SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Del) 2443

High Court of Delhi
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, VIPIN SANGHI, JJ.
Union of India & Another
Versus
Sudhanshu Kumar Khare & Others
W.P.(C). No. 7370 of 2010, C.M. Nos. 6770 of 2014, 8140 of 2014, 8169 of 2014
Decided On: 17-11-2014

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appearing Parties:Sanjay Jain, ASG with Jasmeet Singh, Ruchir Mishra & Mukesh Kumar Tiwari, Sidharth Luthra, Sr. Advocate with Supriya Juneja & Viraj Gandhi, G.D. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Piyush Sharma, Naresh Kaushik, Darpan Wadhwa, Arun Khatri, Roshni Namboodiry, for D.S. Shukla/Applicant, Tarun Sharma with Boudh Prabha, Advocates.

Headnote:

The case concerns the inter se seniority of promotees and direct recruits in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), established under the Special Police Establishment Act, 1952 ("the Act") in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). The controversy arose due to amendments made to the recruitment rules over the years, leading to changes in the quota for promotion and direct recruitment. The direct recruits challenged the seniority list prepared by the CBI, claiming that the promotees were promoted in excess of their quota, resulting in their lower seniority. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had allowed the direct recruits' application and directed the CBI to prepare a fresh seniority list. The Union of India (UOI) and the promotees challenged this order before the Delhi High Court.

Fact of the Case:

The Special Police (Executive Staff) Recruitment Rules, 1963 ("the 1963 Rules") provided for a 15% quota for promotion and 85% for direct recruitment. In 1972, the quota for promotion was increased to 30% and the direct recruitment quota was reduced to 50%. A 20% quota for direct recruitment through the Civil Services Examination conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) was also introduced. Further amendments in 1987 maintained the 30% promotion quota and 50% direct recruitment quota, but specified that direct recruitment would be through the Civil Services Examination. The 1996 Rules increased the promotion quota to 50% and the direct recruitment quota to 20%, with the remaining 30% to be filled by transfer/deputation.

Finding of the Court:

The Delhi High Court set aside the CAT's order and upheld the seniority list prepared by the CBI. The court held that the CAT erred in finding that the promotions were made in excess of the quota. The court noted that the CBI had obtained approval from the Department of Personnel and Training (DOPT) and the UPSC for diverting vacancies from the direct recruitment quota to the promotion quota due to the urgent need to fill the newly created vacancies. The court also held that the CBI had the power to relax the recruitment rules under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which allows the government to amend, add, or vary notifications, orders, or rules issued under a statute.

Issues: 1. Whether the promotees were promoted in excess of their quota, resulting in the lower seniority of the direct recruits? 2. Whether the CBI had the power to relax the recruitment rules and divert vacancies from the direct recruitment quota to the promotion quota? 3. Whether the CAT erred in directing the CBI to prepare a fresh seniority list?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the CAT erred in finding that the promotions were made in excess of the quota. The court noted that the CBI had obtained approval from the DOPT and the UPSC for diverting vacancies from the direct recruitment quota to the promotion quota due to the urgent need to fill the newly created vacancies. 2. The court held that the CBI had the power to relax the recruitment rules under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which allows the government to amend, add, or vary notifications, orders, or rules issued under a statute. 3. The court held that the CAT erred in directing the CBI to prepare a fresh seniority list.

Final Decision: The Delhi High Court set aside the CAT's order and upheld the seniority list prepared by the CBI.

Judgment :

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. In these writ proceedings, the common grievance of the petitioners (the "UOI", (referred to as such), in W.P.(C) 7370/2010 and the promotees (referred to as such), in W.P.(C) 7371/2010) is with regard to the order of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereafter referred to as "the CAT") passed in O.A. No. 1281/2000, on 1.7.2010 . The respondents in these proceedings were applicants before the CAT. They are hereafter referred to as "the direct recruits".

2. The controversy is with regard to the inter se seniority of promotees and direct recruits in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), established under the Special Police Establishment Act, 1952 ("the Act") in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). The Special Police (Executive Staff) Recruitment Rules, 1963 (hereafter referred to as "the 1963 Rules") were framed for appointment to various posts in the CBI, with effect from 02.03.1963. Rule 3 provided for the classification, scale of pay, qualifications and other matters relating to the posts, in accordance with the provisions contained in the Schedule. The relevant entry pertaining to the DSPs provided for 22 posts, classified them as "Non-Ministerial Gazetted" and stated that the method of recruitment was:

(a) not exceeding 15% of the sanctioned strength from promotion from Dy. SP with at least 8 years service in the grade;

(b) The remaining 85% by transfer or deputation from amongst suitable officers of state police force.

3. This position continued; by an amendment with effect from 27.12.1972, a change was brought about in the manner of recruitment. The quota provided for recruitment through promotion was increased from a maximum of 15% to 30%; the transfer/deputation quota was reduced to 50%. In either category, if the quota could not be filled, direct recruitment would be resorted to; independently, a 20% direct recruit quota "in consultation with the UPSC" was provided for. The relevant extracts of the amendments are as follows:

"The Gazette of India: January 6, 1973, PAUSA-1,

1894

New Delhi, the 27th December, 1972

G.S.R.2--In exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution, the President hereby makes the following rules further to amend the Special Police Establishment (Executive Staff) Recruitment Rules, 1963, namely:-

1. (1) These rules may be called the Special Police Establishment (Executive Staff) (Amendment) Rules, 1972.

(2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Official Gazette.

2. In the Schedule to the Special Police Establishment (Executive Staff) Recruitment Rules, 1963, for the existing entries in Columns 10 and 11 relating to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the following shall respectively be substituted, namely:-

Column 10:

"(a) Promotion - 30 percent failing which by transfer on deputation failing both by direct recruitment.

(b) Transfer/deputation - 50 percent failing which by direct recruitment.

(c) Direct recruitment - 20 percent in consultation with the Union Public Service Commission."

Column 11:

"Promotion:

Inspector of Police in the Central Bureau of Investigation with 5 years service in the grade rendered after appointment thereto on a regular basis.

Transfer/deputation:

Suitable officers of the State or Central Government Department who are holding equivalent posts or who, though holding posts in the next lower grade, are officers approved for promotion to equivalent posts.

Deputation:

Deputationist Inspector in the Central Bureau of Investigation who have put in at least 5 years service in the rank in the State/Central Bureau of Investigation out of which at least 3 years is in the Central Bureau of Investigation.

(Period of deputation - ordinarily not exceeding 5 years)."

4. On 31.03.1987, the rules were amended yet again (hereafter referred to as "the 1987 amendment"). These amendments stipulated that the number of posts were 157; and that th































































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top