The absence of statutory provisions for preparing the combined seniority list and the need for the State Government to frame objective criteria for its preparation.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Amitabh Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel and Sri Mohit Jauhari, learned Standing Counsel representing the appellants-State authorities and Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no.1.

2. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are proforma respondents in this appeal, who despite notices having been issued did not put in their appearance in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge.

3. We have also perused the records available before us on this special appeal.

4. This special appeal filed under Chapter VIII, Rule V of the Rules of the Court, lays a challenge to the judgment and order dated 22.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby Writ Petition No. 34799 (SS) of 2019 filed by the petitioner-respondent no.1 has been allowed and the opposite parties therein have been directed to prepare a fresh joint seniority list of the Inspectors (Civil Police) and Inspectors (Armed Police)/Company Commanders in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 7 of the U.P. Government Servant Seniority Rules, 1991 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 1991’) and, thus, to undertake the exercise of promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

5. Submission on behalf of learned counsel representing the appellants-State impeaching the judgment and order under appeal is that Rule 7 of the Rules of 1991 does not have any application so far as the preparation of joint seniority list for the purposes of making promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is concerned and, as such, learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order under appeal has clearly erred in law in directing preparation of the joint seniority list in terms of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1991. It has further been argued on behalf of the appellants-State authorities that as a matter of fact it is the Government Order dated 24th of July, 2003, prescription of which will govern the exercise of preparation of joint seniority list to be prepared for the purposes of making promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. His further submission is that the Government Order dated 24th July, 2003 having been issued in exercise of powers vested in the State Government under Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1861’) has statutory force and by ignoring the prescriptions available in the said Government Order, learned Single Judge has clearly erred.

6. On the other hand, Sri Bhanu Pratap Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no.1 submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case as also in the light of the discussions made by learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order under appeal, no interference in this special appeal is needed, which is liable to be dismissed at its threshold.

7. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made by learned counsel representing the respective parties.

8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and going through the records available before us, the issue which emerges for consideration of the court is as to what is the procedure available for determination of joint seniority list as prescribed in Rule 16 of U.P. Police Service Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2016’) for the purposes of making promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

9. The case put forth by the petitioner-respondent no.1 in the writ petition before learned Single Judge was that he was appointed initially on the post of Sub-Inspector (Armed Police)/Company Commander on 11.11.1986 and thereafter he was promoted on regular basis to the post of Inspector (Armed Police)/Platoon Commander on 24.02.2014. It was pleaded by learned counsel for the petitioner before the learned Single Judge in the writ petition that one Ram Pal Singh was appointed in the year 1990 i.e. four years after the appointment of respondent no.1-petitioner, on the post of