Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Dr. G.Ram Gopal Naik vs Union Public Service Commission on 24 December, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINSITRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
NEW DELHI
OA 867/2012, MA 2652/2013, MA 2653/2013 with
OA 1158/2012, OA 1606/2012, OA 1224/2012, MA 1025/2012, OA 1234/2012, OA 1245/2012, OA 1257/2012, OA 1258/2012, OA 1283/2012, OA 972/2012, OA 1321/2012, MA 1115/2012, MA 1875/2012, OA 1387/2012, MA 1168/2012, MA 3471/2012, OA 4001/2012, OA 2993/2013, OA 2994/2013, OA 2995/2013, OA 2996/2013, OA 2997/2013, OA 3185/2013, OA 3195/2013, OA 3196/2013, OA 3208/2013, OA 3209/2013, OA 3210/2013, OA 3211/2013, OA 3228/2013, OA 3229/2013, OA 3230/2013, OA 3231/2013, OA 3232/2013, OA 3246/2013, OA 3247/2013, OA 3248/2013, OA 3249/2013, OA 3266/2013, OA 3263/2013, OA 3264/2013, OA 3265/2013, OA 3267/2013, OA 3268/2013, OA 3283/2013, OA 3361/2013
This the 24th day of December, 2013
Honble Mr. V.Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Honble Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A)
OA 867/2012
Dr. G.Ram Gopal Naik
S/o Shri G.Bhadraiah
Asstt. Comm. of Police
1st Floor, Vasant Vihar
Police Station
New Delhi 110 070 . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri K.P. Sunder Rao)
VERSUS
1. Union Public Service Commission
Represented by its Chairman
Dhoulpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi
2. The Union of India
Represented by its Secretary
M/o Personnel & Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block
New Delhi
3. Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block,
Represented by its Secretary,
Central Secretariat,
New Delhi-110001 . Respondents.
(By Advocate:Shri R.N.Singh & Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 1158/2012
Shri Gopal Kumar Gupta
S/o Shri Arjun Prasad Mishrak
Addl. SP (OPS), Rourkela
Distt. Police Office, Rourdela
Uditnagar, Rourkela
Odisha - 769012 . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao)
VERSUS
1. Union Public Service Commission
Represented by its Chairman
Dhoulpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi
2. The Union of India
Represented by its Secretary
M/o Personnel & Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block
New Delhi . Respondents.
(By Advocate:Shri R.N.Singh & Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 1606/2012
Tapasya Obhrai Nair
W/o Shri Sajeesh Kumar N.
R/ 10-D, Railway Officers Colony
S.P.Marg, New Delhi . Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri S.D.S.Thakur)
VERSUS
1. Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House through Chairman
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi 110 069.
2. Union of India
Through Secretary
Department of Personnel & Training
New Delhi.
3. Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
New Delhi.
4. Central Industrial Security Force,
CGO Complex
Lodhi Road, through Director General
New Delhi . Respondents.
OA 1224/2012
1. Shri S.Saravanan, DANIPS
S/o V.Subbiah
R/o C-9, Police Officers Flats
Mandir Marg
New Delhi 110 001
2. Rajeev Sharma, DANIPS
S/o J.P.Sharma
H.No.8, Type IV,
Police Colony
New Rajender Nagar
Delhi 110060
3. Rajneesh Garg, DANIPS
S/o J.R.Garg
R/o G-13, Pushkar Enclave
Paschim Vihar, Delhi . Applicants
(Through Shri Amit Singh Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhishek Sharma and Shri Sahil Mongia, Advoates)
VERSUS
1. Union Public Service Commission
through its Chairman
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi 110 069.
2. The Union of India
Through
(A) Secretary
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block, New Delhi.
(b) Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block, New Delhi . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani & Shri R.N.Singh)
OA 1234/2012
Shri Vishal Garg
S/o J.K.Garg
Aged about 37-1/2 years
Presently posted as Addl. SP
(Investigations)
National Investigation Agency (NIA)
R/o 504, Daisey, Green Valley, Sector 41, Faridabad
Haryana . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao)
VERSUS
1. Union Public Service Commission
through its Chairman
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi 110 069.
