Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Singh Bhullar vs . State Of Punjab And Others on 23 January, 2009
CM No. 20061 of 2008 in [1]
CWP No. 12206 of 2005
Gurpreet Singh Bhullar vs. State of Punjab and others
Present: Shri Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with
Shri Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the applicants
Shri Uday Lalit, Senior Advocate with } for promoted
Shri Gurvinder Singh Bhatti, Advocate } Deputy
} Superintendent
Shri Nidesh Gupta, Senior Advocate, with } of Police
Ms. Shivani, Advocate }
}
Shri Puneet Bali, Advocate }
}
Shri D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate with }
Shri Ashwani Prashar, Advocate }
Shri D.S. Patwalia, Advocate } for the directly
} appointed Deputy
Shri Gurminder Singh, Advocate } Superintendents
} of Police
Shri Akshay Bhan, Advocate }
}
Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate }
with Shri Puneet Gupta, Advocate }
Shri Chetan Mittal, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab
HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL)
The present application is on behalf of directly recruited members of Indian Police Service aggrieved against directions No. 3 and 4 of this Court based upon the conclusion drawn by this Court in respect of seniority dispute between directly appointed Deputy Superintendent of Police and promoted Deputy Superintendent of Police. This Court held to the following effect: -
" The reasoning given by the State Government that the CM No. 20061 of 2008 in [2] CWP No. 12206 of 2005 established practice of calculating the share of direct recruits and promotees on the basis of sanctioned posts of cadre is continuing for over 45 years, is in fact contradictory to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such established practice, which is not in conformity with the enunciation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be permitted to continue any longer. The recruitment and confirmation of the Officers has not been made as per the prescribed quota from the very inception of the cadre. It is also not correct when it is recorded by the State Government that issue of quota rule linked to vacancies was raised for the first time in the year 2000 in a writ petition filed by Shri A.S. Chahal. In fact, the quota rule linked to vacancies was a rule of law explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 1979 itself. The Officers, who have been appointed to Indian Police Service otherwise than the seniority determined keeping in view the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot claim any legitimacy to continue as members of the Indian Police Service, though with a view to avoid hardship and to settle equities, we deem it appropriate not to order their reversion, but direct the respondents to consider the case of seniors ignored for appointment to the Indian Police Service with reference to the date of the empanelment of the juniors for appointment to the Indian Police Service.
Therefore, we dispose of the present writ petitions and all miscellaneous applications by setting aside the order of CM No. 20061 of 2008 in [3] CWP No. 12206 of 2005 fixation of seniority list dated 7/8.7.2005 and all other orders of confirmation with directions to the State Government to finalise the seniority list within three months keeping in view the following principles:-
1. That the State Government shall firstly determine the vacancies available at the commencement of the Rules after taking into consideration the number of the Deputy Superintendents of Police available at the time of commencement of the Rules.
2. Thereafter, the State Government shall assign seniority keeping in view the vacancies (not the posts), at the time of recruitment and confirmation as and when such vacancies arise from amongst the promotees and direct recruits in the ratio of 4:1. While assigning seniority to the promotees and direct recruits, the State Government shall also assign seniority to the candidates belonging to reserved categories in terms of the Rules and instructions applicable to such categories.
3. If on re-determination of seniority, it is found that juniors have been appointed as members of Indian Police Service without considering the claim of seniors, the case of such seniors shall be considered for appointment with reference to the date on which juniors were appointed as IPS. However, this direction will be applicable only in respect of the candidates who are in service today. The cases of the candidates who have CM No. 20061 of 2008 in [4] CWP No. 12206 of 2005 retired and are not members of the Service as on today, shall not be reopened and reconsidered. All future vacancies falling to the quota for promotees in the IPS shall be filled up in the above stated manner till such time the claim of all the seniors for empannelment to the IPS is considered, by the Review Departmental Promotion Committee.
