Karnataka High Court
Ramesh Rangashamaiah vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2013
Equivalent citations: 2014 LAB. I. C. (NOC) 189 (KAR.), 2013 (4) AKR 787
Bench: N.Kumar, B.Manohar
®
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 25th day of April, 2013
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MANOHAR
WP.NO.3269/2012 C/ W WP.NOS.3506-3507/2012 &
WP.NOS.6639-42/2012, WP.NO.3609/2012
WP.NO.5542/2012 WP.NO.6393/2012 &
WP.NOS.7148-53/12(S-CAT)
WRIT PETITION NO.3269/2012
BETWEEN:
RAMESH RANGASHAMAIAH
S/O LATE RANGASHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
STATE INTELLIGENCE,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 002. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.S.RAJAGOPAL &
SRI.M.N.PRASANNA, ADVS)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
2
KARNATKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL &
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001
3. UNION OF INDIA
REP BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL PUBLIC
GRIEVANCES & PENSION DEPARTMENT
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI - 110 001
4. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DHOLPUR HOUSE
NEW DELHI-110001
BY ITS SECRETARY
5. B.S.LOKESH KUMAR
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CID NO.1, PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
6. M.V.CHANDRAKANTH
WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, CID NO.1,
PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
7. JINENDRA KHANGHANI
WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE, CID NO.1,
3
PALACE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
8. M.V.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
COMMANDANT,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
NOW WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
INTERNAL SECURITY,
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL
OF POLICE (ISD), NO.60,
RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE - 2.
9. R.JANARDHAN
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMANDANT
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE (TASK FORCE)
SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT CELL,
3RD FLOOR, VISVESHWARAIAH MAIN TOWN
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.S.SUSHEELA, AGA FOR R1 & 2,
SRI.KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ASG FOR R3,
SRI.P.S.DINESH KUMAR, ADV FOR R4,
SRI.K.SUBBA RAO, SR COUNSEL FOR R5 TO 7,
SRI.AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADV FOR R8 & R9)
THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE
RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DTD.7.12.11 AND
QUASH ORDER DTD.7.12.11 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH,
BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.289/11 (UNDER ANNEX-
A TO THE WP) BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
CERTIORARI AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS
TO THE PETITIONER AND GRANT INTERIM ORDER TO
STAY THE OPERATION AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
4
TAKEN PURSUANT TO ORDER DTD.7.12.11 PASSED BY
THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
BENCH, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NO.289/11 DURING
THE PENDENCY OF THIS WP.
WP.NOS.3506-3507/2012 & WP.NOS.6639-42/2012
BETWEEN:
1. SRI.K.T.BALAKRISHNA,
S/O.SRI.THIMME GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
KARWAR AND RESIDING AT
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT,
KARWAR AND RESIDING AT
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BUNGALOW,
M.G.ROAD, KARWAR,
UTTARA KANNADA.
2. SRI.ABDUL AHAD,
S/O.SRI.E.M.SHAFI,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
BANGALORE,
RESIDING AT POLICE QUARTERS,
ANAND RAO CIRCLE,
BANGALORE. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.K.SUBBARAO, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR M/S.SUBBA
RAO AND COMPANY)
5
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE
REFORMS,
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. THE UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
OF INDIA,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL,
PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND EDUCATION,
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
4. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DOLPUR HOUSE,
SHAHAJAHAN ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
5. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL
OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA STATE,
NO.2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE.
6. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
6
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
7. SRI.K.C.VENKATARAO MANE,
MAJOR,
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
(ARMED RESERVE) ON OOD AS ADC TO HIS
EXCELLENCY GOVERNOR,
RAJ BHAVAN,
BANGALORE.
8. SRI.M.V.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD,
NOW WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
INTERNAL SECURITY,
OFFICE OF THE ADGP (ISP)
NO.60, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 025.
9. SRI.BASAVARAJ ZILLA,
MAJOR,
WORKING AS COMMANDANT
10TH BATTALION,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
SHIGGAN, HAVERI DISTRICT,
KARNATAKA.
10. SRI.R.JANARDHAN,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMANDANT,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF
POLICE (TASK FORCE - SPECIAL CELL),
3RD FLOOR, VISHWESHWARAYA MAIN TOWER,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
11. SRI.B.SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
S/O.SRI.BASAVA NAIAKA,
7
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE POLICE
NOW WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE POLICE (HQRS.),
BELGAUM - 16.
12. SRI.K.M.GANGADARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
COMMANDANT,
INDIA RESERVE BATTALION,
BIJAPUR, KARNATAKA.
13. SRI.KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
COMMANDANT, 5TH BATTALION,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
MYSORE,
KARNATAKA. ....RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.S.SUSHEELA, AGA FOR R1 & 2, 5 & 6,
SRI.KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ASG FOR R3 & R4,
SRI.AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADV FOR R7, 8, 9, 10 & 11,
SRI.KRISHNA S.DIXIT, ADV FOR R12 & 13)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMMON ORDER DATED 7.12.2011 PASSED
BY THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE BENCH, BANGALORE IN OA.NO.443/10,
486/10, 41/11, 54/11, 289/11 & 294/11 MARKED AS
ANNEXURE - G AS THE SAID ORDER SUFFERS FROM
ERRORS APPARENT ON FACE OF THE RECORD AND THE
SAME IS VIOLATIVE OF THE ARTICLES 14, 16 & 21 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND ETC.,
8
WP.NO.3609/2012
BETWEEN
1. SRI.B.S.LOKESH KUMAR
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
S/O DR. B.C.SAGANE GOWDA
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ECONOMIC OFFENCES SQUARD,
CID, CARLTON HOUSE NO.1,
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE
R/AT NO.532, VIDYA VILASA,
9TH CROSS, TATA NAGAR,
BANGALORE. ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.NANJUNDA REDDY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.DESHRAJ & SRI.P.CHANGALARAYA REDDY, ADV)
AND:
1. THE UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-1.
2. THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DHOLPUR HOUSE,
SHAJAHAN ROAD,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
3. THE STATE OF KARNATKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
9
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. THE STAE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
6. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE,
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
NO.2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 002.
7. SRI K.C.VENKATARAO MANE
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (ARMED RESERVE)
OOD AS ADC TO HIS EXCELLENCY,
THE GOVERNOR KARNATAKA
RAJ BHAVAN,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
8. SRI M V RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
COMMANDANT,
KARNATKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
NOW SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
INTERNAL SECURITY,
OFFICE OF THE ADGP (ISP) 60
RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 025.
9. SRI BASAVARAJ ZILLE
WORKING AS COMMANDANT, (10TH BN)
10
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
SHIGGAON,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
10. SRI R.JANARDHAN
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMANDANT,
O/O DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL
OF POLICE (TASK FORCE)
SPECIAL CELL, 3RD FLOOR,
VISWESARAIAH MAIN TOWER,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
11. SRI K.M.GANGDARAPPA
COMMANDANT,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
INDIAN RESERVE BATTALION
OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT,
BIJAPUR.
12. SRI KRISHNAPPA
COMMANDANT,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT,
5TH BATTALION,
MYSORE. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ASG FOR R1
SRI.P.S.DINESH KUMAR, ADV FOR R2,
SMT.S.SUSHEELA, AGA FOR R3 TO R6,
SRI.AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADV FOR R7 TO 10,
SRI.KRISHNA S DIXIT, ADV FOR R11 & R12)
THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED BY CENTRAL ADMINISTRATE TRIBUNAL,
BANGALORE DATED 7.12,11 IN O.A.NO.471/2010 AND
CONNECTED APPLICATIONS (ANNX-A) AND SETASIDE THE
NOTIFICATION DATED 23.1.12 ANNEXURE-R AND ISSUE A
WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS TO
11
COMPLETE THE PROCESSES OF SELECTION TO IPS BY
CONSIDERING THE PETITIONER AND OTHER ELIGIBLE
OFFFICERS IN THE RANK OF DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE (CIVIL) ALONE FOR THE EXISTING VACANCIES
IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND TO ISSUE THE
ORDERS OF APPOINTMENT WITH ALL CONSEQUENTIAL
BENEFITS AND GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE
OPERATION OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ORDER
PASSED BY THE CAT, BANGALORE DATED 7.12.11 IN OA
NO.471/10 AND CONNECTED APPLICATIONS ( ANNX-A)
AND NOTIFICATION DATED 23.1.12 VIDE ANNX-R AND
DIRECT THE R1 TO 6 TO PROCEED WITH THE SELECTION
PROCESS AND TO COMPLETE THE SAME AND ALSO TO
ISSUE ORDERS OF PROMOTION OF THE PETITIONER AND
OTHER POLICE OFFICERS ELIGIBLE SUBJECT TO RESULT
OF THE ABOVE WP.
WRIT PETITION.NO.5542/2012
BETWEEN
1. M.V.CHANDRAKANTH
S/O VENKATA SHAMI,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
WORKIN AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
YELLAHANKA SUB-DIVISION,
YELLAHANKA,
BANGALORE - 560 064
2. JINENDRA KHANAGAVI
S/O KALLAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE, C.I.D. NO.1,
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ...PETITIONERS
12
(BY SRI.UDAYA HOLLA, SR COUNSEL FOR
M/S HOLLA AND HOLLA)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA.
BANGALORE - 560 001.
3. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONAL GRIEVANCES & PENSION
DEPARTMENT
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI - 110 001.
4. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DHOLPUR HOUSE,
NEW DELHI - 110 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.
5. M.V.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
S/O LATE M.R.VENUGOPAL,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
COMMANDANT,
KARANATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
NOW WORKING AS SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE
INTERNAL SECURITY,
13
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE(ISD)
NO.60, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 025.
6. R.JANARDHAN
S/O RAMAIAH.R
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
WORKINA AS ASSISTANT COMMANDANT
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE, (TASK FORCE)
SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT CELL,
3RD FLOOR,
VISWESHWARIAH MAIN TOWER,
BANGALORE - 560 001. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.S.SUSHEELA, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI.S.KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ASSTS FOR R3,
SRI.P.S.DINESH KUMAR, ADV FOR R4,
SRI. AJOY KUMAR PATIL FOR R5 & R6)
THIS WP FILED PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMMON
ORDER DATED 7.12.11 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH,
BANGALORE IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.289/11 VIDE
ANNEX-N AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY THE
COSTS OF THIS PETITION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER AND
FURTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST AND GRANT INTERIM
ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION, EXECUTION AND ALL
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
JUDGEMENT/ORDER DATED 7.12.11 PASSED BY THE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE
BENCH, BANGALORE IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION
NO.289/11 AND OTHER CONNECTED APPLICATIONS VIDE
ANNEXURE - N.
14
WP.NO.6393/2012 & WP.NOS.7148-53/12
BETWEEN
1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE.
2. THE PRINICIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
HOME DEPARTMENT
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE.
3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
KARNATAKA STATE NO.2,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE - 2. ...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT.S.SUSHEELA, AGA)
AND:
1. SRI.B.S.LOKESH KUMAR,
MAJOR,
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CID, CARLTON HOUSE,
PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE,
RESIDING AT NO.532,
VIDYA VILASA, 9TH CROSS,
TATA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-91,
15
2. D.DEVARAJ,
AGE MAJOR,
S/O.DYAVARAPPA,
ACP, CUBBON PARK,
BANGALORE - 01.
3. ABDUL AHAD,
AGE : MAJOR,
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDANT OF POLICE,
KOPPA SUB DIVISION,
CHIKAMANGALUR.
4. DR.VEDAMURTHY,
AGE MAJOR,
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CHIKAMAGALUR SUB DIVISION,
CHIKAMAGALUR.
5. HANUMANTHARAYA,
AGE MAJOR,
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CHALAKERE,
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT.
6. PUTTA MADAIAH,
AGE MAJOR,
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
PANAMBUR,
MANGALORE CITY.
7. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING,
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI -1.
16
8. SRI.K.C.VENKATARAM MANE,
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
(ARMED RESERVE),
COD AS ADC TO HIS EXCELLENCY
THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA,
RAJ BHAVAN,
BANGALORE.
9. SHRI.M.V.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD,
COMMANDANT,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
NOW WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE, INTEND SECURITY,
OFFICE OF ADGP (ISP),
60, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 025.
10. SHRI.BASAVRAJ ZILLE,
WORKING AS COMMANDANT,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
SHIGGAN,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
11. SHRI.R.JANARDHA,
AGE MAJOR,
WORKING AS ASST COMMANDANT,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE (TASK FORCE),
SPECIAL CELL, 3RD FLOOR,
VISWESWARAIAH MAIN TOWER,
BANGALORE-1.
12. SHRI M.V.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
COMMANDANT, AGE MAJOR,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
NOW WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE, INTERNAL SECURITY,
OFFICE OF ADDITIONAL
17
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ISP)
NO.60, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 025.
13. SHRI BASAVRAJ ZILLE
AGE MAJOR,
WORKING AS COMMANDANT
(10TH BATTALION),
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE
SHIGGAN,
HASSAN DISTRICT.