2. The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block, New Delhi. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani, Shri R.N.Singh)
OA 1245/2012
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
S/o Late Nandji Yadav
Aged about 41 years
R/o F-41, Mehram Nagar Police Colony
Opp. Palam Airport,
New Delhi 110 037 . Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Abhishek Vikas)
VERSUS
1. The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Union Public Service Commission
through its Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi 110 069. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani & Shri R.N.Sigh)
OA 1257/2012
Neeti Mittal
W/o Shri Dharmender Tewari
Flat No.452, Metro View Apartments, Sector 13
Pocket B, Dwarka, New Delhi . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri Sahil Mongia)
VERSUS
1. Union Public Service Commission
through its Chairman
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi 110 069.
2. The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Ministry of Home, North Block,
New Delhi . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani, Shri Rajeev Kumar & Shri R.N.Singh )
OA 1258/2012
Ranjan Pratap Singh
S/o Dr. S.P.Singh
Embassy of India, Kathmandu
Headquarter
New Delhi . Applicant
(Through Shri Amit Singh Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhishek Sharma and Shri Sahil Mongia, Advoates)
VERSUS
1. Union Public Service Commission
through its Chairman
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi 110 069.
2. The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary
Ministry of Home
North Block, New Delhi. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani, Shri Rajeev Kumar & Shri R.N.Singh )
OA 1283/2012
Vikram Kapali Porwal
S/o Shri Kailash Chandra Kamliya
Flat No.R-4, Type-IV
Police Colony Vasant Vihar
New Delhi. . Applicant
(Through Shri Amit Singh Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhishek Sharma and Shri Sahil Mongia, Advocates)
VERSUS
1. Union Public Service Commission
through its Chairman
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi 110 069.
2. The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Ministry of Home, North Block,
New Delhi . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani & Shri R.N.Singh)
OA 972/2012
Shri Hareesh HP
S/o Shri Puttiah H
Asstt. Comm. of Police
Sub Division Connaught Place
R/o R-6, Type IV
Police Colony
Vasant Vihar
New Delhi 110 057 . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao)
VERSUS
1. Union Public Service Commission
Represented by its Chairman
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi 110 069.
2. The Union of India
Represented by its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block, New Delhi. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri R.N.Singh )
OA 1321/2012
1. Deepak Purohit
R/o 1-LF, Todarmal Square
Bengali Market
New Delhi
2. Rajesh Deo
House No.3, Type IV
DCP South Office Complex
3. Mangesh Kashyap
255, Laxmi Bai Nagar
New Delhi
4. Bhisham Singh
E-1, Police Colony
Meharam Nagar, New Delhi
5. Satyavir Katara
44, Delhi Govt Officers Flats
GK-I, New Delhi
6. Ashok Malik
Flat No.B-704, Antariksh Appartment
Plot 26, Sector 4, Dwarka
New Delhi
7. D.K.Gupta
D-7/7217, Vasant Kunj
New Delhi
8. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav
F-41, Police Colony
Meharam Nagar,
New Delhi
9. Sumar Nalwa
AD/27, Tagore Garden
New Delhi 27
10. Sharat Kumar Sinha
A-1, Delhi Police Officers Flats
B-1, Janakpuri, Shivaji Marg
New Delhi 110 058
11. Pramod Kumar Mishra
Flat No.A2, Delhi Police Flats
Janakpuri,
New Delhi.
12. Sanjay Kumar Tyagi
34, Delhi Govt. Officers Flat
GK-I, New Delhi 48.
