Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Palok Basu, I.M.Quddusi
SATA NAND TRIPATHI
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 26 May 1996
Civil M. W. P. No. 6036 of 1995, Connected with C. M. W. P. Nos. 5163, 4535, 5174, 5218, 7, 5106, 4865, 5775 of 1995
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - PROMOTION - REVERSION - U. P. POLICE SERVICE RULES, 1942 - U. P. GOVERNMENT SERVANTS CRITERION FOR RECRUITMENT BY PROMOTION RULES, 1994 - Petitioners, promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police (DSPs) under the old rules, challenged their demotion orders issued in 1995, contending discrimination and violation of the Supreme Court's directions in Rana Randhit Singh v. State of U. P. (1989).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners were promoted as DSPs under the old rules, which provided for selection based on merit by a duly constituted committee. However, in 1994, the U. P. Government Servants Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion Rules (new rules) were promulgated, changing the selection criterion to seniority subject to rejection of the unfit. The petitioners' cases were reviewed by a departmental selection committee constituted under the new rules, and they were reverted to their original posts.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioners' demotion orders were illegal for the following reasons: * The departmental selection committee constituted under the new rules was not validly constituted as the old rules had not been amended to provide for such a committee. * The petitioners had acquired rights under the old rules, and those rights could not be curtailed by the new rules. * The petitioners had been promoted under the old rules by a validly constituted selection committee, and their subsequent consideration for confirmation should have been by the same committee. * The change in the selection criterion from merit to seniority adversely affected the petitioners' vested rights. * The petitioners had not been given an opportunity to challenge the constitution of the departmental selection committee or the new rules.
Issues: 1. Whether the departmental selection committee constituted under the new rules was validly constituted. 2. Whether the petitioners' rights under the old rules could be curtailed by the new rules. 3. Whether the petitioners had been given an opportunity to challenge the constitution of the departmental selection committee or the new rules.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court relied on the following principles in reaching its decision: * The Constitution of India mandates that all citizens should get equity of status and all opportunities. * The Supreme Court's directions in Rana Randhit Singh v. State of U. P. (1989) were binding on the respondents. * The petitioners had acquired rights under the old rules, and those rights could not be curtailed by the new rules. * The change in the selection criterion from merit to seniority adversely affected the petitioners' vested rights. * The petitioners had not been given an opportunity to challenge the constitution of the departmental selection committee or the new rules.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned demotion orders, and directed the respondents to reconsider the matter of the petitioners' regularisation/confirmation by a validly constituted committee in accordance with applicable rules.
The constitutional mandate being that in our country all citizens would get not only social, economical and political justice but would also get equity of status and all opportunities, the questions involved in these nine writ petitions are whether the petitioners grievance that they stand discriminated is correct or not and whether the demotion orders dated 3-2-1995 against the petitioner working as Deputy Superintendents of Police is in the teeth of the directions of the Honble Supreme Court in Rana Randhit Singh v. State of U. P,, AIR 1989 SC 218, "that the respondents are directed to publish the final gradation list on the basis of the directions given above within six months hence, after granting confirmations in the cadre to the Stale of U. P. that the scheme in the rules shall be strictly followed and when a temporary or officiating appointment is made and the officer is not approved by the Public Service Commission, within one months of such non-approval, the candidate shall be revolted and would not be entitled to be continued m the promoted post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. "
2. By virtue of their promotions as Deputy Superintendent of Police nearly eight or nine years ago the petitioners claim permanancy or regularisation as such and challenge the impugned orders riveting them to the posts of Inspectors of Police and further say that those reversion orders are contrary to the constitutional provisions and do not go to enhance the rule or law vis-a-vis, the petitioners.
3. The short facts are that Sara Nand Tripathi (C. M. writ petition No 6036 of 1995) Kant Dast Singh (C. M. No. 5106 of 1995) Harbans Singh (C. M. No. 5218 of 1995) V. K. Gupta (C. M. No. 5163 of 1993) Raj Nir Singh (C. M. No. 5207 of 1995) Nagendra Singh (C. M. No. 5174 of 1995) Shyam Pal Singh (C. M. No. 4535 of 1995) V. C. Rai (C. M. No, 4865 of 1995) and Prem Chand (C. M. No. 4865 of 1995) have filed these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the orders in each of the peti tioners case being dated 3-2-1995. The respective dates on which all these nine petitioners were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police may be mentioned here :
(1) Sata Nand Tripathi 20-7-1986, (2) Ram Dass Singh 9-7-1986, (3) Harbans Singh 14-7-1986, (4) V. K. Gupta 5-7-1986 (S) Rajbir Singh 11-10-1994, (6) Nagendra Singh 20-5-1992, (7) Shyam Pal Singh 14-7- 1986, (8) Vishnu Chart Rai 1-10-1992, (9) Prem Chand 20-5-1992.
4. It is not in controversy that all the petitioners had been selected into the Police Force as Sub- Inspectors or Inspectors and in due course they were promoted to the post of Duty Superintendents of Police in pursuance of the existing service rules known as the U. P. Police Service Rules, 1942 (foe short, the old rules ). At this stage few rules may be quoted here for ready reference to facilitate the discussion here after. Under Rule 3 (g) "members of service" has been defined to mean a person appointed in a substantive capacity under the provisions of those rules or of rules in force previous to the introduction of those rules, to a post in the cadre of the service and includes every such officer who was appointed as
temporary Deputy Superin tendent of Police under notifications dated 28th May, 1948, 6th September, 1948, 22nd September, 1948 and 9th March, 1949 and subsequently appointed in a substantive capacity from the date of his substantive appointment.
5. Rules 5 provides the source of recruitment:
5. Source of Recruitment.-Recruitment to the service in the ordinary" grade shall be made-
(1) on the result of competitive examination conducted by the Com mission ; and
(ii) by promotion of permanent Inspectors of Police : Provided that the Governor may also in the interest of public service sanction the appointment in temporary or officiating vacancies, of Sub-Inspectors of Police, who have been approved for substantive, appointment as Inspectors of Police and have officiated as Inspec tors for not le
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
