IMPORTANT POINTS
Candidates to a recruitment process do not have vested right to get the result declared and if selected, get appointed.
Authority having the power to specify the method of recruitment must be deemed to have the power to revise and substitute the same.
Policy decision taken by Government, if in larger public interest, not mala fide, nit actuated by extraneous reasons, cannot be said to be arbitrary.

Headnote:(a) Service law – Recruitment – Candidates to a recruitment process do not have vested right to get the result declared and if selected, get appointed – Authority having the power to specify the method of recruitment must be deemed to have the power to revise and substitute the same – At best, Government may be required to justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution – Even selection does not give a person an indefeasible right of claiming appointment – Legitimate expectation. (Para 14, 15)
       1993 Supp.(2) SCC 600; (2016) 9 SCC 313; (1991) 3 SCC 47 – Relied upon
       (b) Administrative law – Policy decision taken by Government – If in larger public interest, not mala fide, nit actuated by extraneous reasons – Cannot be said to be arbitrary. (Para 24)
       Facts of the case:
       Union of India set up a Committee to make suggestions on various aspects including filling up the vacancies in IPS cadre. The Committee recommended that in addition to the normal modes of recruitment i.e. direct recruitment to the IPS through the annual Civil Services Examination and promotion from the State Police Services, a third method of Limited Competitive Examination should be introduced.
       The Government partially accepted the report and by amendment in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 introduced a method of recruitment through LCE.
       The LCE was placed at point (b) below (a) direct recruit through competitive examination and above (c) promotion of the members of the State Police Services. Rule 8, as amended, provided that the LCE would be held at such intervals as the Central Government, may in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission from time to time, determine.
       The UPSC published an advertisement on 10.03.2012 inviting applications for filling up posts in the IPS through LCE as per the amended rules. Thereafter, written tests and interviews were conducted but till date the results of the same have not been declared.
       The amendments to the rules were challenged in a number of petitions. The Delhi High Court observed that it cannot comment whether the system introduced by this amendment is the best or there could be better alternatives. It noted that the UPSC had initially opposed the amendment. It had also noted the reservation of the Central Police Organisation and the States that this would result in shortage of police officers, and Paramilitary Forces in the State. However, the Court held that it cannot nullify or invalidate the decision of the Government only on the ground that it was not a very wise decision and there were better alternatives.
       The Union of India had taken a decision to scrap the LCE held in the year 2012. The candidates who had appeared in the LCE have opposed this decision of the Union of India.
       Finding of the Court:
       The decision of the Government to scrap the process of recruitment to the IPS through the LCE cannot be termed to be arbitrary, discriminatory or capricious. The decision is a reasonable one in the facts and circumstances of the case.
       Result: All applications disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Deepak Gupta J.

1. By this judgment we shall decide whether the decision taken by the Union of India not to make appointments to the Indian Police Service (for short ‘the IPS’) pursuant to the Limited Competitive Examination (for short ‘the LCE’) which took place from 20.05.2012 to 22.05.2012, is legal and valid.

2. The facts in brief are that keeping in view the shortage of police officials in the Indian Police Service, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India set up a Committee headed by Shri Kamal Kumar, I.P.S. (Retd.) to make suggestions on various aspects including filling up the vacancies. The Committee, in its report, recommended that in addition to the normal modes of recruitment i.e. direct recruitment to the IPS through the annual Civil Services Examination and promotion from the State Police Services, a third method of Limited Competitive Examination should be introduced. The directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police in the State Police Service and their equivalents in the Central Police Services with a minimum of 5 years of service were eligible for this exam subject to a maximum age limit of 45 years. It was also recommended that not more than 65 officers should be recruited in a given year through the LCE and the recruitment through this channel may have to be staggered over a period of 7 years. The Government partially accepted the report and by amendment in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 introduced a method of recruitment through LCE. Officers of the State Police Service, Central Police Organisation and Army officers fulfilling the eligibility conditions were entitled to appear in the LCE. It would be pertinent to mention that the LCE was placed at point (b) below (a) direct recruit through competitive examination and above (c) promotion of the members of the State Police Services. Rule 8, as amended, provided that the LCE would be held at such intervals as the Central Government, may in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (for short ‘the UPSC’) from time to time, determine. At this stage, it would be pertinent to mention that in terms of the IPS rules, the seniority of IPS officers is determined as per the year of allotment and Rule 3 of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 provides that the year of allotment of a direct recruit shall be the year following the year in which the competitive examination was held. It is not disputed that for the purposes of assigning the year of allotment the persons selected through the LCE would be covered by the same rule like the direct recruit. Consequently, amongst the officers having the same year appointment, the inter se seniority would be determined as follows:

1. Direct recruits

2. LCE appointees

3. Promoted State Police Service officers

3. The relevant portion of Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Amended Rules, 2011 reads as follows:-

“1. xxx xxx xxx

2. In the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as the principal rules), in rule 4 in sub-rule (1), for clause (b), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:-

“(b) by limited competitive examination;

xxx xxx xxx

3. In the Principal rules, after rule 7, the following rule shall be inserted, namely:-

“8. Recruitment by limited competitive examination – (1) The limited competitive examination for recruitment to the service shall be held at such intervals as the Central Government may, in consultation with the Commission, from time to time determine.
(2) The examination shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with such regulations as the Central Government may from time to time make in consultation with the Commission and the State Government.
(3) xxx xxx xxx”

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid amendment to the Rule

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2018 Supreme(SC) 352

Cases Referred (3)