Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. Pathak, J.
Avinash Kumar - Petitioner
Vs.
Union Public Service Commission, through its Chairman, having its office at Dholpur House, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 3429 Of 2023
Decided On : 05-09-2023
UPSC - Appointment of State Cadre Police Officers to IPS Cadre - Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 - The court discussed the jurisdiction and powers of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It held that the petitioner should approach the Central Administrative Tribunal as the writ petition is not maintainable before the High Court at this stage.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought inclusion in the provisional select list for promotion to the Indian Police Service (IPS) Cadre, alleging that despite his eligibility and seniority, his name was excluded without basis. The petitioner approached the High Court with a prayer for reconsideration of his case for inclusion in the IPS Cadre.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petition was not maintainable before the High Court at this stage, as the petitioner should have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal first for redressal of his grievance.
Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when an alternative forum, the Central Administrative Tribunal, was available for redressal of the petitioner's grievances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner should approach the Central Administrative Tribunal as the writ petition was not maintainable before the High Court at this stage.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was granted liberty to approach the appropriate forum, if advised.
JUDGMENT :
Heard.
2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for calling upon the relevant records of the present case by which a provisional recommendation/select list has been made by the UPSC for consideration of State Cadre Police Officers of the State of Jharkhand into the rank of IPOS Cadre in the year 2000 (meeting held on 19.06.2023) which does not include name of the petitioner. Further prayer has been made for a direction upon the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to resend name of the petitioner with all his up-to-date service records including the Annual Confidential Reports to the respondent no. 1 – UPSC as per the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, which has not been done earlier by the respondent nos. 2 and 3 and consequent thereto direct the UPSC to reconsider case of the petitioner for inclusion of his name for IPS Cadre on the basis of fresh/up-to-date documents forwarded by the State of Jharkhand under the provisions of the relevant Regulation for the year 2020 (meeting held on 19.06.2023).
3. According to the petitioner, he qualified the examination conducted by the JPSC and was appointed in the year 2010 in the State Police Service and joined as a Trainee in Police Training Centre, Hazaribagh. After remaining for a while, he was also sent for district training at Seraikella Kharsawan. After completing training, petitioner was posted as Dy. S.P. at Jharkhand Jaguar (Special Task Force) and thereafter variously posted in different places. Pursuant to the notification no. 12/P-1004/2019, dated 08.07.2022, issued by the Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Management, Government of Jharkhand, petitioner was promoted to the category of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 14.12.2020 whereby and whereunder his basic pay was increased to Rs.15,600 – 39,000 and grade pay to Rs.6,600. There was no complaint against the petitioner from any corner and no adverse remark was ever communicated to him. Pursuant to the letter no. 13/P 101/2021–435, dated 06.02.2023, the name of the petitioner was also considered by the Department of Home, Prison and Disaster Manager, Government of Jharkhand for promotion of the petitioner from the State Police Service to Indian Police Service. The decision of the Department is also apparent from the Memo No. 169/G, dated 08.02.2023, issued from the office of the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police.
4. It is further case of the petitioner that the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India determined the vacancies for different years for appointment by promotion of State Police Officers of Jharkhand to the Indian Police Service of Jharkhand Cadre and furthermore, directed the State Government and Union Public Service Commission to take further necessary action as required under the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955.
5. It is case of the petitioner that his entire service record has been assessed to be “Excellent” throughout his tenure and it was only for the period 17.10.2019 to 31.03.2020, his service was placed in the category of “Good” but that too was later on converted to Excellent vide order dated 29.03.2023, which is apparent from Annexure-3 to the writ petition. However, during the process of consideration of names at the end of respondent State authorities, the said fact could not be considered and ignored leading to disqualification. It is case of the petitioner that he cannot be held liable for writing and review of his ACR and without any rational basis, he cannot be put to a disadvantageous position despite having all requisite qualification and eligibility criteria for promotion. Petitioner has come to know that despite his seniority and having an Excellent service record, his name has not been given place in the provisional select list of the officers whose names have been considered for being promoted to the Indian Police Service. Furthermore, ignoring his seniority, three officers wh
The main legal point established in the judgment is that when an alternative forum, such as the Central Administrative Tribunal, is available for redressal of grievances, the High Court may not enter....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of availing the appropriate and efficacious remedy available before the Central Administrative Tribunal, and the jurisdiction of the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the High Court's jurisdiction to entertain disputes arising from changes in Service Rules and the power of judicial review over legislative action.
The High Court may exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 despite alternative remedies when natural justice is violated or extraordinary circumstances exist, emphasizing procedural integrity in publ....
Exclusion of an officer from a promotion list due to pending vigilance cases is lawful under regulatory provisions, and subsequent acquittals do not retroactively influence prior decisions made by pr....
The court established that seniority must be fixed retrospectively, and actions that undermine an employee's rightful promotion based on ignored ACRs are impermissible and require rectification.
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
