Patna High Court
Deepak Kumar & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 11 August, 2017
Author: Anil Kumar Upadhyay
Bench: Chief Justice, Anil Kumar Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1504 of 2014
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17724 of 2013
===========================================================
1. Ravindra Prasad Yadav Son of Late Arman Yadav Resident of Village-
Vishnupur,P.S-Ladaniya, District-Madhubani,at present posted at Patna
2. Binay Kumar Yadav Son of Ram Bharosa Rai Resident of Punaichak,Patna-
23,at present posted at Vigilance Police Station, P.S-Sastri Nagar, District-Patna
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna. Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.
3. The Home Secretary, Department of Home Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna, Bihar
4. The Secretary, Department of Home (Police) Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat,
Patna, Bihar
5. The Additional Secretary, Department of Home(Police) Govt. of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna, Bihar
6. The Director General of Police, Bihar at Patna at Police Head Quarters, Old
Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.
7. The Inspector General of Police, Headquarters Bihar at Patna at Police Head
Quarters, Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar.
8. Anil Shankar Thakur Son of Late Daya Shankar Thakur Resident of Lane
No.1,Shivpuri,Damu Chak,P.S-Kazi Mohammadpur,District-Muzaffarpur,at
presented posted at special Branch.
9. Amrendra Kumar Jha Son of Late Singheshwar Jha Mohalla-Alkapuri,P.S-
Gardanibagh,District-Patna, at present posted at Sitamarhi, District Police
Force.
10. Uday Kumar Son of Late Dewanand Singh Police Colony ,Anisabad, Patna, at
present posted at Katihar District Police.
11. Prem Kumar Yadav Son of Shiv Shankar Yadav Housing Colony ,Bhagalpur,at
present posted at Special Branch
12. Baby Chandra Wife of Mr.Rajesh Kumar Gupta Flat No.402,Sanskar
Apartment,RBSSS Road,Bhagalpur,at present posted at Special Branch
Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017
2/17
13. Somay Priyardarshi Son of Mr.Gopal Prasad Village-Dharamshala Road
P.S+District-Kishanganj,at present posted at Darbhanga
14. Manish Kumar Son of Mr.Durga Prasad Rajiv Nagar Road,Keshri Nagar P.S-
Rajiv Nagar Patna,at present posted at Patna District
15. Mohan Kumar Son of Late Vidyapati Singh Village-Lakshman Chapra P.S-
Dhokhri,District-Baliya(U.P),at present posted at Katihar, District-Katihar.
16. Radhe Shyam Yadav Son of Sri Nunu Prasad Yadav Vill-Hanuman Nagar,P.S-
Roshra Samastipur,at present posted at Katihar,District-Katihar.
17. Yogesh Chandra Son of Late Ramjeevan Singh Village-Kurtha,P.S-
Kurtha,District-Arwal at present posted at Madhubani District Police
18. Vakil Prasad Yadav Son of Late Banarsi Prasad Yadav Village-Rasook,P.S-
Morkahi,District-Khagariya,at present posted at Madhepura District Police
19. Amrendra Kumar Son of Sri Jagnarayan Thakur Vill-Koria P.S-Dinnara,District
-Rohtas,at present posted at Special Branch
20. Shambhu Yadav Son of Sri Uchit Yadav Vill-Tulsi Tola,Pharpur,P.S-
Baliya,District-Begusarai,at present posted at Muzaffarpur District Police
21. Dhamendra Kumar Son of Late Chhote Lal Singh Vill-Saidpur P.S-
Khagol,District-Patna,at present posted at STF
.... .... Respondent/s
with
===========================================================
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1564 of 2014
IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17818 of 2013
===========================================================
1. Deepak Kumar Son of Sri Krisndeo Prasad Sinha, Flat No. - 102/C, Jagmano
Sri Garden Apartment Bed Nagar, Rukanpura, Baily Road, Distt. - Patna at
present posted at Vigilance PS, Patna
2. Satyendra Kumar Mishra, Son of Late Janardan Mishra, Gurhatta Hamam Road,
Patna City, District - Patna, at present posted at Economics Offence Unit
3. Ajit Kumar, son of Sri Dinesh Prasad Sharma, Vill. - Nathupur, P.S. - Phatuha,
District - Patna, at present posted at Special Branch
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary , Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna, Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms,
Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar
Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017
3/17
3. The Home Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna, Bihar
4. The Secretary, Department of Home (Police) , Government of Bihar, Old
Secretariat, Patna, Bihar
5. The Additional Secretary, Department of Home (Police) , Government of Bihar,
Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar
6. The Director General of Police, Bihar at Patna at Police Head Quarters , Old
Secretariat, Patna, Bihar
7. The Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, Bihar at Patna at Police Head
Quarters, Old Secretariat, Patna, Bihar
8. Sudhir Kumar Jha, Son of Late Kailash Jha, Village - Moughara, District -
Samastipur, at present posted a t C.I.D.