14. SHRI R.JANARDHAN
AGE MAJOR,
WORKING AS ASSISTANT COMMANDANT
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE, ( TASK FORCE)
SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT CELL, 3RD FLOOR,
VISWASWARAIAH MAIN TOWER
BANGALORE - 01.
15. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & PUBLIC GRIEVANCES &
PENSION DEPARTMENT,
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-1
16. SRI K.C.VENKATARAM MANE
AGE MAJOR,
S/O SHRI.CHINNOJI RAO
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS ADC TO HIS EXCELLENCY
THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA,
RAJ BHAVAN,
BANGALORE-1.
18
17. SRI.B.SHIVANNA
AGE MAJOR,
S/O. BASAVANAYAKA,
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DISTRICT ARMED RESERVE
NOW WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DAR HQ, BELGAUM - 590 016.
18. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARYM
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
PUBLIC GRIEVANCE & PENSION DEPARTMENT,
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-1.
19. SRI.K.S.VENKATARAM MANE,
AGE MAJOR,
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
(ARMED RESERVE)
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ADC TO HIS EXCELLENCY,
THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA,
RAJ BHAVAN, BANGALORE-1.
20. K.M.GANGADHARAPPA
COMMANDANT I BATTALION,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT,
BIJAPUR.
21. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & TRAINING,
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-1.
19
22. SRI.B.S.LOKESH KUMAR,
AGE MAJOR,
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CID, CARLTON HOUSE,
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE,
RESIDING AT NO.532,
VIDYA VILASA, 9TH CROSS,
TATA NAGAR,
BANGALORE - 91.
23. SRI. KRISHNAPPA
AGE MAJOR,
COMMANDANT 5TH BATTALION,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT,
FIFTH BATTALION,
MYSORE.
24. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL,
PUBLIC GRIEVANCE & PENSIONS,
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-1.
25. SHRI M.V.RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD
COMMANDANT, AGE MAJOR,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
NOW WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
INTERNAL SECURITY,
OFFICE OF ADDITIONAL
DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (ISP)
NO.60, RICHMOND ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 025.
20
26. SHRI R.JANARDHAN
AGE MAJOR,
WORKING AS ASST. COMMANDANT
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE, ( TASK FORCE)
SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT CELL, 3RD FLOOR,
VISWASWARAIAH MAIN TOWER
BANGALORE - 01.
27. UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND PUBLIC GRIEVANCES
AND PENSION DEPARTMENT,
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-1
28. UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DHOLPUR HOUSE,
NEW DELHI-1,
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY.
29. SRI.B.S.LOKESH KUMAR,
AGE MAJOR,
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
CID, NO.1, PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE - 1.
30. SRI. M.V.CHANDRAKANTH
AGE MAJOR,
WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE, CID, NO.1,
PALACE ROAD,
BANGALORE.
31. K.M.GANGADHARAPPA,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT,
21
INDIA RESERVE BATTALION,
BIJAPUR,
32. SRI.KRISHNAPPA,
AGE MAJOR,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE COMMANDANT,
FIRTH BATALION,
MYSORE.
33. UNION OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL,
PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS,
NORTH BLOCK,
NEW DELHI-1. ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.RAVIVARMA SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.RAVIVARMA KUMAR ASSOCIATES, FOR R1 TO 6,
SRI.KALYAN BASAVARAJ, ASG FOR R7,
SRI.AJOY KUMAR PATIL, ADV FOR R8, R9 & R11,
SRI.ASHOK HARANAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI.SUBRAMANYA, ADV FOR R10)
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED PRAYING TO
CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 7.12.11 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BRANCH,
BANGALORE IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOS.471/10,
443/10, 486/10, 41/11, 54/11, 289/11 AND 294/11 VIDE
ANNEXURE - A BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND
GRANT INTERIM PRAYER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF
THE ORDER DTD.7.12.11 PASSED BY THE CENTRAL
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BRANCH,
BANGALORE IN ORIGINAL APPLICATION NOS.471/10,
443/10, 486/10, 41/11, 54/11, 289/11 AND 294/11 VIDE
ANNEXURE - A.
22
THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE COMING ON
FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, N.KUMAR, J., MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
All these writ petitions are preferred against the common Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench, on Applications No.471/2010, 443/2010, 486/2010, 41/2011, 54/2011, 289/2011 and 294/2011. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed off by this common order. FACTS OF THE CASE
2. For the purpose of convenience, the facts set out in O.A.No.471/2010 are set out as under:
The applicants in O.A.No.471/2010 are directly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police through Gazetted Probationers competitive examination conducted by the Karnataka Public Service Commission. The first applicant Sri.B.S.Lokesh Kumar was appointed on 23 15.03.1997, whereas Applicants 2 to 6 were recruited in the year 2006. The main police service in the State of Karnataka is Civil Police, which carries out the maintenance of law and order, investigation of crimes and mainly detection and prevention of crime. Apart from the main Police, there are other auxiliary police forces in the State of Karnataka such as (1) Karnataka State Reserve Police, (2) Armed Reserve and (3) Wireless Police. In the recruitment of Police Officer through gazetted probationers competitive examination, the persons who have scored more marks are allotted to the main police force and the persons who have scored lesser are allotted to Karnataka State Reserve Police and the auxiliary police force. There is no direct recruitment to the post of Superintendent of Police in the auxiliary police force, i.e., armed, reserve and wireless. In terms of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPS Regulations'), the applicants are entitled to be promoted to the cadre of Indian Police Service from the said cadre. As per Regulation 2(1)(j)(ii) of 24 the IPS Regulations, Police service of a State means a member of which normally holds charge of a sub-division of a District for the purpose of police administration. The duties and responsibilities of a Sub-divisional Police Officer, i.e., Deputy Superintendent of Police are defined and enumerated in the Karnataka State Police Manual which include investigation of crime and maintenance of law and order apart from detecting and preventing crime. The IPS Regulation provides for promotion of Deputy Superintendent of Police who holds the charge of sub-division of Police Administration to the Indian Police Service, if he satisfies the conditions specified in the IPS Regulations. The duties and responsibilities of Assistant Commandants of Karnataka State Reserve Police are mainly that they would be in-charge of two or more companies of Reserve Police Force and they would be responsible for discipline, control and welfare of the Reserve Police. The Assistant Commandant would never carry out the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) such as investigation of 25 crime, maintenance of law and order and other duties. The duties of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed Reserve) and the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Wireless) are maintaining the functions of Armed Reserve and Wireless respectively. They also would not carry out the functions of the Principal Police Force, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) and they are not in-charge of any sub-division of a district.
3. The State of Karnataka issued Government Order No.DPAR 115 SPS 2010 dated 01.10.2010 by exercising its power under Regulation 2(1)(j)(ii) of the IPS Regulations declared that the other police services constituted by the State Government viz., Police Wireless, Karnataka State Reserve Police and Karnataka Armed Police and the officers in there auxiliary units not below the grade of Dy.Sp. viz., (i) Deputy Superintendent of Police (Wireless),
(ii) Assistant Commandant(KSRP) and (iii) Deputy Superintendent of Police(Armed) in these units are 26 equivalent to that of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) i.e. Principal Police Service for the purposes of promotion to IPS for the vacancies available for the year 2009 only, subject to their satisfying the conditions mentioned in the said Government Order. The applicants preferred Application No.471/2010 challenging the said Government Order on the ground that the said equivalence is issued on the basis of a letter to the Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka dated 26.05.2010. It is ultravires the provisions of Regulation 2(1)(j)(ii) of the IPS Regulations. Then, they have referred to in the application the proceedings of various committees constituted by the Government to consider the equivalence and how such recommendations made earlier also were subsequently withdrawn. They contend that the impugned Order is the result of total non-application of mind in examining the matter as provided under Regulation 2(1)(j)(ii) of the IPS Regulations. Without recording the reasons, it has equated the Auxiliary Police Service to the Principal Police Service by issuing the impugned order which 27 is wholly illegal and arbitrary. Therefore, they sought for quashing of the same. In fact, the police officers belonging to the auxiliary services also preferred Application No.443/2010 and 41 and 54/2011 challenging Condition Nos.2 and 3 stipulated in the said Government Order on the ground that they are arbitrary and impossible of performance and therefore, the said two conditions are to be struck down. During the pendency of the said applications, the Government passed an order dated 21.07.2011 withdrawing the Government Order dated 01.10.2010. Aggrieved by the said order, O.A.No.294/2011 as well as O.A.No.289/2011 are preferred by the police officers belonging to the auxiliary service.
4. The State filed its counter. They contend the number of vacancies in IPS promotion quota available as on 01.01.2010 are seven. Only five eligible officers of civil services are available for promotion to IPS against vacancies available in the year 2009. The present eligible officers are 28 less than the available vacancies. As per the rules, for seven vacancies, the Government can send names of 21 eligible officers in the ratio of 1:3. But only five eligible in civil unit Officers are available who fulfill eligibility criteria for promotion to IPS. Therefore, on re-consideration of the entire matter relating to promotion of officers of non-civil police unit to the IPS, the Government took a view that the shortage of Civil Police Officers faced by the Government can be covered by including the officers of non-civil police units for promotion to IPS as recommended by Dr.P.S.Ramanujam Committee in the year 2000. Accordingly, the Government decided to declare the Auxiliary Police units as equivalent to Principal Police Services, i.e., Civil Services for the purpose of considering them for promotion to IPS along with the officers of the Civil unit. As per Rule 2(1)(j) of the IPS Regulations, the State Police Service for the purpose of promotion to IPS also includes any other below constituted police service in a State which is declared by State Government to be equivalent to police sub-division charge, 29 i.e., Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) Post. Then, they have set out the procedure prescribed in the regulations for consideration for promotion to IPS which is not relevant for the purpose of this case. Then, they contend the rules give extensive powers to the State Government to declare any police service unit as equivalent to Principal Police Service (Civil Police) for the purpose of promotion to IPS, the officers of the non-civil police units are not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent holding charge of sub-division of a district and fulfils the eligibility criteria stipulated under the rules. Generally, the selection of State Police Service to IPS under the regulations against the IPS promotion quota as made from among eligible officers of the Civil Police Service (Principal Police Service). In the year 1991, Government Order dated 23.12.1991 was issued declaring the posts of Dy.S.P (Wireless), Assistant Commandant, KSRP and Dy.S.P (Armed) as equivalent to Dy.S.P (Civil) to facilitate inclusion of eligible officers of those auxiliary police service units also in the eligibility list for promotion to the IPS. Based on the 30 said equivalence, one officer from each KSRP and Wireless Units was considered and selected to the IPS under the regulations. Subsequently, after receiving letters from the then D.G and I.G.P of rank of the officers of the Civil Police, who confine the selection of officers to Civil Police, the Government issued a Government Order dated 18.07.1996 and thereafter, selection to IPS have been made only from among eligible officers of Civil Police Service. There were representations from officers on auxiliary police units to improve their service conditions such as recruitment method, promotion, seniority and also to consider them for inclusion in the eligibility list for promotion to IPS as shown in the year 1991. The committee headed by Sri.P.S.Ramanujam, the then A.D.G.P, was appointed. It has submitted its report to the Government on 22.06.2000. The said committee report was examined by the Committee constituted for the said purpose headed by the Chairmanship of Additional Chief Secretary to the Government on 25.09.2009, the selected officers of the Home 31 Department and DPAR and a decision was taken that there was no necessity for inclusion of senior officers for being considered for promotion to IPS. However, when the number of eligible officers was less than the available vacancies, on re-consideration of the entire matter relating to promotion of officers of non-civil police units of the IPS, the Government took a view that the shortage of civil police officers faced by the Government can be covered by including the officers of non-civil police unit as recommended by Dr.P.S.Ramanujam Committee in the year 2000. Accordingly, the Government decided to declare the auxiliary police units as equivalent to Principal Police Service, i.e., Civil Service for the purpose of promotion along with the officers of the units. Thus, the Government Order dated 01.10.2010 came to be issued. Therefore, they contend, the said order is legal and valid.
5. After defending the said order dated 01.10.2010. they issued the order dated 21.07.2011 withdrawing the order dated 01.10.2010. When the said order dated 32 21.07.2011 was challenged before the Tribunal, they defended their action, by filing a reply contending that the equivalence order dated 01.10.10 came to be issued considering the acute shortage of police personnel in the principal police service. While issuing the said order dated 01.10.10, the concurrence of the Principal Secretary, Home Department was not sought. Consequently, Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government of Karnataka on coming to know about the said equivalence order dated 01.10.10. sent U.O. note dated 10.06.11 expressing his opinion that it is not proper to declare the the auxiliary police force as equivalent to that of Dy.S.P (civil), which is a principal police service. Considering the opinion of the Secretary to the Government, Home Department, and the 2nd respondent in the matter of declaring equivalence of auxiliary police officers to that of principal police officers for the purpose of promotion of IPS, the impugned order dated 21.07.11 came to be issued.
