AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.

1. I have had the benefit of going through the scholarly judgments of my esteemed colleagues Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah and I find myself in full agreement with the same. However, I would like to add a few words to support the conclusions already drawn in order to understand the status of the Bihar Police Manual as well as scope and extent of the powers of Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police to make appointments.

2. The issue with regard to the power of the Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police to make appointments without issuing any advertisement already stands concluded by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. vs. Chandreswar Pathak reported in (2014) 13 SCC 232. Apart from this, the contention that a higher authority also enjoys the same powers as possessed by a subordinate officer has to be gathered from the provisions under which such authority is being claimed. I have not been able to find any residuary power in the Director or Inspector General of Police or any such authority conferred on him to appoint a Constable in the manner in which it was done in the cases giving rise to the present controversy. The observations made by a learned Single Judge in the case of Dhrub Prasad & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1995(2) PLJR 205 in the matter of appointment of Excise Constables that the power which was vested with the subordinate officer, automatically stands vested in the superior officer as the power is administrative in nature, does not appear to be an observation so as to cover the exercise of authority by the Director or Inspector General of Police in the present case. The Bihar Police Manual clearly prescribes that the appointing authority of Constable shall be the Superintendent of Police. There is nothing in the Manual which may give an automatic authority on a superior officer to make appointments on the post of Constable. An administrative power also, which creates any rights or divests a person of something tangible, has to be by way of codified authority and cannot be presumed to be suo motu in existence. The assumption of power for being exercised is dependent upon the existence of the power and not otherwise. There is, therefore, no rule of administrative law which may on the facts and issues arising in the present case allow the Court to presume the existence of such authority or power in the Director or Inspector General of Police, that too even without advertisement.

3. Coming to the issue of the status of the Bihar Police Manual, in the state of Uttar Pradesh there are a set of regulations namely U.P. Police Regulations, the status whereof came up for consideration in several decisions. I would like to refer to the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Moonglal vs. The D.I.G. (Karmik) U.P. Police and others reported in (1994) 2 SLR 473 (DB) = 1993 SCC Online ALL 301. Paragraphs 12 to 15 of the said judgment are extracted hereinunder:-

“12. U.P. Police Regulations is compilation of Government Orders issued from time to time. Certain regulations are referable to Section 7 of the Police Act; they have statutory force. Other regulations do not have statutory force; they only contain guidance for the officers and officials concerned. A later Government Order supersedes the earlier Government Order on the same subject. If Government Order referable to Regulation 520 was issued subsequent to Government Order referable to Regulation, the former will prevail over the latter. There is no material on record to show that the Government Order referable to Regulation 1 was issued subsequent to the Government Order referable to Regulation 520. Accordingly we are unable to sustain the appellant’s plea that Regulation 520 is invalid as it is contrary to Regulation 1.

13. It also needs to be pointed out that Regulation 1 prohibits Inspector General of Polic