9. Md. Ali Sabri, Son of Late S.M. Ali Nagar, Harun Nagar, Sector - 1, Near -
Sudha Diary Project, Road No. - 4, P.S. - Phulwari, Patna, at present posted at
STF
10. Munir Alam, Son of Late Md. Muslim, Vill. - R.K. Nagar, FCI Road,
Phulwarisharif, at present posted at Patna District Police
11. Sindhu Shekhar Singh, son of Sri Bhubneswar Singh, Vill. - Ahinora, P.S. -
Mohnia, Kaimur, at present posted at Patna District
12. Arun Kumar Singh, son of Sri Narayan Prasad Singh, Vill. - Gonawa, P.S. -
Harnaut, Nalanda, at present posted at Special Branch
13. Prakash Kumar Saran, Son of Sri K.M. Saran, Vaishnawa Villa, Sidhant Nagar,
Jagdeo Path, Baily Road, Distt. - Patna, at present posted at C.B.I.
14. Vinod Kumar Pandey, Son of Late Ramakant Pandey Sahil Sangam, P.S. -
Nagar, Motihari, at present posted at Rail Police, Sugauli
15. Lalit Bijay Tiwari, Son of Sri Janardan Tiwari Police Colony - B - 114
Anisabad, Dist. - Patna, at present posted at Motihari District Police
16. Kumar Kirti, son of Shri K.M. Singh, Rajbanshi Nagar, Patna- 23
17. Since Dead- (Anil Kumar, Son of Nunu lal Yadav, Vill- Chandpatti, P.S.-
Gamahriya, Dist- Madhepura, at present posted at Vaishali District Police)
18. Arun Kumar, son of Sri Ram Nath Singh Flat No. - 103/A Sri Ram Kunj
Apartment, Keshri Nagar, Patliputra Distt. - Patna, at present posted at Bhojpur
District Police Force
19. Sunil Kumar Singh, Son of Sri R.N. Singh, Village - Govindchak P.S. - Sonpur,
Distt. - Saran at present posted at Gaya District Police
20. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Sri Sidhnath Singh, MIG - 9, Purani Housing Colony
Chandwa, Dist. - Arah, at present posted at Gaya Police
Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017
4/17
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Shantanu Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Smt. Binita Singh SC 28
Mr. Sidharth Shankar, AC to SC 28
For pvt. Respondent : Mr. Priyadarshi Mitra Saran, Advocate
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY)
Date: 11-08-2017
Both the Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by
the appellants against the common judgment and order dated
17.6.2014passed in CWJC No. 17724 of 2013, CWJC No. 20209 of 2013 and CWJC No. 17818 of 2013. By common judgment three writ petitions involving the identical issue were dismissed but only two appeals have been filed whereas no appeal was preferred in CWJC No. 20209 of 2013 and as such the judgment of the writ Court in CWJC No. 20209/2013 has attained finality. Since the question of fact and law involved in both the cases are identical and the Writ Court dismissed the writ petitions by common judgment and order dated 17.6. 2014, the present appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
In both the appeals the issue involved is whether the Police Order No. 102 dated 8.2.1983 is still holding the field and guiding factor for preparation of Gradation List of direct Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017 5/17 recruit Sub-Inspector or not? If the Police Order No. 102 dated 8.2.1983 is still holding the field then the Gradation List of the Sub-Inspector of Police prepared and published vide memo no. 1806 dated 17.6.2013 and final Gradation List published vide memo no. 2269/P1 dated 31.7.2013 is lawful and justified or not?
