The main legal point established in the judgment is that induction into the promotion list ˜E™ does not per se amount to promotion to the rank of SI, and appointment as officiating SI in independent charge of a police station should be construed as promotion to the rank of SI, with the date of such appointment as the reckoning date for the purpose of seniority.

1. These four letters patent appeals arise from the common judgment of the learned Single Judge in two writ petitions filed by the same petitioners. They filed SWP no.1208/1986 for quashing the order of the Director General of Police (DGP) dated 3rd December, 1985 directing that the appellants and others who were brought on promotion list ˜E™ on 25th April, 1978 - barring those who stood otherwise disqualified and had so far not been promoted as Sub-Inspectors (SI) - shall be deemed to have been promoted as SI for the purpose of seniority with effect from 25th April, 1978 i.e. the date when they were brought on the promotion list. The petitioners further sought mandamus on the official respondents not to take into consideration the said order of ˜notional™ promotion in preparing list ˜F™ or giving promotions to the post of Inspector, and to declare them (writ-petitioners) as senior to the respondents. Alleging that the file of SWP no.1208/1986 was not traceable in the Registry and expressing an apprehension that the promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy. SP) from the impugned seniority list was in offing, they filed SWP no.3586/1997. Besides reiterating the reliefs sought in the earlier writ petition, they prayed for quashing government order dated 6th February, 1997 promoting Inspectors to the post of Dy. SP without determining the inter se seniority of Inspectors of J&K Armed Police and Inspectors of the Executive Police. They also sought quashing of the seniority list of Inspectors of J&K Executive / Armed / Auxiliary Police dated 30th May, 1997, and a mandamus upon the respondents not to make any promotion to the post of Dy. SP without deciding the inter se seniority between the direct recruit SIs i.e. the petitioners and promotee SIs i.e. the respondents of SWP no.1208/1986. Allowing the writ petitions, the learned Single Judge quashed the order dated 3rd December, 1985 with direction to the official respondents to place the writ petitioners above the private respondents in the seniority list of SIs appointed by promotion after 25th April, 1979, and accordingly re-draw the seniority list giving them all consequential benefits.

2. Feeling aggrieved by the said order / direction of the learned Single Judge, the private respondents - four out of them in all - as well as the State of J&K have preferred these appeals.

3. It is the admitted position that the writ petitioners (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) as well as the appellants have been promoted to the post of Dy. SP on substantive basis during the intervening period. In fact, the appellants have further been placed as Superintendents of Police (SP) on officiating basis though in their own pay and scale.

4. Appointment to the post of Dy. SP - whether by direct recruitment or promotion - is governed by Jammu and Kashmir Police (Gazetted) Service Recruitment Rules, 1984. As regards promotion, Rule 14 thereof lays down that the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) constituted by the Government from time to time shall consider the officers eligible under the rules not exceeding five times the number of vacancies available at the time of selection and anticipated during the recruitment period, for inclusion in the select list. The Committee may even consider an officer who though eligible under the rules is not in the range of consideration i.e. five times the number of vacancies, if there are reasons to believe that he possesses exceptional or outstanding merit. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 14 lays down the criteria of selection. It provides, the Committee shall examine the service records of the officers included in the aforesaid list and prepare a select list of officers on the basis of merit and suitability with due regard to seniority. Under sub-rule (4) the names of the officers included in the list shall not ordinarily exceed 1½ times the number of vacancies existing at the time of selection and anticipated during the recrui