33
6. They have set out in detail the relevant views, the basic course comprising of several theory subjects to be studied and the training which they have to undergo and contend that a comparison of the caption of Chapter-II and Chapter-X of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 (for short hereinafter referred as an 'Act') unmistakably demonstrated that the police force which is constituted under Chapter-II of the said Act is totally different and distinct from State Reserve Police Force constituted under Chapter-X of the Act. Therefore, they contend that the contention of the applicants that the State Police Force is exclusively State Reserve Police Force established under Section 145 of the Act as one monopoly organisation answering description of the State Police Service under Regulation 2(1)(ii) even sans declaration of equivalence by the State Government is untenable. They further contend, it is a settled position of law that the authority which is competent to issue the order, has the power to withdraw or resume the same as provided under the provisions of general clauses act. With regard to the 34 contention that there is nothing to show the change of circumstance that warrants resume of equivalization order dated 01.10.10. It is submitted that the preamble portion of the impugned order itself is self explanatory which contains the circumstance which led to issue of the impugned order. The applicants were appointed to the Karnataka Reserve Police Service; they are not entitled to claim equivalence on par with the official who was appointed to the Karnataka Police Service i.e., Principal Police Service as mentioned in Schedule-I of the Gazetted Probationers Rules 1966. In view of the civil services of the State specified in Schedule-I to the Gazetted Probationers Rules, 1966, the applicants are not entitled to contend that auxiliary units are equivalent in all respects and therefore, they state that there is no substance in the said application and sought for dismissal.
7. The Tribunal by elaborate judgment held that the statutory intention brought in by amendment dated 15- 5-1976 by bringing in Section 3 in the Act which made a 35 unified police force in the entire State of Karnataka and which when read in conjunction with other sections of the Police Act would make it clear that there is only one police force in Karnataka. While it is correct that the significance of this may have escaped administrative or judicial notice till now and it may also be said that the declaration of equivalence in 1991 may be even without adverting to the amendment but the fact remains that the statutory formation has made the Karnataka Police into one single unit and no government by executive order can transgress a statutory formation. Therefore, even without the declaration of equivalence in 1991, and a fresh declaration in 2010, the declaration as made by the statute would reign supreme thereby making Karnataka Police one single unit. Being aggrieved by the said order, these writ petitions are filed. RIVAL CONTENTIONS
8. The learned Advocate General Sri S Vijayashankar contended that the Karnataka Police 36 Act of 1963 operates in altogether a different sphere. It is nothing to do with the promotion of the Deputy Superintendent of Police to the cadre of IPS. The same is exclusively reckoned by the provisions of Indian Police Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 and The Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1958 for the purposes of promotion of Deputy Superintendent of Police belonging to the State Police Force. It is the aforesaid Rules and Regulations framed under the All India Service Act of 1951 which are attracted and the provisions of Karnataka Police Act of 1963 have no application whatsoever. He also brought out the difference between the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) and Assistant Commandant KSRP, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Arms) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Wireless) and contended each post is constituted for a definite purpose and that is the reason why the Rules of 1954 specifically provide for the Principal Police Service of the State, a member of which normally holds charge of a sub-division or district for the purposes of 37 police administration. The members of KSRP, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Arms) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Wireless) neither hold the charge of a sub-division of the District nor are involved in the police administration. Having regard to the nature of the training imparted to them and the nature of duties which they are expected to perform, they cannot be made equivalent to that of the Principal Police Service of the State under any such circumstances and therefore, he submits the Committee reports which are submitted, clearly make out that these duly constituted services which form part of the Police Force of the State can never be equated to the Principal Police Services of the State and therefore, they cannot be eligible to be considered to the cadre of IPS. It is in that context when by overlooking the aforesaid report, the order of an equivalence was given once, the Government realized the mistake and retraced the step and withdrew the earlier Government Order. So, no illegality is committed. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the scope of Rules and Regulations vis-a-vis the 38 provisions of the Karnataka Police Act and the Tribunal came to the conclusion in view of Section 5 of 1963 Act, there is no need to declare any equivalence as the statute itself declares it, the finding which is contrary to the express provisions of the Act cannot be sustained.
9. Sri K. Subbarao, the learned Senior Counsel relying on the 3rd Proviso of Sub-rule (2) of Regulation 5 contended that in order to be eligible for inclusion in the list under Regulation 5 for promotion to the IPS Cadre, the conditions mentioned therein have to be fulfilled:
10. Secondly, he contended Section 3 of the Karnataka Police Act 1963 declares, there shall be one police force including the State Reserve Force established under Section 145 for the whole of the State. It means, in every State, there is the Principal Police Service. In addition to the same, there are other duly constituted police service functioning in the State such as KSRP, Wireless, CARP and 39 other forces. The aforesaid Section declares, all of them put together constitute a single police force. It is nothing to do with promotion to the post of IPS cadre which is done under the Rules framed under a Central enactment.
11. Thirdly, he contended the KPSC conducts a common entrance examination for the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) and Assistant Commandant of KSRP. However, the practice prevailing is, all meritorious persons whose name finds a place at the top of the list are allotted to Principal Police Force of the State and thus, whose name finds a place at the bottom of the list and who are less meritorious are assigned to the State Reserve Police Force.
12. Fourthly, he contended that the training imparted to these two different branches is altogether different as is clear from Annexure - 'R7', the reply given by the Director General of Police to the query from the Chief 40 Secretary. Therefore, he submits, the other duly constituted Police Service in the State Police Service cannot be equated to the Principal Police Service of the State. In fact, when it was so equated, earlier, in view of the objections raised, a Committee was constituted. The Committee went in to detail and submitted a report stating the duties and functions performed by these two cadres are totally different and therefore equivalence was withdrawn. When the second time, in the year 2010, when again an equivalence was given, the said report of the Committee was ignored, which categorically held that there cannot be such equivalence. However, when the same was brought to the notice of the Government, the same is rightly withdrawn. Therefore, from the material on record, it is clear, the other duly constituted Police Services cannot be declared as equivalent to the Principal Police Service of the State.
13. Sri Udaya Holla, the learned Senior Counsel submitted, Chapter X of the Police Act deals with State 41 Reserve Police. Section 144 is 'Definitions' Section. It defines "Active Duty". Section 148 of the Act deals with "Transfers". Therefore he contends, under the Act, recruitment to both these Forces, which has been made under different Cadre and Recruitment Rules, each one of them is distinct and separate cadre, the training imparted to the personnel of each cadre is altogether different, apart from these two cadres, the Act provides for other cadres also and all of them constitute a single Police Force. But for the promotion to the post of IPS, the law which governs is the Indian Police Service Recruitment Rules, 1954 and Rule 2(g)(ii) categorically states the State Police Force means the Principal Police Service of the State, a member of which normally holds charge of a sub-division or District for the purposes of police administration. The other forces constituted under the Act are not involved in the police administration or a sub-division merely because a power is vested in the State Government to treat such duly constituted police service as equivalent to Principal Police 42 Service which cannot be said that the State Government is under an obligation to accord equivalence. When that being the Legislative intent, the Tribunal committed a serious error in ignoring the distinction between Police Service and Police Force as contained in Section 3 and declaring that even in absence of equivalence being accorded by the State, all those duly constituted police services form Principal Police Services of the State and are eligible to be considered for promotion of the IPS. The order passed by the Tribunal runs counter to the order passed by the State Government.
14. Sri Nanjunda Reddy, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted, Section 3 of the Act declares, that for the entire State there shall be one Police Force. The equivalence has to be accorded by the State Government. The Tribunal has declared that all Police Force which constitute the single Police Force would be equivalent to each other without there being any material on record and which was not the intention of the Legislature 43 while enacting the Karnataka Police Act, 1963. Therefore, the said declaration granted by the Court and the interpretation placed on Section 3 by the Tribunal runs counter to the object with which, the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 is enacted and also runs counter to the Provisions, Rules and Regulations framed under All India Police Service and therefore cannot be sustained.
15. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents in these proceedings contended, in view of Section 3 of the Act, it declares that there shall be one police force including the State Reserve Police Force established under Section 145 for the whole of the State. There cannot be any discrimination between the police officers who are working under the civil police and the police officers who are working with the State Reserve Police Force who are governed by Chapter-X of the Act. He pointed out that Section 148(2) of the Act provides for transfer of a member of the police force appointed under Chapter-II to the 44 State Reserve Police Force established under Chapter-X or vise-versa and on such transfer, the transferee shall deemed to be a member of the police force to which he transferred which clearly demonstrate the equivalence of the said two force and therefore, the tribunal was justified in holding, in the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions declaring equivalence, the order passed by the government, equivalence is superfluous.
16. Sri Krishna S.Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that Section 2(g)(ii) confers power on the State Government to declare a service as equivalent to the Principal Police service. Section 148 of the Karnataka Police Act provides for transfer of a member of the Police Force appointed under Chapter II of the State Reserve Police established under Chapter X and vice versa. Subs- Section (2) of Section 148 of the Act declares that on such transfer he shall be deemed to be a member of the Police Force to which he is transferred. Therefore, under law 45 unless member of one Police Force is not suitable in the other Police Force, such transfer is not permissible and in view of the aforesaid provision when on transfer he becomes a member of such Police Force, in such cases no declaration in the First Part of the aforesaid statutory provision is necessary and this benefit is confined only to KSRP Personnel and it cannot be extended to other auxiliary police service. Therefore, the legislature in its wisdom vested the power of declaring equivalence with the State. If it is to be held that all other Police Forces within the State, as they are not performing the same duties and functions as that of the Principal Police Force, they cannot be equated, then such provision becomes redundant/otiose and such interpretation is not permissible in law. He further contended that in 1991 first declaration on equivalence of posts was made. Two persons had the benefit of becoming members of the IPS. There is no material on record to show that their performance in the highest post was detrimental to the service. Though subsequently One-Man Commission 46 report was acted upon and the earlier order of equivalence was withdrawn, subsequently Four Men Committee was constituted which gave a report pleading for equivalence. Taking note of such report, 2010 order of equivalence has been issued and without reasons it has been now withdrawn. Therefore he submits, in the light of the aforesaid statutory provisions and in particular Section 3 of the Act and Section 148 of the Act as rightly held by the Tribunal, equivalence is statutorily recognized. Even otherwise, the report submitted by the Expert body favours such equivalence. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal do not call for interference.
17. Sri Ajoy Kumar Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that the order of equivalence passed by the Government will only enable the Police Officers working in the auxiliary service to come within the zone of consideration. Otherwise, they have been denied an opportunity of promotion to the cadre of IPS. 47 However, the scheme of entire police Act is properly construed, one can see the equivalence of other cadres of Police Force being equal to the Principal Police Force. Because the other Police Force is not equal to the Principal Police Force, the law provides for declaration of equivalence by the State Government. Not being equal is different from not being capable of discharging duties in the promoted posts. Any interpretation contrary to the same would result in denial of equal opportunity and hit by Article 14(1) and 16(1) of the Constitution of India. In 1991, after carefully examining the scheme of the Act by a Government Order, equivalence was declared. With the change of Personnel, the said order came to be rescinded and again the matter was referred to the larger Committee which gave a favourable report. The second order of equivalence is based on such report and it is valid. The declaration of equivalence cannot depend upon the whims and fancies of the persons who are holding such posts at any particular point of time. Since the said post in equivalent, it cannot be rescinded. Under these 48 circumstances, the order withdrawing equivalence is invalid and requires to be set aside. Therefore, he submitted that the Tribunal has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
18. In the light of the aforesaid facts and rival contentions, the points that arise for consideration are as under:
(1) Whether the Government order dated 01.10.2010 is valid?
(2) Whether the Government order dated 21.07.2011 rescinding the earlier order is valid?
(3) Whether by operation of Section 3 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, equivalence required under the Regulations is satisfied. In other words, whether the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Wireless), Assistant Commandant 49 (Karnataka State Reserve Police) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed) are equivalent to that of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) i.e., Principal Police Service, for the purpose of promotion to IPS to the vacancy available from the State Police Service?.
(4) Who is competent to decide the equivalence?, whether the Court can embark upon that exercise?
19. This case has chequered history of two decades. For a proper appreciation of the aforesaid points for consideration it is necessary to have a glimpse of the background of this case.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
20. The Director General and Inspector General of Police, Bangalore in his letter dated 14-06-1991 has stated that the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Wireless), 50 Assistant Commandant (Karnataka State Reserve Police) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed) are equivalent to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil), Karnataka State Police Service. Therefore, he recommended to declare the services of these three different units as equivalent to the Principal Police Service of the State for the purpose of promotion to IPS as per the provisions of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955. The Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India in their letters stated that the State Government is competent to declare any duly constituted police services of the State for the purpose of Regulation 2(1) and rule 2(g) of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. Accordingly, the Government by its order dated 23rd December 1991 declared under Rule 2 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955, that the services of Karnataka State Reserve Police, wireless and Armed units are equivalent to the Principal Police Services or the State. The posts of Deputy Superintendent of 51 Police (Wireless), Deputy Superintendent of Police(Armed) and Assistant Commandant (Karnataka State Reserve Police) are also declared as equivalent to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Principal Police Service of the State for the purpose of rule 5 of Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation 1955. After such equalization, the President was pleased to appoint one Sri M.C.Narayana Gowda, a member of Karnataka State Reserve Police as Indian Police Service on probation, and to allocate him to the cadre of Karnataka under sub-rule (1) of rule 5 of the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954.