The facts of these two cases are not in dispute. The appellants were directly recruited Sub-Inspector of Police pursuant to advertisement dated 14.7.1993 (Advertisement No. 2 /93) (Annexure-1). After undergoing selection process select list in order of merit was prepared and thereafter the appellants were sent for training in Police Training College and after training they were placed on probation. On 2.11.2004 a provisional Gradation List of Sub-Inspector was published and objection was invited. The provisional Gradation List was subject to correction and also subject to outcome of the pending CWJC Nos. 11211 and 11667 of 2003 and the objection of the Sub-Inspectors on such provisional Gradation List.
On 18.6.2014 the office of the Director General of Police vide memo no. 1806 issued corrected Gradation List of Sub-Inspector of Police following the Police Order Nos. 102 of 1983 and 269 of 1999. The Police Order No. 102 was issued in exercise of power under Rule 657 of the Bihar Police Manual which reads as follows: - POLICE ORDER NO. 102 fo"k; %& voj fujh{kd dh ojh;rkA Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017 6/17 egkfuns'kd lg vkj{kh egkfujh{kd ds earO; ls lger gksrs gq, ljdkj us vkns'k la[;k & 5@la- 1 & 103@80 x`vk0 & 1217 fnukad 08-02-83 }kjk fu.kZ; fd;k gS fd lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk fu;qDr izkj{k voj fujh{kd rFkk vkj{kh voj fujh{kd dh ojh;rk dk fu/kkZj.k iz f'k{k.k ds ckn tks vafre ijh{kk esa vad izkIr gksrsa gSa] mUgsa izFke fu;qfDr ds fy;s p;u ijh{kk esa izkIrkad ds lkFk tksM+us ds ckn fu/kkZfjr vf/keku Øe ds vuqlkj mudh ojh;rk 08-02-1983 ls izHkkoh gksxkA vFkkZr~ bl frfFk ds ckn fu;qDr voj fujh{kdksa rFkk izkj{k voj fujh{kdksa dks vius&vius i`Fkd es vkilh ojh;rk ds fy;s ;g ykxw gksxkA gLrd dk izlx a & 657 The said police order was consistently followed in the preparation of Gradation List of direct recruit Sub-Inspector of Police, i.e. by preparing the merit list after adding the marks in the training. However, for the direct recruit of 1994 without any basis there was departure in preparing the provisional Gradation List vide letter no. 4932/P2 dated 2.11.2004 and the mistake in preparation of provisional Gradation List vide letter dated 2.11.2004 was rectified and consistent with police order No. 102 and Police Order 269 of 1999, the corrected Gradation List was published on 18.6.2013 on the basis of preparation of merit list adding the marks obtained by the candidate in the training.
The decision dated 18.6.2013 was assailed by the appellants by challenging the same in the connected writ petitions. Before the Writ Court they submitted that the Gradation List published on 2.11.2004 is legal and valid and its correction vide Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017 7/17 Gradation List dated 18.6.2013 is illegal. In CWJC No. 20209 of 2013 the writ petitioners had prayed for quashing of the Police Order No. 102 dated 8.2.1983. However, there is no appeal against the decision in CWJC No. 20209/2013 and the same has become final.
Before the Writ Court on behalf of the petitioners it was submitted that in terms of the advertisement the merit list was required to be prepared on the basis of their performance in the selection process and the Gradation List which was prepared after the training in the year 2004 is reflection of the merit position of the direct recruit Sub-Inspector and referring to the Police Order No. 260 they have submitted that their seniority is correctly reflected in 2004 and their seniority position in the modified Gradation List published on 18.6.2013 is illegal and arbitrary. They have challenged the validity of corrected Gradation List on the ground that after Police Order No. 260 of 1997 the previous police order no. 102 of 1983 could not be given effect and it will be deemed to have been repealed by the police order No. 260 of 1997.
The Writ Court on consideration of the entire facts and circumstances and the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners held out that the Police Order No. 102 is still holding the field which contains the principle to be followed in the preparation of the Gradation List. The Writ Court clarified that Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017 8/17 Police Order No. 260/97 does not repeal the Police Order No. 102 of 1983. The Writ Court on consideration of the fact that Police Order No. 102 was followed consistently for preparation of Gradation List of direct recruit Sub-Inspector of Police in 1984, 1985 and 1989 and as such for the 1994-95 batches corrected Gradation List was published on 18.6.2013 in the light of the principle contained in Police Order No. 102 and after detailed discussions dismissed the writ petitions. The Writ Court also noted that the Police Order Nos. 102 of 1983 and 269 of 1999 cannot be quashed as they are holding the field for the last many decades.
Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Writ Court the appellants have more or less reiterated the same argument which were advanced before the Writ Court and the Writ Court rejected their submissions.
Mr. Yadu Vansh Giri, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants have submitted that Police Order No. 102 of 1983 stands impliedly repealed by virtue of issuance of subsequent police order, namely, police order No. 260 of 1997 and as such the preparation of gradation list of 1994-95 batch of direct recruit applying the principle contained in police order no. 102 of 1983, and correction in the Gradation List dated 2.11.2004 is unsustainable in the eye of law as Police Order No. 102 stands impliedly repeal by virtue of Police Order No. 260 of 1997.
The submissions of Mr. Giri is unsustainable for the Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017 9/17 reasons that the Police Order No. 260 of 1997 was issued in the context of Police Order No. 204 of 1988 and not to supersede Police Order No. 102 of 1983. Clause 5 of police order 260 of 1997 simply says that the inter se seniority of the direct recruits Sub-Inspector shall be in accordance with the merit list. It is not an expression of departure from Police Order No. 102. The Police Order No. 102 in fact provides for principle to be followed in preparation of the merit list. Secondly, the Police Order No. 102 could not have been treated as deemed repealed by Police Order No. 260 of 1997 for the simple reason that Police Order No. 269 of 1998 was again reiteration of the principle incorporated in Police Order No. 102. The Police Order No. 269 reiterates not only the police order no. 102 but accepted the principle embodied in Police Order No. 102/1983 as the binding principle to be followed in the preparation of gradation list of Sub-Inspector of Police. For ready reference Police Order No. 269/1998 is reproduced here as follows:
"Police order no.-269 iqfyl gLrd fu;e 651] 652] 657 A
------------------
vkj{kh voj fujh{kd] izkj{k voj fujh{kd rFkk lgk;d voj fujh{kd ds laLFkkfud izf'k{k.k dks iqfyl gLrd fu;e rFkk xksjs lfefr ds vuq'kalk ds vkyksd esa lqO;ofLFkr djus gsrq ;g vkns'k fuxZr fd;k tkrk gSA vuqyXud ds :Ik esa mi;qDZ r rhuksa lEoxksZa dk CykWd Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017 10/17 flyscl ,oa foLr`r ikB;dze bl vkns'k ds vuqyXud ds :Ik esa layXu gSA iqfyl vkns'k la0&102 ds }kjk laLFkkfud izf'k{k.k ds I'pkr gq, ijh{kkQy dks izFke fu;qfDr ds fy, gqbZ p;u ijh{kk esa izkIr vad ds lkFk tksM+dj voj fujh{kd ,oa izkj{k voj fujh{kdksa dh ojh;rk fu/kkZfjr djus laca/kh vkns'k iwoZ ls gh fuxZr gSA vr% mudh iqujko`fr bl vkns'k esa ugha dh tkrh gSA laLFkkfud ijh{kk esa vlQy gksus ds ckn iqu% ijh{kk nsus laca/kh funsZ'k iqfyl vkns'k la0&238@93 esa fufgr gSA mDr vkns'k ds ikjk&vkB esa fn, x, izko/kkuksa ds LFkku ij bl vkns'k dks ykxw fd;k x;k tk;sxkA Okkg~; fo"k;ksa esa ijsM] Mªhy rFkk vL= ls lacaf/kr lHkh isij esa izf'k{kq dks ih0Vh0lh0] gtkjhckx ds izf'k{k.k ds nkSjku gh lQy gksuk vfuok;Z gksxkA mlh izdkj vUr% fo"k;ksa esa fof/k& ,d] fof/k nks] fof/k&rhu] isij&06 fof/k foKku ,oa isij&08 tks vkj{kh foKku ls lacaf/kr gS] blesa Hkh izf'k{kq dks ih0Vh0lh0] gtkjhckx esa gh lQy gksuk vfuok;Z gksxkA mi;qZDr okg~; ,oa vUr% fo"k; esa ;fn izf'k{kq vuqrh.kZ gksrs gS] rks mUgsa ftyk esa O;ogkfjd izf'k{k.k gsrq ugha Hkstk tk;sxk cfYd ih0Vh0lh0] gtkjhckx esa gh jksddj
03 eghus ds vUnj iqu% vuqrh.kZ fo"k; ds ijh{kk esa 'kkfey fd;k tk;sxkA vxj dksbZ izf'k{kq mi;qZDr fo"k;ksa esa ls fdlh fo"k; esa nks fo"k;ksa esa lQy ugha gksrs gS] rks muds ijh{;eku vof/k dks lekIr djus dh dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA vU; lHkh okg~; ,oa vUr% fo"k; esa vuqrh.kZ gksus ij izf'k{kq dks O;ogkfjd izf'k{k.k ds fy, ftyk esa Hkstk tk;sxk] ijUrq nks o"kZ ds vUnj fu/kkZfjr le; ij mUgsa iqu% ijh{kk Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017 11/17 nsus ds fy, ih0Vh0lh0] gtkjhckx vkuk gksxkA bu fo"k;ksa esa mUgsa rhu iz;kl feysaxs vkSj blds ckn Hkh vxj os vuqrh.kZ jgrs gSa] rks mudh ijh{;eku vof/k dh lekfIr ds fy, dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA ds0,0 tSdc egkfuns'kd ,oa vkj{kh egkfujh{kd] fcgkj] iVukA"
The concept of implied repeal is recognized as cannon of interpretation of Statute. The incident of implied repeal of previous legislation is one of the canons of construction of subsequent statutes. Bennion on Statutory Interpretation (Fifth Edition) Part-IV at page 304 reads as follows;
" where a later enactment does not expressly repeal an earlier enactment which it has power to override, but the provisions of the later enactment are contrary to those of the earlier, the later by implication repeals the earlier in accordance with the maxim leges posteriors priores contrarias abrogant (later laws abrogate earlier contrary laws)."
