished
       (c) Service law – Selection – Interview – Number of candidates to be called for interview – Ratio – No law as to the ratio of number of vacancies to the number of candidates called for interview – Though it may be a rule of prudence – Calling larger number of candidates for interview does not vitiate selection process. (Para 15)
       (1991) 1 SCC 662; (1985) 4 SCC 417 – Relied upon
       (d) Administration of Justice – Approbation and reprobation – Appellants participating in interview – Results declared four months after interview – Appellants challenging procedures after results became known – Approbation and reprobation – Not permissible. (Para 16)
       (2011) 1 SCC 150; (2006) 6 SCC 395 – Relied upon
       (e) Service law – Promotion – Sealed cover procedure – Devised to prevent prejudice to candidates facing proceedings – Instantly nobody alleging any prejudice by not adopting sealed cover procedure – No merit in contention. (Para 17)
       (f) Service law – Selection – Awarding marks by Panel members – Marks awarded by each member separately to each candidate removes arbitrariness and ensures objectivity – Awarding consolidated marks becomes questionable but it cannot be a ground to quash entire selection process – More so when the procedures expressly provided for consolidated marking.
       (1981) 4 SCC 159 – Relied upon
       Facts of the case:
       This batch of appeals raises a common controversy relating to the promotion of Constables and Head Constables to the rank of Sub-Inspectors in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
       Basically, the candidates appearing for promotion from the rank of Constable or Head Constable to the rank of Sub-Inspector have challenged the selection and promotion process at various stages of the promotion process.
       Finding of the Court:
       In the present case, there is no oblique motive or any miscarriage of justice warranting interference.
       Result: Appeals and writ petitions dismissed.

JUDGMENT

Pinaki Chandra Ghose, J:

1. Leave granted in the special leave petitions. I.A. No.52 of 2015 is allowed.

2. This batch of appeals raises a common controversy relating to the promotion of Constables and Head Constables to the rank of Sub-Inspectors in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The process of promotion started way back in 1999 and has since embroiled in litigation. Basically, the candidates appearing for promotion from the rank of Constable or Head Constable to the rank of Sub-Inspector have challenged the selection and promotion process at various stages of the promotion process.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of this case are that the Government of Uttar Pradesh took a decision on 23.01.1999 for recruitment of departmental candidates to the posts of Sub-inspectors in the State, both by direct recruitment and by promotion of Constables and head Constables. In continuation of the order dated 23.01.1999, another Government Order was issued on 3.02.1999, according to which all the vacancies of Sub-inspectors till 31.12.1999 were to be filled up. On 27.02.1999, the Government of Uttar Pradesh issued another Order which superseded the earlier Order dated 23.01.1999. The 27.02.1999 order provided a complete pattern of the examination and process of selection and promotion. As per the new pattern the promotion process was to be conducted in three steps: (1) The preliminary written examination and infantry test/physical test; (2) Main written Examination; and (3) Interview. Candidates who qualified the preliminary examination and IT/PT were eligible to appear in the main written examination.

4. As per the existing rules in 1999, 50% of total vacancies were to be filled up by promotion of persons serving as Constables and Head Constables and the remaining 50% vacancies were to be filled up by direct recruitment. It appears that at the time the selection process began, there were 2956 vacancies of the rank of Sub-inspectors in the State. So initially the number of vacancies for promotees quota were 1478. However, It appears that vide order dated 10.01.2000, another 86 posts were added to the promotees quota to be filled up by the departmental examination in pursuance of the direction made by State Backward Classes Commission, to maintain the ratio of promotees and direct recruits at the rate of 50%. Thus, the number of vacancies for promotees quota became 1564. It is to be noted that pursuant to the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Allahabad in Special Appeal No.1372 of 1999: State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Ranbir Singh, the Government of Uttar Pradesh created another class of promotees which consisted of 385 Head Constables who were to be promoted directly by virtue of the length of their service without undergoing the selection process. The creation of this class is not contended before us and that controversy is settled by prior litigation. Thus, eventually it appears that total vacancies for people who were to be promoted after the selection process was 1176.

5. The preliminary test was held on 05.09.1999 and the result was announced on 05.11.1999 and those who qualified the preliminary test were permitted to appear in IT/PT which was held in December 1999. The result of IT/PT test was declared on 11.02.2000, which was challenged before the High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No.9694/2000: Triloki Nath Pandey and others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, and the entire process was stayed till the conclusion of litigation. Thus, at the end of that round of litigation the State of Uttar Pradesh was directed to go ahead with the selection procedure. Government Notification for the main written examination was issued on 9.12.2004 and the main written examination was conducted on 25.12.2005. Result of the main written test was declared on 24.01.2006 and pursuant thereto, 9671 candidates were called for interview. The interviews were held at four centres between 15.05.2006 to 20.07.2006. The results of the interviews were m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2015 Supreme(SC) 393

Cases Referred (6)