21. Subsequently, the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Karnataka by its letter dated 8- 2-1996 requested the Government to reconsider the matter and rescind the Government Order dated 23-12-1991 for the reason that this Government order declaring equivalence of posts in the Police Department will bring about an anamolous situation and will directly and indirectly effect 52 the morale and efficiency of the force in the process. The Director General of Police has explained the promotional opportunities of various cadres in the Police Service and how junior officers belonging to one cadre will get faster promotion and occupy the senior posts in the IPS, whereas the senior police officer in the Civil Police who are directly recruited as police sub-Inspectors and Deputy Superintendents of Police will be denied their only source of promotion to higher posts in the IPS. The Director General and Inspector General of Police requested the Government to constitute a Committee to consider the points which he has mentioned in his letter by taking into account the factors such as:
(i) Difference existing in the basic
educational qualification for
appointment;
(ii) Difference existing in training input;
(iii) Difference in job content;
(iv) Difference in the knowledge required
during the service and field experience;
53
(v) Difference in orientation;
(vi) Demoralisation among State Civil Service officers who constitute the Principal Police service, owning to delay in promotions;
(vii) Exploring promotional opportunities for members of Auxiliary Police Services in their respective cadres namely Armed Reserve, KSRP, Wireless, etc.
(viii) The adverse effects on Police administration due to lack of Professional competence, experience and orientation in regular Police work by members of the Auxiliary Police Services, who will have to perform important executive police duties on their Induction in to IPS.
22. The State Government referred the matter to Sri Ramalingam, IPS (Retd.) One-Man Committee for Police reforms. The One-Man Committee submitted its report on 23-3-1996. The Committee opined that, since wireless is a technical cadre and officers of the wireless department are technically qualified to man the communication setup of the State, it is incongruous to technical officer equivalent to the 54 regular police officer by virtue of recruitment, training and service officers of this cadre cannot fit in to the regular police hierarchy. However, there is no possibility of any wireless officer to be eligible for IPS under this rule in the near future, the Committee has opined that this order has no relevance with respect to this cadre. With regard to the cadre of Assistant Commandant in the KSRP, the Committee opines that since there are only 4 officers directly recruited in the cadre, their promotion in their own cadre to the higher ranks does not pose a serious problem as there are posts of commandants and Deputy Inspector General of Police available in the cadre. There is no direct recruitment in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Armed Police. The Committee, therefore, felt that the real stagnation is in the cadre of Principal Police Service i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Police(Civil). The Committee has made a comparative study of recruitment, training and experience in various cadres at the level of sub-Inspectors, as also Civil Deputy Superintendent of Police and Assistant 55 Commandants, KSRP. It opines that by training and experience, a Civil Police Officer is groomed to deal with the police duties were as the other cadres are not trained or experienced in such functions. This will have an adverse effect on the efficiency of the police and also service to the public. The Committee, has therefore, recommended to rescind the order of declaration of equivalence.
23. The Government examined the matter in detail. After careful consideration of all aspects of the case, the Government by its order dated 18-7-1996 rescinded the order dated 23-12-1991 declaring the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Wireless), Assistant Commandant (KSRP) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed) as equivalent to that of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) is 'Rescinded' with immediate effect.
24. Thereafter a Committee was constituted to review the KSRP recruitment/promotions to IPS cadre in 56 DGP's order dated 18-3-2000. The Committee met on 17-5-2000 and discussed the following points as such:
(a) Should recruitment at the level of Asst.
Commandant KSRP be continued?
(b) If yes, How the promotional opportunities of such officers who are directly recruited as Asst. Commandant can be improved.
(c) If no, what are the suggestions for the rules for promotion to the cadre of Commandants, Whether few of the posts to be encadered for IPS, few posts to be filled up by posting SP Non-IPS officers and how many should be for KSRP Officers.
(d) Are the officers other than from civil police such as Commandant KSRP/SP Armed SP (Wireless) SP (FPB) Or any other SPs other than civil police background be considered for IPS? If to be considered, what percentage to be reserved for them?
57
25. The Committee after deliberations took decisions on 18-3-2000 and it was of the opinion that the recruitment at the level of Assistant Commandant, KSRP should be discontinued. The avenues available for promotion for directly recruited Assistant Commandant of KSRP are limited. This results in officers joining at a young age as an Assistant Commandant getting frustrated after reaching the level of Commandant since hardly any chances are there for promotion to the next higher grades. The post Assistant Commandant should be filled up by promotion from the rank of RPI. The Committee was of the view that insofar as those Assistant Commandants who are directly recruited and now working in the KSRP are concerned, their cases can be considered for appointment to the IPS as it was done in the case of Sri M.C.Narayana Gowda. The Committee felt that at least one post should be encadered for IPS Officers, so that they can have experience of the functioning of a Battalion and they would not be handicapped when they go to Central Police Organisations like the CRPF, BSF and other Units 58 where the Battalion structure exists. The post of Commandant should be basically filled up by eligible KSRP Officers by promotion. If due to any reason eligible KSRP officers are not available, then a provision is made in the draft Cadre and Recruitment Rules of KSRP that Non-IPS SPs can be posted as Commandant in KSRP. There is no need to reserve any number of posts of Commandants for specially posting Non-IPS Officers in the rank of SP as Commandant. The SPs (Non-IPS) could be posted as Commandant, KSRP only when there is no KSRP Officer who is eligible is available. Except one post of Commandant which could be encadered for IPS all other posts of Commandants in KSRP should be available to KSRP Officers by promotion. If by chance, no eligible KSRP officer is available to KSRP Officer is available to fill that post then an officer in the rank of SP (Non-IPS) may be posted as Commandant in KSRP and that too only till such time as a KSRP Officer becomes eligible to hold that post. The Committee also felt that all Police Officers irrespective of 59 their discipline in which they are working should be considered for induction into the IPS. It is felt that there need not be any separate quota for them. The quota permitted under the rules for the posts to be filled by promotion may be retained. It can come within this permitted quota.
26. The Director General and Inspector General of Police by its letter dated 04-08-2003 requested the Additional Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary to Government to consider the said report of the Committee and issue appropriate orders. By a letter dated 3-1-2009, the Director General and Inspector General of Police addressed a letter to the Chief Secretary bringing to his notice the report submitted by Dr. P. S. Ramanujam Committee and he expressed his opinion that the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Wireless), Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed), the Assistant Commandant (KSRP) may be declared as equivalent to the 60 Deputy Superintendent of Police(Civil) as existed in 1991 and officers working in the Auxiliary Services as Deputy Superintendent of Police (Wireless), Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed), Assistant Commandant (KSRP) may be considered for IPS promotion. The Chief Secretary wrote back on 03.05.2009 requesting the Director General and Inspector General of Police to furnish information mentioned in the said letter. The Director General and the Inspector General of Police gave a reply which reads as under:
"Vide this office letter No.CBI/130/2008-09, dt. 3.1.2009, a proposal was sent to Govt., recommending appointment on promotion, officers of auxiliary service of Police Department to the IPS. This was based on the recommendation of Dr. P. S. Ramanjunam made during the year 2000. subsequent to this report, a number of representations were received from various officers requesting to review the recommendations. The recommendations have been reviewed. It is seen that an earlier committee appointed by the Govt., on the same subject, has not recommended inclusion of 61 Auxiliary services to IPS. The available material in the subject has also been studied. On the grounds of available materials and experience, we are not in favour of promotion of Auxiliary services to IPS......"
27. The said report submitted by the Director General and Inspector General of Police dated 11-5-2009 was placed before the Committee consisting of Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Additional Chief Secretary to Government (Home Department), Director General and Inspector General of Police and Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on 20- 5-2009. After examining the report, the Committee noted that the training imparted to the Civil Dy. SP officers and their functions are quiet different from the ones given to non civil police officers. In other States, the Dy. SPs from auxiliary police service are being considered for induction to IPS. After deliberation it was decided that there was no need to consider the Group 'A' officers of non-civil police units viz., 62 KSRP, Wireless, Armed Police and Finger Print Bureau for promotion to the IPS, along with the officers of Principal Police Service viz civil Dy.SP officers.
GENESIS OF THE PRESENT WRIT PETITION
28. One K.C.Venkatarao Mane, Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed) who was working as SP and ADC to Governor of Karnataka addressed a letter to His Excellency Governor of Karnataka on 26th May 2010 to direct the Government to convert his promotion as Dy.SP (Civil) from the existing Dy.SP (Armed) from the date of his promotion i.e. from 05-11-1997 as a special case considering his outstanding performance and also to consider his name for promotion to the cadre of IPS before his age gets barred by limit. Thereafter, the report was sought for on such request. Thereafter the Government was of the view that as at present, there is acute shortage of Police Personnel in the main police service both in IPS and Non-IPS cadres and also there is acute shortage of eligible 63 State Police Officers for considering promotion to IPS. During the year 2009, there are not enough officers to meet the requirement of the zone of consideration for promotion in the principal state police service against vacancies in IPS Promotion quota occurred during the year 2009. Therefore, the State Government has examined the need for considering officers of other units also viz., auxiliary police units for promotion to IPS during this year, as provided in the Regulations, 1955. After detailed consideration, it was considered necessary to declare eligible officers of such auxiliary Police Units with distinguished service to be equivalent to the principal state police service. It was considered necessary to consider only such of the officers of outstanding merit and ability and who have rendered distinguished service in the police auxiliary services for promotion to IPS, in order to maintain the standard of policing in the State. Therefore, by an order dated 01-10- 2010, the State Government in exercise of its powers conferred under Regulation 2(1)(j) of the Indian Police Service 64 (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 declared that the other police services constituted by the State Government viz., Police Wireless, Karnataka State Reserve Police and Karnataka Armed Police and the officers in these auxiliary units not below the grade of Deputy Superintendent of Police viz., (i) Deputy Superintendent of Police (Wireless), (ii)Assistant Commandant (KSRP) and
(iii)Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed) in these units are equivalent to that of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) i.e. Principal Police Service for the purposes of promotion to IPS for the vacancies available for the year 2009 only. However, notwithstanding the above equivalence, it is also ordered that only eligible officers of outstanding merit and ability with distinguished service in these auxiliary police units of State Police Services shall be considered for promotion to IPS. The said Government order reads as under:
65
GOVERNMENTORDER NO.DPAR 115 SPS 2010 BANGALORE ,DATED 01.10.2010.
In the circumstances explained in the preamble, the State Government in exercise of
powers conferred under regulation 2(1)(j) of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, hereby declare that the order police services constituted by the State Government viz., Police Wireless, Karnataka State Reserve Police and Karnataka Armed Police and the officers in these auxiliary units not below the grade of Dy.Sp. viz., (i) Deputy Superintendent of Police (Wireless), (ii) Assistant Commandant (KSRP) and (iii) Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed) in these units are equivalent to that of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) i.e. Principal Police Service for the purposes of promotion to IPS for the vacancies available for the year 2009 only. However, notwithstanding the above equivalence, it is also ordered that only eligible officers of outstanding merit and ability with distinguished service in these auxiliary police units of State Police Services shall be considered for promotion to IPS and for this 66 purpose the officers proposed shall fulfill the following criteria;-
(i) They should have completed at least 08 years of service in the grade of Deputy Superintendent or equivalent grade.
(ii) They must have consistently 'outstanding' or 'very good' grading in the last 08 years Annual Performance Reports.
(iii) They should be recipients of the President of India's Medal for the meritorious service and Police Medal for the distinguished service.
The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department shall determine the interse seniority of eligible and suitable officers of these Auxiliary units vis-à-vis interse seniority of civil police for the purpose of including them in the eligibility list and send Suitable proposals to DPAR in respect f eligible and suitable Officers of civil police and auxiliary units who meet the eligibility criteria. 67
BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA Sd/-
(ASHOK K. ATRE) Under Secretary to Government DP&AR (Services-4)
29. The members of the Civil Police challenged the said order of granting equivalence and the members of the auxiliary units also preferred an Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging two conditions
(ii) and (iii) set out above which are imposed on them for being eligible to be considered for promotion. During the pendency of the said application, the Government of Karnataka by its order dated 21st July 2011 rescinded the order dated 01-10-2010. The said Government Order reads as under:
GOVERNMENT ORDER NO.DPAR 115 SPS 2010 BANGALORE, DATED 21ST JULY, 2011 After careful consideration of all aspects of the case explained in the preamble, the Government Order No.DPAR 115 SPS 2010, dated 68 1.10.2010 declaring the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Wireless), Assistant Commandant (KSRP) and Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed) as equivalent to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) i.e., Principal Police Service for the purpose of promotion to IPS under the IPS (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, is 'Rescinded' with immediate effect.
BY ORDER AND IN THE NAME OF THE GOVERNOR OF KARNATAKA Sd/-
(ASHOK K. ATRE) Under Secretary to Government DP&AR (Services-4)"
30. Aggrieved by the said order, the members of the auxiliary units preferred one more Application challenging the said order. All these applications were clubbed, heard together and the Tribunal has passed the common order, impugned herein.