However, the author has noted that there is presumption against implied repeal stronger where modern precision drafting is used. It is also stronger the more weighty the enactment said to have been repealed.
Craies of Statute Law also accepted the principle of implied repeal as one of the cannon of interpretation of the Statute and applicable in the matter of construction of subsequent Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017 12/17 enactment. The principle of implied repeal is one of the cannon of construction for understanding the intention of the legislature in the event of conflict between the two legislations. Craies has noted the „implied repeal‟ as follows:
"Where two Acts are inconsistent or repugnant, the later will be read as having impliedly repealed the earlier. The Court leans against implying a repeal, "unless two Acts are so plainly repugnant to each other that effect cannot be given to both at the same time, a repeal will not be implied. Special Acts are not repealed by general Acts unless there is some express reference to the previous legislation or unless there is a necessary inconsistency in the two Acts standing together.
(Page 366- Craies on Statute Law Seventh Edition)"
Apart from the fact that in the instant case there is no conflicting legislation which warrants scrutiny and research whether the subsequent legislation by necessary implication is superseded or overruled on factual scrutiny. The submission of implied repeal of Police Order No. 102 is unfounded in fact it is still holding the field and there is no inconsistency and there is no police order which by necessary implication overruled or superseded the Police Order No. 102/1983.
Mr. Giri further submitted that in terms of Clause 13 of the advertisement contained in Annexure-1, the respondents were required to prepare the Gradation List. Clause 13 of the Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017 13/17 advertisement reads as follows:-
"13- fyf[kr ijh{kk esa lQy ik;s x;s mEehnokjksa ds lk{kkRdkj dk vk;ks tu fd;k tk;sxk ftldk iw.kkZad & 35 ¼iSarhl½ gksxkA fgUnh dks NksM+ vU; fo"k;ksa esa fyf[kr ijh{kk esa izkIrkad ,oa lk{kkRdkj esa izkIrkad tksM+s tk,xsa ,oa mEehnokjksa dh ojh;rk lwph cuk;h tk,xhA ;fn nks mEehnokjksa dk izkIrkad cjkcj gksxsa rks mudh ojh;rk fu/kkZj.k fyf[kr ijh{kk esa izkIrkad ls fd;k tk;sxkA"
Mr. Giri submitted that the principle contained in Clause 13 of the Advertisement is clinching and the Gradation List was required to be made following Clause 13 of the Advertisement whereas the respondents have departed from the said principle of merit in the preparation of Gradation List and as such assailed the Gradation List as unsustainable. This submission of Mr. Giri does not merit any consideration in view of the fact that the manner of preparation of select list in order of merit indicated in clause 13 of the advertisement is only applicable in the process of selection and preparation of merit list for selection. The said clause is not applicable for preparation of the gradation list of the direct recruit Sub-Inspector. It is to be born in mind that the police service is the peculiar service which requires extensive training before keeping the person on probation. Ordinarily, a person on appointment is put on probation but for the appointment of Sub-Inspector under the rule contained in police manual, a Sub-Inspector after selection in terms of the Rule 656 is sent to the Police Training College for Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017 14/17 comprehensive and exhaustive training and in terms of Rule 681 of the Police Manual they are subjected to institutional training for one year and thereafter they are subjected to practical training for a duration of two years on probation. Thus, the Police Manual which emphasizes on institutional training as well as practical training of the Sub-Inspector direct recruits are the definite index of importance of training in the service of police Sub-Inspector and that is the reason that while preparing the Gradation List they followed the practice of adding the marks of training while preparing the merit list as per Police Order No.102 dated 8.2.1983 which contains a guideline for preparation of Gradation List. The principle contained in Police Order No. 102 is most reasonable rational and does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
Mr. Giri then submitted that in terms of the circular dated 26th August, 1972 which are applicable for the purpose of preparation of Gradation List in other cases should have been followed in the matter of preparation of the Gradation List of Sub- Inspector of police. The principle enumerated in the circular dated 26.8.1972 is the merit list in the recruitment process and submitted that the respondents have acted arbitrarily in adding the marks of training in the preparation of merit list and drawing the Gradation List.
