The State Government is not competent to create ex-cadre posts and appoint officers to such posts without the approval of the Central Government.

JUDGMENT :

Arup Kumar Goswami, J.

Heard Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Jitendra Pali, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A.K. Behra, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Malay Shrivastava, learned counsel, appearing for applicant/respondent No.1 and Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General for Union of India along with Ms. Anmol Sharma, learned Central Government Counsel, appearing for respondent No.2.

2. This writ petition is filed against an order dated 12.04.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, for short, ‘the CAT’, in Original Application, for short, ‘OA’, No. 200-564/2020, whereby the CAT granted conditional relief to the applicant / respondent No.1 herein as follows :

“XIV. Thus in view of the aforesaid circumstances the OA succeeds. Consequently, the respondents order dated 26.09.2019 is quashed and set aside. Thereby, we declare that the promotion granted to the applicant vide order dated 06.10.2018 would continue to be valid and having held so, we direct the respondents to grant consequential benefits as are permissible under the extant rules and laws. Time calendered to implement the judgment is 3 months from the date of receipt of this order. With the above direction, the OA is allowed to the extent indicated, with no order as to costs. However, we hasten to add that judgment delivered is subject to the final outcome of the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the SLP referred to in the MA 503/2022. With the above direction, the MA stands disposed.”

3. The OA was filed by the present respondent No. 1 against the petitioners herein i.e. the State of Chhattisgarh, through the Chief Secretary and the Director General of Police, who were respondents No. 1 and 3, respectively, in the OA, along with two others. Notice was not sent to respondent No.4 in the OA and accordingly, in this petition also, notice is not issued to respondent No.3 herein, who was respondent No.4 in OA.

4. By order dated 04.07.2012, while suspending the order of the CAT by way of an interim order, this Court had observed that an attempt would be made to dispose of the writ petition at the admission stage and accordingly, on the request of learned senior counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

5. The case presented in the OA may, briefly, be noticed;

(i) The applicant before the CAT is an IPS Officer of the 1998 batch of the erstwhile undivided Madhya Pradesh cadre and after reorganization of the State of Madhya Pradesh into two different States, namely, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh, the applicant was allocated to the Chhattisgarh cadre. While holding the post of Chief of Intelligence and Head of Economic Offences Wing and Anti Corruption Bureau of the State of Chhattisgarh, he had lodged first information report (for short, FIR) in three very sensitive cases in which chargesheet was filed before the competent criminal court. One case was known as ‘Irrigation Scam’, another one as ‘Nagrik Apoorti Scam’ or ‘NAAN Scam’ and the third case was against the respondent No. 4 in the OA. He was awarded President’s Police Medal for Gallantry in the year 1996 as well as in the year 2011 because of his exemplary work.

(ii) In the year 2017, there were four permanent/regular posts of Director General of Police (DGP). In exercise of powers under the proviso to Rule 4(2) of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 (for short, Rules of 1954), the Government of Chhattisgarh created three temporary posts of DGP for a period of two years starting from 01.01.2018 to 31.12.2019 by order dated 27.12.2017 and accordingly, a proposal was sent to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India, though no consent is required for creation of such temporary posts. A regular Departmental Promotio