69
31. The Tribunal held that by order dated 01.10.10, the State Government seems to have devised the methodology of bringing in equivalence despite the fact that if two arms of force are to be held equivalent, those equivalence must be on the basis of universal and across the board considerations which are extant and not specific to certain individuals alone. If among two limbs of consideration equivalence can be brought in only through an artificial modality, then there is no equivalence at all, as such artificial modality is not blessed by legal formations. It is not only so but against the salient principles of Article 14 which militates against the equals being brought in as unequals by artificial methodology. Therefore, the order dated 01.10.10 is opposed to law. Notions of good governance, constitutional matrix and are to be set aside. But then by order dated 21.07.2011 the Government has withdrawn the order dated 01.10.2010. The matrix of consideration seems to be yet another letter written by the DG of Police that there is functional difference between the 70 several wings of the police, basically based on training and functional dissimilarity. But then, is the higher echelons of police force to be dedicated to investigators of crime alone or law and order specialists, or traffic regulators or such like. There is nothing in the Police Act which would confer any such requirement in police efficiency. Had that been so, the entire focus and content of Indian Police Service, its selection and methodology and career progression would have reflected this need. Administration, whether it be in Police or Civil Service is basically man management and structuring within the resources as any one who has a reasonable knowledge of criminal law and prosecutorial method would knew the active investigators are police constables. They are basically guided by the immediate superiors the station house officers, IPS officers doubling as good investigators rather than administrators is hardly the rule. That being so, the Director General's letter which lead to the cancellation once again of the equivalence by order dated 21.07.2011 71 would appear to be bereft of reason and logic and is to be set aside as a result of non-application of mind and illegal.
32. However the Tribunal held that the equivalence is already declared by statute and therefore, the State Government had no role to play further had escaped administrative and judicial notice till now. Therefore, it proceeded to issue declaration to the effect that:-
(a) Because of the operation of Section 3 of the Karnataka Police Act, there exists only one single police force from 15-5-1975 onwards and the equivalence required under Regulation Rule 2 now stands satisfied.
(b) All the officers of the Karnataka Police in all streams of policing of the rank of Dy.SP and above with a minimum service of eight years as on the date pertinent to the batch of 2009 and less than 54 years of age at that point of time are now eligible to be considered for promotion into Indian Police Service.72
(c) Since the resolution of the dispute was time consuming the time taken for such consideration shall not be considered as defeating the cause of anyone by either UPSC or any other authority under the government. All such persons who are eligible to be so considered shall be considered for that batch of 2009 and selection must be done in accordance with Rules in force.
33. Therefore, the Chief Secretary of Karnataka was directed to compile a list of persons to be so considered in accordance with their seniority and compile a list of 21 to be considered and place them before the Committee before two months next. A direction was given to the Committee to consider the process of selection within two months thereafter. All the selectees shall be of the 2009 batch and shall be entitled to all the consequences including arrears of pay and other notional benefits of being declared as being selected in the 2009 batch. All the original applications are 73 disposed of. Aggrieved by the said order, the members of Civil Police as well as the State Government have preferred these writ petitions.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
34. The Parliament has enacted All India Services Act, 1951 for regulation of recruitment and the conditions of services of persons appointed, to the All India Services common to the Union and the States. Section 3 deals with the Regulation of recruitment and conditions of service. It provides that the Central Government may, after consultation with the Governments of the States Concerned, by notification in the official Gazette make rules for the regulation of recruitment, and the condition service of persons appointed, to All India Service. The expression "an All India Service" has been defined to mean that the service known as the Indian Administrative Service or the service known as the Indian Police Service and other service specified in Section 2A.
74
35. In exercise of power conferred by sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1953, the Central Government after consultation with the Governments of States concerned has made the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules 1954. Rule 2 is the definition Rule. The word "service" in the said Rules means the Indian Police Service, whereas the "State Police Service" has been defined as under:
(i) for the purpose of filling vacancies in the Indian Police Service Cadre for the Arunachal Pradesh, Goa, Mizoram, Union territories under Rule 9, any of the following service, namely:-
(a) the Delhi, Andaman and Nicobar
Islands Police Service;
(b) The Goa Police Service;
(c) The Police Service;
(d) The Pondicherry Police Service;
(e) The Arunachal Pradesh Police Service;75
(ii) in all other cases, the Principal Police Service of a State, a member of which normally holds charge of a sub-division of a district for purposes of Police Administration and includes any other duly constituted police services functioning in a State which is declared by the State Government to be equivalent thereto.
36. Rule 6 provides for appointment to the service whereas Rule 9 provides for recruitment by promotion. Rule 9 reads as under:
"9.Recruitment by promotion.- (1) Central Government may, on the recommendation of the State Government concerned and in consultation with the Commission, recruit to the Service persons by promotion, from amongst the substantive members of a State Police in accordance with such regulations as the Central Government may, after consultation with the State-Governments and the Commission, from time to time, make.
(2) The number of persons recruited under sub-rule (1) in any State or group of States shall 76 not, at any time, exceed 33-1/3 per cent of the number of senior posts under the State Government, Central deputation reserve, State deputation reserve and the training reserve in relation to that State or to the group of States in the schedule to the Indian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955.
Explanation.- For the purpose of calculation of the posts under the sub-rule fraction if any are to ignored.
(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, in relation to the State of Jammu and Kashmir, the number of persons recruited under sub-rule (1) shall not, upto the 30th April, 2002 exceed at any time fifty percent of the number of senior posts under the State Government, Central deputation reserve, state depuration reserve and the training reserve in relation to that State in the Schedule to the Indian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955.
(xxxx)
37. In pursuance of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules 1954, the Central 77 Government in consultation with the State Governments and the Union Public Service Commission has made Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1955. In this regulation also definition of the "Service" as well as the "State Police Service" as contained in the aforesaid Rules is retained.
38. Regulation 5 deals with the preparation of list of suitable officers, which reads as under:
"5. Preparation of list of suitable officers - (1) Each Committee shall ordinarily meet every year and prepare a list of such members of the State Police Service, as held by them to the suitable for promotion to the Service. The number of members of the State Police Service to be included in the list shall be determined by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government concerned, and shall not exceed the number of substantive vacancies as on the first day of January of the year in which the meeting is held, in the posts available for them under Rule 9 of the 78 Recruitment Rules. The date and venue of the meeting of the Committee to make the Selection shall be determined by the Commission:
Provided that no meeting of the Committee shall be held, and no list for the year in question shall be prepared when-
(a) there are no substantive vacancies as on the first day of January of the year in the posts available for the members of the State Police Service under Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules; or
(b) the Central Government in consultation with the State Government decides that no recruitment shall be made during the year to the substantive vacancies as on the first day of January of the year in the posts available for the members of the State Police Service under Rule 9 of the Recruitment Rules; or
(c) the Commission, on its own or on a proposal made by either the Central Government or the State Government, after considering the facts and 79 circumstances of each case, decides that it is not practicable to hold a meeting of the Committee to make the selection to prepare a Selection List.
Explanation.- In the case of joint cadres, a separate Select List shall be prepared in respect of each State Police Service.
(2) The Committee shall consider for inclusion in the said list, the cases of members of the State Police Service in the order of seniority in that service of a number which is equal to three times the number referred to in sub-regulation (1):
Provided that such restriction shall not apply in respect of a State where the total number of eligible officers is less than three times the maximum permissible size of the Select List and in such a case the Committee shall consider all the eligible officers:
Provided further that in computing the number for inclusion in the field of consideration, the number of officers referred to in the sub- regulation (3) shall be excluded:
Provided also that the Committee shall not consider the case of a member of the State Police Service unless on the first day of January of the 80 year in which it meets he is substantive in the State Police Service and has completed not less than eight years of continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the State Government :
Explanation.- The powers of the State Government under the third proviso to this Sub- regulation shall be exercised in relation to the members of the State Civil Service of a constituent State, by the Government of the State.
(2-A) (xxxxx) (3) The Committees shall not consider the cases of the Members of the State Police Service who have attained the age of (54 years) on the (first day of January) of the year in which it meets:
Provided that a member of the State Police Service whose name appears in the Select List in force immediately before the date of the meeting of the Committee and who has not been appointed to the Service only because he was included provisionally in Select List shall be considered for inclusion in the fresh list to be 81 prepared by the Committee, even if he has in the meanwhile attained the age of fifty-four years.
Provided further that a member of the State Police Service who has attained the age of fifty- four years on the first day of January of the year in which the Committee meets shall be considered by the Committee if he was eligible for consideration on the first day of January of the year or of any of the years immediately proceeding the year in which such meeting is held but could not be considered as no meeting of the Committee was held during such preceding year or years."
39. Thus Regulation 9 provides for recruitment/promotion. A conjoint reading of Rule 9 with Regulation 5 makes it clear that in order to be eligible for promotion firstly a member of the State Police Service must be in a substantive post in the State Police Service. Secondly, he should not have completed 54 years on the 1st day of January of the year in which the Committee meets. He should have completed not less than eight years of 82 continuous service (whether officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Thirdly, if a person does not belong to the Principal Police Service of the State, then he should have completed eight years of continuous service after the post held by him is declared as equivalent thereto by the State Government. Once a person who possesses these qualification, a list of such members of the State Police Service as held by them to be suitable for promotion to the service could be prepared. The number of members of the State Police Service to be included in the list shall be determined by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government concerned. However, it shall not exceed the number of substantive vacancies as on the 1st day of January of the year in which the meeting is held. The number of persons to be recruited under Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 9 of the Rules shall not at any time exceed 33 1/3rd of the number of those posts as shown against items 1 and 2 of the cadre in relation to the State in 83 the Schedule to the Indian Police Service (Fixation of Cadre Strength) Regulations, 1955.
40. The definition of "State Police Service" makes it clear that in cases not falling under sub clause (1) of clause
(j) of Section 2, the State Police Service means, the Principal Police Service of the State, a member of which normally holds charge of a sub-division of a district for purposes of police administration. Normally it is the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) who is the Police Officer who holds charge of a sub-division of a district for the purpose of police administration. Therefore, they are automatically entitled to be considered under the Regulation for being considered for selection to IPS cadre in the Indian Police Service. Further the said provision makes it clear who are the persons who do not belong to Principal Police Service who are also eligible for being included in the list for consideration for such promotion. It provides, a police officer working in any other duly constituted police service 84 functioning in a State is also eligible for such consideration. However, before such person is considered for promotion, the requirement is, the State Government has to declare the said post held by the police officer as equivalent to the principal police service of the State. Without such declaration, the police officer who does not belong to the principal police service of the State is ineligible for being considered to be listed for consideration of promotion to the IPS.
CASE LAW
41. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties have relied on several judgments with reference to declaration of equivalence of posts:
The Apex court in the case of T.VENKATESWARULU v/s EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TIRUMALA TIRUPATHI DEVASTHANAMS AND OTHERS reported in (2009) 1 SCC 546 has held as under:85
"25. It is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the execution and not the judiciary and, therefore, ordinarily courts do not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies as several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure. Being a complex matter, the court will interfere only if there is cogent material on record to come to a firm conclusion that a grave error has crept in such an exercise and court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice being caused. The crucial factor to be established is not only the functional parity of the two cadres, but also the mode of recruitment, qualification and the responsibilities attached to the two offices. All this information is necessary to analyse the rationale behind the State action in giving different treatment to two classes of its employees and then determine whether or not an invidious discrimination has been practiced."
42. In the case of STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR v/s SHRI TRILOKI NATH KHOSA AND OTHERS 86 reported in (1974) 1 SCC 19, the Apex court has held as under:
"29. This argument, as presented, is attractive but it assumes in the Court a right of scrutiny somewhat wider than is generally recognized. Article 16 of the Constitution which ensures to all citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment is but an instance or incident of the guarantee of equality contained in Art.14. The concept of equal opportunity undoubtedly permeates the whole spectrum of an individual's employment from appointment from appointment through promotion and termination to the payment of gratuity and pension. But the concept of equality has an inherent limitation arising from the very nature of the constitutional guarantee. Equality is for equals. That is to say that those who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment.
30. Since the constitutional code of equality and equal opportunity is a charter for equals, equality of opportunity in matters of promotion means an equal promotional opportunity for persons who fall, substantially, within the same class. A classification of 87 employees can therefore be made for first identifying and then distinguishing members of one class from those of another.
31. Classification, however, is fraught with the danger that it may produce artificial inequalities and therefore, the right to classify is hedged in with salient restraints; or else, the guarantee of equality will be submerged in class legislation masquerading as laws meant to govern well-marked classes characterized by different and distinct attainments. Classification, therefore, must be truly founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.
32. Judicial scrutiny can therefore extend only to the consideration whether the classification rests on a reasonable basis and whether it bears nexus with the object in view. It cannot extend to embarking upon a nice or mathematical evaluation of the basis of classification, for were such an inquiry permissible it would be open to the Courts to 88 substitute their own judgment for that of the legislature or the rule-making authority on the need to classify or the desirability of achieving a particular object.