4. The State Government shall not recommend any other member of the Service junior to Shri Lok Nath Angra for empanelment for appointment to the Indian Police Service till such time, claim for appointment to IPS of all seniors is considered as mentioned above".
Learned counsel for the applicants has pointed out that the applicants, directly recruited members of Indian Police Service, were not party to the writ petition whereas the order passed has the affect on their seniority as well as violate the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 and Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988. It is also pointed out that the affect of directions of this Court is disastrous inasmuch as a candidate who is not even eligible for appointment for direct recruitment in a year to Indian Police Service would get seniority of such a year. It is mentioned that for example one Arpit Shukla (at serial No. 15 of the tentative seniority list) born on 24.04.1966 has been assigned the year of allotment in Indian Police Service as 1993 but since Gurinder Pal Singh, his junior in the tentative seniority list is at serial No. 34, he shall be entitled to assignment of the year of allotment as 1987 as CM No. 20061 of 2008 in [5] CWP No. 12206 of 2005 member of I.P.S. in view of the direction of this Court. Thus, he will be entitled to get the year of allotment when he was not even of 21 years of age and was not eligible for appointment by direct recruitment to Indian Police Service. It is also pointed out that candidates in the tentative seniority list over and above Gurinderpal Singh whose name appears at serial No. 34 would get the year of allotment as 1987. The said assignment of year of allotment to large number of officers would violate the Statutory Rules and Regulations governing the determination of seniority. It is pointed out that such aspect was not taken note of by this Court and, thus, the directions of this Court causes acute hardship to the directly appointed members of Indian Police Service and is against the statutory rules.
There is no objection to the argument that such directions are violative of Rules or that it will cause hardship to the directly recruited officers of the Indian Police Service either by the State or the learned counsel representing both sets of Deputy Superintendents of Police. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to amend our order dated April 10, 2008. After amendment, the order shall read as under:-
" The reasoning given by the State Government that the established practice of calculating the share of direct recruits and promotees on the basis of sanctioned posts of cadre is continuing for over 45 years, is in fact contradictory to the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Such established practice, which is not in conformity with the enunciation of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, cannot be permitted to continue any longer. The recruitment and confirmation of the Officers has not been made as per the CM No. 20061 of 2008 in [6] CWP No. 12206 of 2005 prescribed quota from the very inception of the cadre. It is also not correct when it is recorded by the State Government that issue of quota rule linked to vacancies was raised for the first time in the year 2000 in a writ petition filed by Shri A.S. Chahal. In fact, the quota rule linked to vacancies was a rule of law explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 1979 itself.
Therefore, we dispose of the present writ petitions and all miscellaneous applications by setting aside the order of fixation of seniority list dated 7/8.7.2005 and all other orders of confirmation with directions to the State Government to finalise the seniority list within three months keeping in view the following principles:-
1. That the State Government shall firstly determine the vacancies available at the commencement of the Rules after taking into consideration the number of the Deputy Superintendents of Police available at the time of commencement of the Rules.
2. Thereafter, the State Government shall assign seniority keeping in view the vacancies (not the posts), at the time of recruitment and confirmation as and when such vacancies arise from amongst the promotees and direct recruits in the ratio of 4:1. While assigning seniority to the promotees and direct recruits, the State Government shall also assign seniority to the candidates belonging to reserved categories in terms of the Rules CM No. 20061 of 2008 in [7] CWP No. 12206 of 2005 and instructions applicable to such categories".
It has come to our notice that though paragraph 47 from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Direct Recruit's case has been reproduced but reference to the said judgment has been inadvertently not made. Therefore, such clerical mistake is ordered to be corrected by inserting such reference at page 26 of the judgment and after amendment the said part of the judgment read as under:-
" ...... After various judgments, the Court held to the following effect in Direct Recruit Class II Engg. Officers' Association vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1990 SC 1607:-"
The civil miscellaneous stands disposed of in the above terms.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (MOHINDER PAL) JUDGE January 23, 2009 ks