Patna High Court
Tej Bahadur Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 23 December, 1982
Equivalent citations: 1983(31)BLJR217
Author: Nagendra Prasad Singh
Bench: Nagendra Prasad Singh
JUDGMENT Nagendra Prasad Singh, J.
1. This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for a writ of Mandamus on the respondents to declare to the post of Senior District Prosecutor as equivalent to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the cadre of Indian Police Service after inclusion of his name in the select list.
2. The petitioner was appointed on 1.7.1960 by the State Government as a Senior District Prosecutor in the rank and pay scale of Deputy Superintendent of Police under the Police Act, 1961. The petitioner was assigned prosecution work as well as general work of Police. According to the petitioner, although he was designated as Senior District Prosecutor, from time to time he had been assigned work of general police, details whereof have been given in the writ application. In respect of performance of his duties of the general police, superior officers have granted certificates appreciating his merit as a police officer. Copies of entries in the character roll as well as copies of the certificates granted to the petitioner from time to time have been annexed. Before the name of the petitioner could he included in the select list containing the list of officers who are found fit for promotion to the cadre of Indian Police Service, a controversy arose as to whether the post of a Senior District Prosecutor can be held to be equivalent to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, so that incumbent of such posts may be considered for promotion to the cadre of Indian Police Service. Some of the Deputy Superintendents of Police filed a writ application before this Court which was numbered as C.W.J.C. No. 1913 of 1980, in which one of the questions involved was as to whether a Senior District Prosecutor is holder of a post equivalent to the post of a Deputy Superintendent of Police. During the pendency of that writ application, the petitioner filed the present writ application.
3. In the aforesaid writ application, i.e., C.W.J.C. No. 1913 of 1980, the petitioner was respondent No. 4. That writ application was heard by a Full Bench. One of the questions in dispute, as I have already pointed out, was whether the post of Senior District Prosecutor can be held to be equivalent to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. After referring to the different materials produced on behalf of the parties on the aforesaid issue, including the different circulars and rules issued from time to time, the Full Bench in the aforesaid case Md. Sulaiman and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1981 B.B.C.J. 513, was of the opinion that the petitioner although appointed as a Senior District Prosecutor had been absorbed to the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police. This Court also approved the decision of the State Government counting the earlier experience of such Senior District Prosecutors for purposes of senioriy, in that connection, it was held .
...I hold that the decision of the State Government to count the earlier experience of the respondents for the purpose of their seniority is perfectly valid, and even if there had been no rule applicable to the case, the State Government would have been justified in making a decision to that effect.
However, the Full Bench did not decide the question, whether on the basis of the seniority given to such Senior District Prosecutors, they are entitled to be included in the select list for promotion to the cadre of Indian Police, Service, because that question was pending consideration in the present writ application.
4. The petitioner, who has appeared in person, urged that in view of the aforesaid Full Bench decision of this Court now it is no more in dispute so far as this Court is concerned that the post of Senior District Prosecutor to which this petitioner was appointed is equivalent to the post of a Deputy Superintendent of Police, and the earlier experience of this petitioner as Senior District Prosecutor has to be counted for determining the seniority of the petitioner. In my opinion this contention of the petitioner is well founded. The counsel for the respondent-State and the Union of India have fairly conceded that in view of the decision of the Full Bench aforesaid, so far as this Court is concerned, it has to be held that the experience of the petitioner as Senior District Prosecutor has to be c(sic)unted for determining his seniority.
5. Now the question which has to be considered in this writ application is as to whether on the basis of the aforesaid decision, the name of the petitioner has to be included in the select list prepared for promotion to the cadre of Indian Police Service. The Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 have been framed under the All India Services Act, 1951 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Recruitment Rules"). The Recruitment Rules prescribe the method of recruitment to the Indian Police Service. One of the methods prescribed for recruitment is by promotion of members of State Police Service. Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 have been framed under the aforesaid Recruitment Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Promotion Regulations'). The promotion Regulations contain provisions regarding the constitution of Selection Committee, the preparation of the select list, and appointment to the cadre of Indian Police Service by promotion. Regulation 3 is the provision regarding the constitution of a Committee to make the selection. Regulation 5 prescribes the mode of preparation of a list of suitable officers. Regulation 6 is the provision regarding consultation with the Union Public Service Commission. Under Regulation 7, the Commission has to prepare the list and to suggest any change, if necessary. Regulation 9 prescribes the mode of appointment of the members of the State Police Service to the Indian Police Service out of the names included in the select list for the time being in force.
6. It appears that after the judgment of this Court in the aforesaid Full Bench case, the Selection Committee constituted under Regulation 3 aforesaid had its meeting on 14.10.1981 and considered the cases of suitable officers from the State Police Service for the purpose of inclusion of their names in the select list. A copy of the proceeding of the said meeting is Annexure 1/1 to a petition filed on 19.11.1982 on behalf of the petitioner. From the proceeding of the meeting it appears that on the basis of the Full Bench judgment the name of the petitioner was also included against serial No. 3. A member of the Union Public Service Commission was the President of that Selection Committee. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Joint Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Home Commissioner, Government of Bihar, Inspector-General of Police. Bihar and a Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Government of Bihar were the members. In the proceeding it was specifically mentioned that the name of the petitioner was being included in the select list in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court. The petitioner has stated on affidavit in the petition that the aforesaid select list was approved, by the Union Public Service Commission under Regulation 7 aforesaid. It has been further stated on affidavit that, thereafter, the State Government recommended the names of 12 Police Officers, including the petitioner, for appointment to the cadre of Indian Police Service. According to the petitioner, although the necessary formalities required by Regulation 9 aforesaid have been complied with the petitioner has not yet been appointed to the cadre of Indian Police Service.
7. Learned Additional Advocate General, who has appeared for the respondent-State, did not challenge the assertion made on behalf of the petitioner that the name of the petitioner has been included in the select list, and the State Government has recommended his name for being appointed to the cadre of Indian Police Service.
8. On behalf of the Union of India a counter-affidavit has been filed on 26.11.1982 in which again the same question has been raised as to whether the post of Senior District Prosecutor was equivalent to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and as to whether earlier experience as Senior District Prosecutor, can be counted for inclusion in the select list for promotion to the Indian Police Service. In my opinion, in view of the earlier Full Bench decision now it is no more open to the respondent-Union of India to reagitate to the same question before this Court. Apart from that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Selection Committee has already directed that the name of the petitioner be included in the select list. A member of the Union Public Service Commission was the President and the Joint Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs was a member of that Selection Committee. Thereafter, the State Government has recommended the name of the petitioner for being appointed to the cadre of Indian Police Service. In view of the aforesaid declaration of this Court and the actions taken, thereafter, by the Respondents, I am not able to appreciate now the aforesaid stand has been taken on behalf of the Union of India in the said counter-affidavit. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for Union of India could not point out any reason as to why the Central Government has not appointed the petitioner to the cadre of Indian Police Service in accordance with Regulation 9 aforesaid on the basis of the recommendation of the State Government. The petitioner has asserted that the select list, which was prepared in the meeting on 14.10.1981 and which was duly approved as mentioned above, is still in force. This fact was not challenged on behalf of the respondents during the hearing of this writ application.
9. Under the circumstances mentioned above, I direct the respondent- Union of India, to exercise the power conferred on the Central Government by Regulation 9 of the Promotion Regulations. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
10. It is expected that the decision in accordance with Regulation 9 of the Promotion Regulations shall be taken by the Central Government at an early date, before the preparation of next list, after which the present select list may not be in force.