33. Judged from this point of view, it seems to us impossible to accept the respondent's submission that the classification of Assistant Engineers into degree-holders and diploma- holders rests on any unreal or unreasonable basis. The classification, according to the appellants, was made with a view to achieving administrative efficiency in the Engineering services. If this be the object, the classification is clearly co-related to it, for higher educational qualifications are at least presumptive evidence of a higher mental equipment. This is not to suggest that administrative efficiency can be achieved only through the medium of those possessing comparatively higher educational qualifications but that is beside the point. What is relevant is that the object to be achieved here in not a mere pretence for an indiscriminate imposition of inequalities and the classification cannot be characterized as arbitrary or absurd. That is the farthest that judicial scrutiny can extend."89
43. In the case of DILIP KUMAR AND ANOTHER v/s STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2009)4 SCC 753, the Apex Court has held as follows:
"8. In State of J & K V. Triloki Nath Khosa the rule which provided that only degree-holders in the cadre of Assistant Engineers shall be entitled to be considered for promotion to the next higher cadre of Executive Engineers while the diploma- holder Assistant Engineers were not eligible for such promotion was challenged as violative of Article 14. However, the Constitution Bench of this Court repelled this challenge and observed that though the persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of Assistant Engineers, they could, for the purpose of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers, be classified on the basis of educational qualifications.
9. However, in Mohd.Shujat Ali V. Union of India another Constitution Bench of this Court struck a different note and observe3d that for promotion to a higher post, discrimination based 90 on educational qualifications not obligated by the nature of duties or responsibilities of the higher post would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
10. In Roop Chand Adlakha v. DDA this Court while taking a note of T.N.Khosa case and Mohd. Shujat Ali case observed in AIR para 7 as under:
(Roop Chand Adlakha case, SCC p.123 para 18) "18. ... If the differences in the qualification have a reasonable relation to the nature of duties and responsibilities, that go with and are attendant upon the promotional post, the more advantageous treatment of those who possess higher technical qualifications can be legitimized and the doctrine of classification.
There may, conceivably, be cases where the differences in the educational qualifications may not be sufficient to give any preferential treatment to one class of candidates as against another. Whether the classification is reasonable or not must, therefore, necessarily depend upon facts of each case and the circumstances obtaining at the relevant time. When the State makes a 91 classification between two sources, unless the vice of the classification must shown that it is unreasonable and violative of Article 14. A wooden equality as between all classes of employees irrespective of all distinctions or qualifications, or job requirements is neither constitutionally compelled nor practically meaningful. This Court in South Central Railway v. A.V.R.Siddhantti SCR at p.214: AIR at p.1760 observed (SCC p.343, para 20) "20...... A wooden equality as between all classes of employees regardless of qualifications, kind of jobs, nature of responsibility and performance of the employees is not intended, nor is it practicable if the administration is to run.
Indeed, the maintenance of such a
"classes" and undiscerning "equality"
where, in reality, glaring inequalities and intelligible differentia exist, will deprive the guarantee of its practical content. Broad classification based on reason, executive pragmatism and experience having a direct relation with the achievement of efficiency in administration, is permissible' ."
92
44. In P.Murugesan v. State of T.N. this Court held up the validity of the rule prescribing the ratio of 3:1 between graduates and diploma-holders in promotion as also the longer qualifying period for service for diploma-holders. While noting the earlier decisions a three-Judge Bench of this Court observed: (SCC p.350, para 14) "14. This decision clearly supports the appellants' contention and goes to sustain the validity of the impugned amendment. If the diploma-holders can be barred altogether from promotion, it is difficult to appreciate how and why is the rule-making authority precluded from restricting the promotion. The rule-making authority may be of the opinion, having regard to the efficiency of the administration and other diploma-holders from promotion altogether, their chances of promotion should be restricted. On principle, there is no basis for the contention that only two options are open to a rule-making authority - either bar the diploma-holder altogether or allow them unrestricted promotion on par with the graduates."
93
15. In our opinion Article 14 should not be stretched too far, otherwise it will make the functioning of the administration impossible. The administrative authorities are in the best position to decide the requisite qualifications for promotion from Junior Engineer to Assistant Engineer, and it is not for this Court to sit over their decision like a court of appeal. The administrative authorities have experience in administration, and the Court must respect this, and should not interfere readily with administrative decisions. (See Union of India v.
Pushpa Rani and Official Liquidator v.
Dayanand)
16. The decision to treat all Junior
Engineers, whether degree-holders or diploma- holders, as equals for the purpose of promotion is a policy decision, and it is well settled that this Court should not ordinarily interfere in policy decisions unless there is clear violation of some constitutional provision or the statute. We find no such violation in this case.
94
45. The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in the case of E.P.ROYAPPA v/s STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 1974 SC 555 at paragraph 82 has held as under:
"82. The Government must apply its mind to the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the non-cadre post and determine the equivalence. There the pay attached to the non-cadre post is not material. As pointed out by the Government of India in a decision given by its in MHA letter No.32/52/56- AIS(II) dated 10th July 1956 the basic criterion for the determination of equivalence is "the nature and responsibilities of duties attached to the post and not the pay attached to the post". Once the declaration of equivalence is made on a proper application of mind to the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the non-cadre post, sub-r.(2) says that the pay of the member of the India Administrative Service appointed to such non-cadre post shall be the same as he would have been entitled to, had he been appointed in the cadre post to which such non-cadre post is declared equivalent. He is 95 thus assured the pay of the equivalent cadre post and his pay is protected. Now this declaration of equivalence, though imperative is not conclusive in the sense that it can never be questioned. It would be open to a member of the Indian Administrative Service to contend, notwithstanding the declaration of equivalence, that the non-cadre post to which he is appointed is in truth and reality inferior in status and responsibility to that occupied by him and his appointment to such non-cadre post is in violation of Art.311 or Arts.14 and 16. The burden of establishing this would undoubtedly be very heavy and the court would be slow to interfere with the declaration of equivalence made by the Government. The Government would ordinarily be the best judge to evaluate and compare the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to different posts with a view to determining whether or not they are equivalent in status and responsibility and when the Government has declared equivalence after proper application of mind to the relevant factors, that court would be most reluctant to venture into the uncharted and unfamiliar field of 96 administration and examine the correctness of the declaration of equivalence made by the Government. But where it appears to the court that the declaration of equivalence is made without application of mind to the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the non-cadre post or extraneous or irrelevant factors are taken into account in determining the equivalence or the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties of the two posts are so dissimilar that no reasonable man can possibly say that they are equivalent in status and responsibility or the declaration of equivalence is mala fide or in colourable exercise of power or it is cloak for displacing a member of the Indian Administrative Service from a cadre post which he is occupying, the court can and certainly would set at naught the declaration of equivalence and afford protection to the civil servant. The declaration of equivalence must, however, always be there if a member of the Indian Administrative Service is to be appointed to a non-cadre post. The only exception to this rule is to be found in sub-r.(4) and that applies where the non-cadre post is such that it is not 97 possible to equate it with any cadre post. Where the Government finds that the equation is not possible, it can appoint a member of the Indian Administrative Service to a non-cadre post but only for sufficient reasons to be recorded in writing. This again shows that the Government is required to apply its mind and make an objective assessment on the basis of relevant factors for determining whether the non-cadre post to which a member of the Indian Administrative Service is sought to be appointed can be equated to a cadre post, and if so, to what cadre post it can be so equated. This is the plain requirement of R.9, sub-r.(1) and the question is whether the appointment of the petitioner to the non-cadre posts of Deputy Chairman, State Planning Commission and Officer on Special Duty was in compliance with this requirement."
46. The Apex Court in the case of S.B.MATHUR AND OTHERS Vs. HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF DELHI HIGH COURT AND OTHERS reported in AIR 1988 SC 2073, dealing with the question under what circumstances 98 certain posts could be treated as equated posts or equal status posts held as under :-
11. The first submission of Mr. Thakur, learned Counsel for the petitioners is that there is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution in treating the posts of Superintendents, Court Masters or Readers and Private Secretaries to the Judges as equal status posts. It was urged by him that the sources of recruitment to these posts were not identical and so also the qualifications required for appointments to these posts. He also pointed out that the duties of the incumbents of these posts were different. It was submitted by him that in treating these posts as equal status posts unequals were treated equally and hence the rule of equality was violated. In appreciating this submission, it must be borne in mind that it is an accepted principle that where there is an employer who has a large number of employees in his service performing diverse duties, he must enjoy a certain measure of discretion in treating different categories of his employees as holding equal status posts or equated posts, as questions, of promotion or transfer of employees inter se will 99 necessarily arise for the purpose of maintaining the efficiency of the organisation. There is, therefore, nothing inherently wrong in an employer treating certain posts as equated posts or equal status posts provided that, in doing so, he exercises his discretion reasonably and does not violate the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is also clear that for treating certain posts as equated posts or equal status posts, it is not necessary that the holders of these posts must perform completely the same functions or that the sources of recruitment to the posts must be the same nor is it essential that qualifications for appointments to the posts must be identical. All that is reasonably required is that there must not be such difference in the pay-scales or qualifications of the incumbents of the posts concerned or in their duties or responsibilities or regarding any other relevant factor that it would be unjust to treat the posts alike or, in other words, that posts having substantially higher pay-scales or status in service or carrying substantially higher responsibilities and duties or otherwise distinctly superior are not equated with posts carrying 100 much lower pay--scales or substantially lower responsibilities and duties or enjoying much lower status in service"
47. The Apex Court in the case of S.I.ROOPLAL AND ANOTHER Vs. LT. GOVERNOR THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, DELHI AND OTHERS reported in JT 1999 (9) SC 597, dealing with the question of equivalency of posts has held as under : -
"17. ......... Equivalency of two posts is not judged by the sole fact of equal pay. While determining the equation of two posts many factors other than 'Pay' will have to be taken into consideration, like the nature of duties, responsibilities, minimum qualification etc. It is so held by this Court as far back as in the year 1968 in the case of Union of India and another v. P.K. Roy and ors (1986 2 SCR 186). In the said judgment, this Court accepted the factors laid down by the Committee of Chief Secretaries which was constituted for settling the disputes regarding equation of posts arising out of the 101 States Reorganisation Act, 1956. These four factors are : (i) the nature and duties of a post, (ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post; the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;
(iii) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and (iv) the salary of the post. It is seen that the salary of a post for the purpose of finding out the equivalency of posts is the last of the criterion. If the earlier three criteria mentioned above are fulfilled then the fact that the salaries of the two posts are different, would not in any way make the post 'not equivalent'. In the instant case, it is not the case of the respondents that the first three criteria mentioned hereinabove are in any manner different between the two posts concerned. Therefore, it should be held that the view taken by the tribunal in the impugned order that the two posts of Sub-
Inspector in the BSF and the Sub-Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police are not equivalent merely on the ground that the two posts did not carry the same pay-scale, is necessarily to be rejected......"
102
24. Before concluding, we are constrained to observe that the role played by the respondents in this litigation is far from satisfactory. In our opinion, after laying down appropriate rules governing the service conditions of its employees, a State should only play the role of an impartial employer in the inter-se dispute between its employees. If any such dispute arises, the State should apply the rules laid down by it fairly. Still if the matter is dragged to a judicial forum, the State should confine its role to that of an amicus curiae by assisting the judicial forum to a correct decision. Once a decision is rendered by a judicial forum, thereafter the State should not further involve itself in litigation. The matter thereafter should be left to the parties concerned to agitate further, if they so desire. When a State, after the judicial forum delivers a judgment, files review petition, appeal etc. it gives an impression that it is espousing the cause of a particular group of employees against another group of its own employees, unless of course there are compelling reasons to resort to such further proceedings. In the instant case, we feel the respondent has taken more than necessary 103 interest which is uncalled for. This act of the State has only resulted in waste of time and money of all concerned."
48. The Apex Court in the Case of VICE-
CHANCELLOR, L.N. MITHILA UNIVERSITY Vs. DAYANANDA JHA reported in AIR 1986 SC 1200 dealing with the equivalence of posts, held as under:-
"8. The pre-requisite of the power of the Vice- Chancellor under Section 10(14) of the Act to transfer any teacher occupying a post in any department or college maintained by the University to any equivalent post in another department or college maintained by it is that they must, broadly, bear the same characteristics. The mere circumstance that the two posts are carried on the same scale of pay is not enough. That is because in the original text of the Amendment Act the words used in Section 10(14) as well as in the expression 'other equivalent post' as defined in Section 2(ka, chh) are 'Samakaksh Pad'. Learned counsel for the respondent is therefore right in contending that 104 equivalence of the pay-scale is not the only factor in judging whether the post of Principal and that of Reader are equivalent posts. We arc inclined to agree with him that the real criterion to adopt is whether they could be regarded of equal status and responsibility, The term 'teacher' is defined in Section 2 (ka chh) (S.2(ba)) to include Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer etc. Professors of the University like head of the department, College Professors, Readers, Lecturers belong to different grades and discharge different duties and responsibilities. The power of the Vice-Chancellor to transfer any teacher under Section 10(14) is controlled by the use of the word 'Samakaksh' and he can not transfer any teacher from one post to another in a department of the university or a college unless they belong to the same class. In that view, there can be no doubt that the two posts of Principal and Reader cannot be regarded as of equal status and responsibility. The true criterion for equivalence is the status and the nature and responsibility of the duties attached to the two posts. Although the two posts of Principal and Reader are carried on the same scale of pay, the 105 post of Principal undoubtedly has higher duties and responsibilities. Apart from the fact that there are certain privileges and allowances attached to it, the Principal being the head of the college has many statutory rights, such as: (i) He is the ex- officio member of the Senate, (ii) He has the right to be nominated as the member of the Syndicate,
(iii) As head of the institution, he has administrative control over the College Professors, Readers, Lecturers and other teaching and non-
teaching staff, (iv) The Principal of a constituent college is also the ex-officio member of the Academic Council of the University. And (v) He has the right to act as center Superintendent in the University examinations. It is thus evident that the High Court was right in holding that the post of Reader could not be regarded as an equivalent post as that of Principal in the legal sense. Maybe, when the affairs of a college maintained by the University are mismanaged, the Vice-Chancellor may, for administrative reasons, transfer a Professor or Reader of any department or college maintained by it to the post of the Principal of such college, but the converse may not be true. While the Professors and 106 Readers by reason of their learning and erudition may enjoy much greater respect in society than the Dean or Principal of a college, it does not follow that the post of Principal must be treated as equivalent to that of a Reader for purposes of Section 10(14) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976, as amended."