One cannot ignore the fact that general rule or principle contained in circular dated 26.8.1972 is only a general Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017 15/17 guideline and cannot override the specific principle which was to be followed in the matter of preparation of Gradation List of Sub- Inspector of Police. In view of the Police Order No. 102 dated 8.2.1983 no reliance can be placed on circular dated 26.8.1972 for finding fault in the preparation of Gradation List dated 18.6.2013 or 31.7.2013 as the police order no. 102 is still holding the field.
Mr. Giri referring to the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Bishundeo Mahto Vs. State of Bihar, 1982 BBCJ 45 submitted that the principle discussed in the aforesaid Full Bench should have been followed in the matter of preparation of Gradation List. We have already held out that the general principle of seniority is not applicable for the purpose of preparation of seniority list as police service is distinguishable from other service and in police service the importance of training is paramount and as such the guidelines contained in police order no. 102 is applicable in the preparation of Gradation List and as such the judgment of in the case of Bishundeo Mahto (supra) has no application in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case also.
Mr. Giri then submitted that vide Police Order No. 3 of 2017 the Police Order No. 269 of 1999 and Police Order No. 296 of 2010 has been held to be inconsistent and as such he submitted that the Gradation List prepared following the principle contained in Police Order No. 269 of 1999 and Police Order No. 102 is unsustainable.
Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017 16/17 The submission of appellants in this regard is also fallacious. The contents and contexts of Police Order No. 3 of 2017 and Police Order No. 102 are quite different. On bare reference to Police Order No. 269/99, any prudent can arrive at irresistible conclusion that Police Order No. 269/99 was issued with regard to revising the contents of the institutional training in the Police Training College. The Police Order No. 269/99 maintains that the institutional training is crucial in preparation of Gradation List in terms of Police Order No. 102 and therefore, the course contents should be made more effective and arrangement should be made for organizing and providing opportunity for examination of those trainees who failed at the theoretical examination. The training course contents was held to be inconsistent and in order to make the training scheme consistent with the guideline of National Police Academy Hyderabad and BPRND decision was taken to make course content for institutional training accordingly and in that context the guideline was issued vide Police Order No. 3 of 2017 to the Principal of the Police Training College.
Reading the contents and context of police order no. 3 of 2017 no prudent man can accept the contention of Mr. Y.V. Giri that the Police Order No. 102 dated 8.2.1983 was impliedly repealed. Thus the corrected Gradation List dated 18.6.2013 and the final gradation list of 1994-95 batch vide memo Patna High Court LPA No.1504 of 2014 dt. 11-08-2017 17/17 no. 2914 dated 10,10,2013 does not suffer from any vice and does not require interference in these Letters Patent Appeals.
For the reasons stated above, I do not find merit in the submission of the appellants. I am of the considered view that the Writ Court has committed no error either on fact or in law which warrants any kind of indulgence into the matter in exercise of jurisdiction in this intra-court appeal.
Both the Letters Patent Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Rajendra Menon - I agree.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ) S.Pandey/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 02.08.2017 Uploading Date 11.08.2017 Transmission Date