Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
F.I. REBELLO & R.M.SAVANT,JJ.
State of Maharashtra -PETITIONERS
Versus
Layakmiya Bademiya -Respondents
WRIT PETITION NO.2282 OF 2007
Decided on:19TH APRIL, 2007
Advocates appeared:
Mr. A.AKumbhakoni, Associate Advocate General with
Mr.N.P.Deshpande, AGP for the Petitioners
Mr. H.S. Shreepad Murthy, for Respondent No.1.
Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate i/b. Y.K.S. Legal
for respondent Nos. 5 to 9.
Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani with Mr. Pranav Badheka for
Intervenor in Civil Application No.945 of 2007.
Rule to that extent partly made absolute. No order as to costs.
Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Sections 5 and 5(b) - Reconstitution of Police Force. - For formation of common cadre for men and women, State Government ought to have laid down criteria for merger of two cadres and then fixing inter se seniority in merged cadres.
Bombay Police Act, 1951 - Section 5(b) - Conditions of police service - Recruitment, pay allowances of service of Police Force - Power of framing rules pertaining to - Conferred on State Government to provide for framing rules in respect of conditions of service by general or special order. - The conditions of service of Police Personnel as also Officers are governed by the provisions of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. Section 5 of the Act provides for constitution of Police Force. Section 5(b) sets out the recruitment, pay, allowances and all other conditions of service of the Police Force shall be such as may from time to time be determined by the State Government by general or special order. In other words considering the provisions of Section 5 of Bombay Police Act, power has been conferred on the State Government to provide for framing rule s pertaining to conditions of service b y general or special order.
Bombay Police Rules, 1989 - Rules 89(3) and 124 - Seniority - Of Sub- Inspectors - Not from date of their selection and sent for training - During course of training they would be only Student Police Sub-Inspectors - Only on passing examination they to be appointed as Police Sub-Inspectors - Seniority to be computed from date of regular entry in service. - Under Rule 124 a provision was made for training of the candidates for appointment as Sub-Inspectors. Rule 124(2) uses the expression "Sub- Inspector students" and the period of training was to extend over 18 months. The terminology, therefore, used is until they pass the examination, they are Sub- Inspector students, who on passing the examination were to be appointed as Sub-Inspectors. It would, therefore, be clear from a reading of this rule that the seniority of the Sub-Inspectors is not from the date they were selected and sent for training, as during the course of the training they would only be student Police Sub-Inspectors and it is only on successful passing the examination that they are to be appointed as Police Sub-Inspector. In fact Court asked the counsel for the parties as there were some controversy to make available the letters of appointment. It would be clear from the information produced and the various seniority lists which were made available that the seniority has been considered from the date of their actual appointment after undergoing training. This was never protested to by the respondent No. 1 or by any other male officer or for that matter by female Sub-Inspectors. The date, therefore, of seniority would be the date when they were first issued the letter of appointment and according to their merit in the batch. In that context Court is clearly of the opinion that it is the date of appointment on successful completion of training which is the date of seniority. Considering the Bombay Police Manual, the resolution of 1939 ceased to be in force. The finding of the Tribunal, therefore, on that count which called on the petitioners to count also the period of training is without jurisdiction.
(PER F.I. REBELLO, J.) Rule. By consent of the parties heard forthwith.
2. The petitioner state, has moved this Court aggrieved by the order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal (MAT) dated 22nd December, 2006 in Original Application No.828 of 2005. The Respondent No.1 was the original applicant and respondent Nos. 2 to 9 here were the original respondents Nos. 4 to 11 before the learned Administrative Tribunal. In the Original Application the respondent No.1 had prayed for setting aside the order dated 4th July, 2005. By that order the State Government decided to fix the seniority of women police inspectors. The further reliefs sought was by way of a mandatory direction to restrain the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 from issuing any promotion orders on the basis of the seniority positions emerging from the grant of deemed dates as per the order dated 4th July, 2005. Various other reliefs were also sought which need not be set out.
Respondent No.1 was selected as Police Sub Inspector on 1st July, 1977 and thereafter sent for training to the Police Training Centre. The respondent No.1 completed his training on 31st July, 1979. Like the respondent No.1 there were also several others Police Sub Inspectors who were sent for training pursuant to the said recruitment. The respondent Nos. 2 to 9 had been recruited and had been sent for training by order dated 25th September, 1978. On completion of their training they were appointed as Police Sub Inspectors, but in the separate cadre of Women Police Sub Inspectors. The grievance of the respondent No.1 arose on account of the merger of the Women’s cadre and the Men’s cadre, by Government Resolution of 18th July, 1998. While passing that order it was set out that a decision had been taken to give equal status to women police officers, similar to men police officers by assigning them equal work and duty as well as equal responsibilities and to give posting similar to men police officers. The common cadre was to constitute both, women and men police officers, by giving parity to women in the State Police Force on the basis of seniority-cum-merit analogous to men personnel/officers.
3. By its impugned order, the learned Tribunal after considering the various contentions as urged on behalf of the parties was pleased to allow the Original Application and issued the following directions
"54. Thus for above reasons all the actions of the respondent No.1 to 3 are declared illegal, ultra vires. Accordingly we direct the State Government through its Principal Secretary, Home Department to direct all its subordinate Officer to treat the training period of such police officers as duty for all purposes from the date they joined for training at P.T.C., Nasik P.T. School, Marol, Mumbai after their initial selection as P.S.I. and to readjust seniority of all such police officers, whose seniority has been determined on the basis of Resolution dated 16th August, 1939 and prepare fresh gradation/seniority list accordingly.
55. As the impugned order is based on the combined seniority/gradation list prepared by following resolution dated 16th August, 1939, therefore, automatically the impugned order becomes bad in law and non est and accordingly the same is set aside.
Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause "A" and "C". To prepare/readjust and finalise combined seniority list of men and women police officers the respective seniority lists we give 6 months time to the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to comply with the order.
Till then the parties are directed to maintain status quo as on today. However, they will not get benefit of the status quo for any other purpose." It is this order which is the subject matter of the present petition.
4. On behalf of the petitioner State the learned Associate Advocate General submits that the learned Tribunal misdirected itself in granting the reliefs considering that the original applicant, the respondent No.1 herein at the highest could claim seniority in the post
SupremeToday
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