49. What emerges from the aforesaid judgments is, it is well settled that equation of posts and determination of pay scales is the primary function of the executive and not the judiciary. Equivalency of two posts is not judged by the sole fact of equal pay. While determining the equation of two posts many factors other than pay will have to be taken into consideration, like the nature of duties, responsibilities, minimum qualification etc. Treating certain posts as equated posts or equal status posts, it is not necessary that the holders of these posts must perform completely the same functions or that the sources of recruitment to the posts must be the same nor is it essential that qualifications for appointments to the posts must be identical. All that is 107 reasonably required is that there must not be such difference in the pay-scales or qualifications of the incumbents of the posts concerned or in their duties or responsibilities or regarding any other relevant factor that it would be unjust to treat the posts alike. In other words, that posts having substantially higher pay-scales or status in service or carrying substantially higher responsibilities and duties or otherwise distinctly superior are not equated with posts carrying much lower pay-scales or substantially lower responsibilities and duties or enjoying much lower status in service. Broadly stated, four factors have to be taken into consideration while determining the equation of two posts. They are:
(i) the nature and duties of a post,
(ii) the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post; the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged;
108
(iii) the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed
for recruitment to the post; and
(iv) the salary of the post.
50. The salary of a post for the purpose of finding out the equivalency of posts should be the last criterion. If the first three criterion mentioned above are fulfilled then the fact that the salaries of the two posts are different, would not in any way make the post not equivalent. Therefore equivalence of the pay-scale is not the only factor in judging whether the two posts are equivalent posts. The true criterion for equivalence is the status and the nature and responsibility of the duties attached to the two posts. The crucial factor to be established is not only the functional parity of the two cadres, but also the mode of recruitment, qualification and the responsibilities attached to the two offices. All this information is necessary to analyse the rationale behind the State action in giving different treatment to two classes of its employees and then determine 109 whether or not an invidious discrimination has been practiced. The administrative authorities are in the best position to decide the requisite qualifications for promotion.
51. Once the declaration of equivalence is made on a proper application of mind to the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the post, then scope of interference in such a declaration is very much limited. The court would be slow to interfere with the declaration of equivalence made by the Government. The Government would ordinarily be the best judge to evaluate and compare the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to different posts with a view to determining whether or not they are equivalent in status and responsibility. Therefore, ordinarily courts do not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is generally left to expert bodies as several factors have to be kept in view while evolving a pay structure. Being a complex matter, the court will interfere only if there is cogent material on record to 110 come to a firm conclusion that a grave error has crept in such an exercise and court's interference is absolutely necessary to undo the injustice being caused. It is not for this Court to sit over their decision like a court of appeal. The administrative authorities have experience in administration, and the Court must respect this, and should not interfere readily with administrative decisions. When the Government has declared equivalence after proper application of mind to the relevant factors, then court would be most reluctant to venture into the uncharted and unfamiliar field of administration and examine the correctness of the declaration of equivalence made by the Government. where it appears to the court that the declaration of equivalence is made without application of mind to the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the non-cadre post or extraneous or irrelevant factors are taken into account in determining the equivalence or the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties of the two posts are so dissimilar that 111 no reasonable man can possibly say that they are equivalent in status and responsibility or the declaration of equivalence is mala fide or is colourable exercise of power, the court can and certainly would set at naught the declaration of equivalence and afford protection to the civil servant.
52. The Tribunal proceeded to declare the equivalence on the ground that the statute itself provide for the same from 1975 onwards when Section 3 was amended and therefore in utter ignorance of these statutory provisions, the Government had issued these two orders which has no legs to stand. Therefore, it is necessary to find out that, in the absence of a declaration by the Government declaring equivalence as contemplated under Section 2(j) (ii) of the Regulations under the Act, the statute declares them as equivalence. In this context the learned member of the Tribunal proceeds on the assumption that, when Section 3 declares there shall be one police service including the State Reserve Police established under Section 145 for the whole of 112 the State, it amounts to declaring the Principal Police Service and the State Reserve Police constituted under Section 145 of the Act are equivalent. In other words, where a police officer working in any other duly constituted police service would become equivalent to the Principal Police Service of the State in view of the amendment to Section 3 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 by Act No.17/1975 which came into force from 15.05.1975. Therefore, it is necessary to see the scheme of Karnataka Police Act, 1963.
53. The Karnataka State Legislature enacted the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 to provide for a uniform law for the Regulation of the Police Force in the State of Karnataka for exercise of powers and performance of functions by the State Government and by the members of the said force, for the maintenance of the public order, for prevention of gaming, and for certain other purposes.
113
54. Section 2(16) defines the words 'police officer'. It means any member of the Police Force appointed or deemed to be appointed under this Act and includes a special or an additional police officer appointed under Section 19 or 20.
55. Subordinate Police is defined to mean members of the Police Force above the rank of Inspector, whereas, Superior Police means members of the Police Force above the rank of Inspector.
56. Chapter II deals with Superintendence, Control and Organisation of the Police Force. Section 3 declares that there shall be one Police Force (including the State Reserve Police Force established under Section 145) for the whole of the State. Section 4 deals with the superintendence of the Police Force through out the State vests in and is exercisable by the Government and any control, direction or supervision exercisable by any officer over any members of the Police Force shall be exercisable subject to such superintendence. 114 Section 5 deals with the constitution of Police Force. It provides that subject to provisions of the Act, the Police Force shall consist of such number in the several ranks and have such organization and such powers, functions and duties as the Government may be general or special order determine. Section 8 deals with appointment of Superintendent, Additional, Assistant and Deputy Superintendents. The Government may appoint for each district or for a part of a district or for any or more districts and one or more Additional Superintendence and such Assistant and Deputy Superintendents of Police, as it may think expedient. Section 9 of the Act provides for provides for appointment of Superintendents for wireless system and motor transport system or for special duty.
57. Chapter V deals with Special Measures for Maintenance of Public Order and Safety of State. 115
58. Chapter X deals with State Reserve Police Force. Section 144 is the definition Section. It defines 'Active Duty' to mean the duty to investigate offences involving a breach of peace or danger to life or property and to search for and apprehend persons concerned in such offences or who are so desperate and dangerous as to render their being at large hazardous to the community. It also means duty to take all adequate measures for the extinguishing of fires or to prevent damage to person or property on the occasion of such occurrences as fires, floods, earthquakes, enemy action or riots and to restore peace and preserve order on such occasions. Such other duty as may be specified to be active duty by the Government or the Inspector-General in a direction issued under Section 151. Section 145 deals with constitution of the State Reserve Police Force. It provides for the Government establishing and maintaining an armed Reserve Police Force known as the State Reserve Police Force. Section 146 deals with superintendence, control and administration of Force. It provides that Government may 116 appoint for each battalion a Commandant who shall be a person of the rank of a Superintendent and Assistant Commandants in the rank of Deputy Superintendents. Section 148 deals with transfers, which starts with a non- obstante clause. It provides that notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, it shall be competent for the Government to transfer members of the Police Force appointed under Chapter II, to the State Reserve Police Force established under this Chapter and vide versa. Sub-section (2) of Section 148 speaks about the consequences of such transfer. On the transfer of a member of the Police Force appointed under Chapter II to the State Reserve Police Force established under this Chapter, or vice versa, he shall be deemed to be a member of the Police Force to which he is transferred and in the performance of his functions, he shall, subject to such orders as the Government may make, be deemed to be vested with the powers and privileges and be subject to the liabilities of a member of such grade in the 117 Police Force to which he has been transferred, as may be specified in the orders.
59. Therefore, under the Act, the Police Force appointed under Chapter II and the Police Force appointed under Chapter X are treated as distinguished Police Force. They are not one and the same. However, on transfer, the member of the Police Force under Chapter II can be transferred to the Police Force under Chapter X and vice versa.
60. Section 151 of the Act deals with General duties of members of the State Reserve Police Force. It provides that every Reserve Police Officer shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be always on duty in the State of Karnataka and any Reserve Police Officer and any member or body of Reserve Police Officers may, if the Government or the Inspector-General of Police so directs, be employed on active duty for so long as and wherever the service of the 118 same may be required. Section 152 deals with Reserve Police Officer to be deemed to be in charge of Police Station. It provides that when employed on active duty at any place under sub-section (1) of Section 151, the Senior Reserve Police Officer of the highest rank not being lower than that of a Naik present shall be deemed to be an officer in charge of the Police Station for the purposes of Chapter IX of the code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Section 161 declares that Reserve Police Officer to be a Police Officer. It provides that except as a specifically provided in this Chapter, every Reserve Police Office shall for all purposes be deemed to be a Police Officer as defined in Section2, and the provisions of this Act shall except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of this Chapter apply to every such Reserve Police Officer.
61. Section 3 of the Act, as initially enacted declared that there shall be one Police force for the whole of the State. By Act 18/1975, the words "including the State Reserve 119 Police Force established under Section 145" was inserted. Section 145 of the Act deals with Constitution of the State Reserve Police Force. Initially, the said section had the words "In addition to the Police Force constituted under Section 3, the Government may establish...." The same was amended and the words "the Government may establish"
was substituted by Act 18/1975.
62. Therefore, prior to the amendment of Sections 3 and 145, the Act provided for constitution of the State Reserve Police and one Police Force for the whole State. What is sought to be done by way of amendment is instead of "in addition to", now the word used is `including'. Therefore, the aforesaid amendment does not really make any difference insofar as the Constitution of one Police Force for the whole State is concerned. Section 5 of the Act deals with constitution of police force. It categorically declares that the Police Force shall consist of such number in the several ranks and have such organization and such powers, 120 functions and duties as the Government may by general or special order determine. Therefore, though there shall be one police force for the whole of the State, that police force shall consist of several ranks discharging several functions and duties and exercising such powers which are distinct and separate from each other. The words "including the State Reserve Police Force established under Section 145"
came to be inserted by Act No. 18/1975 with effect from 15.5.1975. By such amendment all that has been done is to include the State Reserve Police also within the police force of the State. Similarly, Section 148 on which reliance is placed also speaks about transfer of members of the Police Force appointed under Chapter II to the State Reserve Police established under Chapter VIII and vice versa. Therefore, these two are separate and distinct legal entities which form part of the single Police Force for the whole State. Therefore, merely because there is one police force for the whole of the State, when admittedly the said police force consists of number of ranks i.e., number of cadres, all of them cannot 121 be treated as equal. Even under Section 163 of the Act which confers power on the Government to make Rules providing for framing rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act, rules have been framed by virtue of the said power in respect of the different posts which constitute a single police force.
63. In this regard it is necessary to notice the difference between 'cadre' and 'service'.
The apex court in the case of Dr.CHAKRADHAR PASWAN V/S STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS reported in (1988) 2 SCC 214 while dealing with the difference between the cadre and service held as under:
"8. The argument of learned counsel for the appellant suffers from the infirmity that it overlooks that though the Directorate of Indigenous Medicines comprises of four posts, namely, that of the Director and three Deputy Directors, which are Class I posts, the posts of Director and Deputy Directors do not constitute 122 one 'Cadre'. They are members of the same Service but do not belong to the same cadre. According to the 50 point roster, if in a particular grade a single post falls vacant, it should, in the case of first vacancy, be considered as unreserved i.e. general and on the second occasion when a single post against falls vacant, the same must be treated as reserved.
Admittedly, the post of the Director is the highest post in the Directorate of Indigenous Medicines and is carried in the higher pay scale or grade of Rs.2225-75-2675 while the posts of the Deputy Directors are carried in the pay scale or grade of Rs.1900-75-2500. In service Jurisprudence, the term 'cadre' has a definite legal connotation. In the legal sense, the word 'cadre' is not synonymous with 'service'. Fundamental Rule 9(4) defines the word 'cadre' to mean the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. The post of the Director which is the highest post in the Directorate, is carried on a higher grade or scale, while the posts of Deputy Directors are borne in a lower grade or scale and therefore constitute two distinct cadres or grades. It is open to the government to constitute as many 123 cadres in any particular service as it may choose according to the administrative convenience and expediency and it cannot be said that the establishment of the Directorate constituted the formation of a joint cadre of the Director and the Deputy Directors because the posts are not interchangeable and the incumbents do not perform the same duties, carry the same responsibilities or draw the same pay. The conclusion is irresistible that the posts of the Director and those of the Deputy Directors constitute different cadres of the Service. It is manifest that the post of the Director of Indigenous Medicines, which is the highest post in the Directorate carried on a higher grade or scale, could not possibly be equated with those of the Deputy Directors on a lower grade or scale. In view of this, according to the 50 point roster, if in a particular cadre a single post falls vacant, it should, in the case of first vacancy, be considered as general. That being so, the State Government could not have directed reservation of the post of Deputy Director (Homeopathic) which was the first vacancy in a particular cadre i.e. that of the Deputy Directors, for candidates belonging to the 124 Scheduled Castes. Such reservation was not in conformity with the principles laid down in the 50 point roster and was impermissible under Article 16(4) of the Constitution and clearly violative of the guarantee enshrined in Article 16(1) of equal opportunity to all citizens relating to public employment. Clause (4) of Article 16 is by way of an exception of the proviso to Article 16(1). The High Court rightly held that the reservation of the post of Deputy Director (Homeopathic) amounted to 100 per cent reservation which was impermissible under Article 16(4) as otherwise it would render the guarantee of equal opportunity in the matter of public employment under Article 16(1) wholly elusive and meaningless."
"10. There is another aspect. The three posts of Deputy Directors of Homeopathic, Unani and Ayurvedic are distinct and separate as they pertain to different disciplines and each one is isolated post by itself carried in the same cadre. There can be no grouping of isolated posts even if they are carried on the same scale. The instructions issued by the Government of India from time to time relating to reservations of posts 125 and appointments for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes are contained in the Brochure on Reservation for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Services. Chapter 2 Part I gives the percentage of reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. These instructions have been issued to carry out the mandate of Article 16(4) consistent with the equality clause under Articles 16(1) and 16(2) and the requirements of Article 335, namely, the maintenance of efficiency of administration. Para 2.4 provides that the reservations will be applied to each grade or post separately but isolated posts will be grouped as provided in Chapter 6. Paragraph 6.1 of Chapter 6 which is relevant for our purposes, states that in the case where the posts are filled by direct recruitment, 'isolated individual posts and small cadres may be grouped with posts in the same class for purpose of reservation, taking into account the status, salary and qualifications prescribed for the posts in question'. For this purpose, it provides that a cadre or a grade or a 126 division of a service consisting of less than 20 posts may be treated as a small cadre. A group so formed shall not ordinarily consist of 25 posts. It then adds:
It is not intended that isolated posts should be grouped together only with other isolated posts. That precisely is the situation here. The Government of India instructions clearly show that there can be no grouping of one or more isolated posts for purposes of reservation. To illustrate, Professors in medical colleges are carried on the same grade or scale of pay but the posts of Professor of Cardiology, Professor of Surgery, Professor of Gynaecology pertain to disciplines and therefore each is an isolated post."
64. In service Jurisprudence, the term 'cadre' has a definite legal connotation. In the legal sense, the word 'cadre' is not synonymous with 'service'. Fundamental Rule 9(4) defines the word 'cadre' to mean the strength of a service or part of a service sanctioned as a separate unit. It 127 is open to the government to constitute as many cadres in any particular service as it may choose according to the administrative convenience and expediency. The persons who do not belong to the same cadre are still members of the same service. Persons belonging to different cadres are members of the same service but they do not belong to the same cadre. Where there is an employer who has a large number of employees in his service performing diverse duties, he must enjoy a certain measure of discretion in treating different categories of his employees as holding equal status posts or equated posts, as questions, of promotion or transfer of employees inter se will necessarily arise for the purpose of maintaining the efficiency of the organisation. Therefore, nothing inherently wrong in an employer treating certain posts as equated posts or equal status posts provided that, in doing so, he exercises his discretion reasonably and does not violate the principles of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is because of this legal position Regulation 2(j)(ii) confers 128 power on the Government to declare any other duly constituted police service functioning in the State to be equivalent to the Principal Police Service of a State, a member of which normally holds charge of a Sub-division of a District for the purposes of police administration. In the absence of such a declaration, the police officer in a cadre different from the police service is not equivalent to the police officer working under the Principal Police Service. It is only on such declaration they become equivalent. Therefore, the understanding of the Tribunal that once all of them belong to one police force, statutorily equivalence is conferred on them is contrary to the express provisions contained in the Act. The interpretation placed in this regard runs counter to the statutory provisions under the Act, as such, it cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the said finding is hereby set aside.
129ON FACTS
65. The Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) i.e., the Principal Police Service was the only source for the purpose of promotion to Indian Police Service. For the first time by an order dated 23.12.1991 the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Wireless), Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed) and Assistant Commandant (Karnataka State Reserve Police) were declared as equivalent to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police of the Principal Police Service. However, on a letter written by the Director General and Inspector General of Police of Karnataka dated 8.2.1996 the said equivalence was withdrawn. By that time two persons belonging to auxiliary services had been promoted to Indian Police Service. Subsequently, one man committee of Sri Ramalingam, IPS (Retired) was constituted to go into the question of equivalence. The committee submitted its report on 23.3.1996 and recommended to rescind the order of declaration of equivalence. That is how the earlier order dated 23.12.1991 came to be rescinded, by 130 an order dated 18.7.1996. Subsequently, one more committee was constituted for the same purpose under the chairmanship of Dr.P.S.Ramanujam. The said committee submitted its report on 11.5.2000 recommending for grant of equivalence. The said report was placed before the committee consisting of the Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Additional Chief Secretary to the Karnataka, (Home Department), Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police and Secretary to Government, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms on 20.5.2009. After examining the report, the committee was of the view that the training imparted and the functions which are performed by these two set of officers are quite different and therefore they recommended to reject the said report. Without considering this report of the committee, the impugned order dated 1.10.2010 came to be issued. A reading of the aforesaid order shows the reasons given for declaration of equivalence. In the preamble to the said order it is stated that, there is acute shortage of police personnel 131 in the main police service, both in the IPS and Non-IPS cadres. Also there is acute shortage of eligible State Police Officers for considering promotion to IPS. During this year, there are not enough officers to meet the requirement of the zone of consideration for promotion in the principal state police service against vacancies in IPS Promotion quota occurred during the year 2009. Therefore, the State Government having examined the need for considering officers of other units also viz., auxiliary police units for promotion to IPS during the year 2009 as provided in the regulation, after detailed consideration it is necessary to declare eligible officers of such auxiliary police units with distinguished service to be equivalent to the principal state police service. Therefore, it is considered necessary to consider only such of the officers of outstanding merit and ability and who have rendered distinguished service in the police auxiliary services for promotion to IPS, in order to maintain the standard of policing in the State. Therefore, by virtue of the power conferred under regulation 2 (1) (j) of the 132 Regulations the Government declared that the other police services constituted by the State Government viz., Police Wireless, Karnataka State Reserve Police and Karnataka Armed Police and the officers in these auxiliary units not below the grade of Dy. SP viz., (i) Deputy Superintendent of Police (Wireless), (ii) Assistant Commandant (KSRP) and (iii) Deputy Superintendent of Police (Armed) in these units are equivalent to that of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Civil) i.e., Principal Police Service for the purposes of promotion to IPS for the vacancies available for the year 2009 only. The same was made subject to the three conditions stipulated in the said order.
66. Therefore, as is clear from the order, firstly the equivalence is declared only for the year 2009. Secondly, the reason for declaration of equivalence is there are not available sufficient number of qualified officers for being considered for IPS promotion quota. Therefore, before declaring, the Government did not take into consideration 133 the nature of duties of a post, the responsibilities and powers exercised by the officer holding a post; the extent of territorial or other charge held or responsibilities discharged; the minimum qualifications, if any, prescribed for recruitment to the post; and the salary of the post. The non- availability of sufficient number of officers in the Principal Police Service for the purpose of promotion to IPS cannot be a ground to declare the equivalence. There is total non- application of mind to the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to the said post. They have taken into consideration totally extraneous and irrelevant factors in determining the equivalence. In fact the recommendation made by Dr. P.S. Ramanujam committee had been rejected by the committee constituted by the Government on the ground that the training and the nature of duties performed are not the same. Strangely, the equivalence is given to a particular year which is totally impermissible in law. If the nature of functions, responsibilities discharged, the experience gained or the 134 nature of training undergone are one and the same in respect of these two cadres and if the equivalence is to be given, it is to be given for ever. It cannot be for one year. In that view of the matter, the order dated 1.10.2010 as rightly held by the Tribunal is contrary to law, illegal and requires to be set aside. Realising this, the Government wanted to retrace its steps. Therefore, they issued the Government Order dated 21.7.2011 and the preamble to the order clearly states the reasons for such a step. The same is in accordance with law. However, if the first order is to be set aside, the necessity for the second order would not arise and therefore the question of going into the legality of the second order in the facts of this case would not arise. If the first order goes, the second order becomes superfluous and it has no legs to stand. In fact, the Tribunal did declare in the body of its order that both these orders cannot be sustained and liable to be set aside.
135
67. It was contended that as the parties have placed all the material before the Court, this Court could decide the equivalence, in the light of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra.
68. The Apex Court in various judgments has held that the administrative authorities are in a best position to decide the equivalence of two posts in the services because they have the requisite experience in administration. They are aware of the nature of responsibilities, duties attached to the post and the functions to be discharged by them. They are the best Judge to evaluate and compare the nature and responsibilities of the functions and duties attached to different posts with a view to determine whether or not they are equivalent in status and responsibility and whether a declaration of equivalence is to be granted or not. The Courts cannot embark upon the exercise. It is left to the expert bodies and therefore when the parties have produced abundant material to substantiate their contentions and 136 show the qualification prescribed, qualification possessed by them, the subjects they have studied in the competitive examination, the training which they have undergone, the nature of duties which they are discharging, still Courts do not enter upon the task of job evaluation which is the function of the experts in the field. Therefore, it is to be left to the Government. If the declaration of equivalence is made or not made without application of mind to the nature of responsibilities, functions and duties attached to the posts or extraneous or irrelevant factors are taken into account in determining or granting or not granting the equivalence then it would be open to this Court to set at naught the declaration of equivalence and afford protection to the civil service. In that view of the matter, we decline to embark upon the said exercise and leave it to the authorities to undertake that exercise.
69. However, we make it clear, twice equivalence is granted, twice it is withdrawn. Already they have the report 137 of two expert bodies. Still the dispute is not resolved even after more than two decades. Under these circumstances it would be appropriate for this Court to direct the authorities either to constitute a expert body and give an opportunity to the varying fractions to put forth their point of view and then look into the material which is collected over a period of two decades and decide it one way or the other. On such report being submitted, the Government after independently applying its mind should decide whether an equivalence is to be granted or not. In either event they should assign reasons in their order for granting equivalence or not granting equivalence so that the aggrieved person can approach this Court and then the Court would be in a better position to go into the disputed issues. It is made clear an equivalence cannot be given for a particular year. Equivalence is between two posts and not the persons who are in the post. Therefore, keeping in mind all these aspects, in order to set at rest the dispute which is unresolved for more than two decades, we are sure that the Government 138 would take immediate steps to resolve the dispute as suggested above.
70. From the material on record it is clear that, unless an equivalence is declared by the Government, the police officers who form the part of the auxiliary services cannot be considered for being included in the list. However, the police officers who belong to the principal police force are the persons whose name is to be included in the list for being considered for being promoted to IPS cadre. As is clear from the Government Order of 2010 the reason for equivalence is there are no sufficient number of persons in the principal police force who could be promoted to IPS. If that is so persons who are eligible in the Principal Police Force their case should be considered automatically without waiting for equivalence being granted by the Government. Because of the litigation it appears their case though considered no final decision is taken. It is unjust. Therefore, the declaration of equivalence by the Government 139 should not come in the way of the claims of persons in the Principal State Police Service for being considered for promoted as IPS officers. If already the names are sent they shall be considered and appropriate orders be issued without any further loss of time.
71. In that view of the matter, we pass the following order:-
(i) Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The impugned order passed by the Government
dated 1.10.2010 is hereby set aside.
(iii) Consequently, the Government Order dated 21.7.2011 becomes infructuous.
(iv) We hereby direct the authorities to constitute a broad based expert committee to resolve these disputes at the earliest.
140
(v) After constitution of such committee, the committee shall give sufficient opportunity to the varying fractions and resolve the dispute and submit their report to the Government within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(vi) On submission of the said report, the Government shall take decision regarding equivalence within 2 months there from.
(vii) It is made clear the Government decision should contain the reasons either for granting equivalence or refusing to grant equivalence so that the aggrieved person could agitate his rights before this Court.
(viii) It is made clear the authorities shall proceed to consider the case of police officers of the Principal State Police Force whose name already finds a place in the list of persons to be 141 considered for promotion and it shall not be postponed on the pretext of the constitution of the committee or submission of the report or the decision of the equivalence to be taken by the Government.
Parties to bear their own costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Mpk/cks/ksp/bkm/ujk/-