13. S.K.Tiwari
C-2/384, Vasant Kunj
New Delhi
14. Sanjay Bhatia
C-56, FF Malviya Nagar
New Delhi
15. Asif Mohd. Ali
1045, Sector 8, R.K.Puram
New Delhi 22
16. Promod Singh Kushwah
E-9, Type IV, New Police Lines
Delhi
17. Amit Roy
6478, B-9, Vasant Kunj
New Delhi
18. Deotosh Kr. Surinder Singh
House No.1
PS Delhi Cantt. Police Colony
Delhi 110 010
19. Mohd. Akhtar Rizvi
G-12, Type V
New Police Lines
Kingsway Camp
Delhi
20. Harender Kumar Singh
12 LF Tansen Marg
New Delhi 110 001
21. Rajeev Ranjan
Flat No.1, Type IV
Police Colony,
Vasant Kunj
Delhi
22. Mohd. Irshad Haider
F-4, Type III, Police Colony
Mehram Nagar, New Delhi
23. Kumar Gyanesh
A-321, Sarojini Nagar
New Delhi 23
24. Rajendra Prasad Meena
A-5, DP Officers Flats
Nangla Zahib, J-puri, Delhi.
25. Mohd. Ali
Q. No.2, Type III, PC
PS Civil Line Delhi 110 054
26. Anil Kumar Lal
A-43, Surya Nagar
Ghaziabad, UP
27. S.Sarvanan
C-9, Police Officer Flats
PS. Mandir Marg
New Delhi 110 001
28. Varsha Sharma
Flat No.6, Type IV
DCP Officers Complex
Hauz Khas, New Delhi
29. Vikram K.Porwal
Flat No.R-4, Type 4
Police Colony, Vasant Vihar
New Delhi
30. B.B.Chaudhary
183, Ashoka Enclave III
Sector 55, Faridabad .Applicants
(By Advocate: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Senior counsel with Shri Padma Kumar S. and Ms.Tinu Bajwa)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through
Secretary
M/o Home Affairs
North Block New Delhi 01
2. Secretary
DOP&T
North Block
New Delhi 110 001
3. Secretary
Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi 110 003
4. Secretary
Department of Legal Affairs
Ministry of Law & Justice
Shastri Bhawan
New Delhi . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K. Gangwani, Shri D.S. Mahendru and Shri Rajeev Kumar)
OA 1387/2012
1. Shri B.L.Suresh
197, Vasant Enclave
New Delhi
2. Shri Jitender Mani
W-2/1 Type IV Police Colony, Andrews Ganj
Delhi . Applicants
(By Advocate:Ms. Ananya Bhattachary)
VERSUS
1. Union Public Service Commission
through its Chairman
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi 110 069.
2. The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block, New Delhi.
3. The Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
Cabinet Secretariat, North Block,
New Delhi . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri R.N.Singh & Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 4001/2012
1. Vinay Prakash Paul
S/o Shri A.David Paul
Aged about 41 years
Posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police
CM Security
Bhopal
2. Rajesh Vyas
S/o Shri ML Vyas
Aged about 42 years,
Additional SP, Ratlam
3. Manish Khatri
S/o Shri M.K.Khatri
Aged about 42 years
Posted as Additional SP, Vidisha
4. Suryakant Sharma
S/o Shri R.N.Sharma
Aged about 38 years
Posted as Sub Divisional Officer (Police)
Sihora
Dist. Jabalpur
5. Rajesh Dandotiya
S/o Shri NK Dandotiya
Aged about 36 years
CSP, Kotwali
Jabalpur
6. Rashmi Mishra
W/o Shri RS Mishra
Aged about 39 years
CSP Nishaat Pura
Bhopal
7. Ramsanahe Mishra
S/o Shri M.L.Mishra
40 years, DSP,
Security, Raj Bhavan,
Bhopal
8. Rakesh Khaka
S/o Shri M.Khaka
Aged about 38 years
CSP Omti
Jabalpur
9. Rajesh Tripathi
S/o Shri RS Tripathi
Aged about 41 years
Additional SP, Rewa
10. Guru Prasad Parasher
S/o Shri PN Parasher
Aged about 42 years
CSP Ranjhi
Jabalpur
11. Arun Kumar Mishra
S/o Shri RL Mishra
Aged about 39 years
Additional SP, Ujjain
12. Virendra Jain
S/o Shri SK Jain
Aged about 42 years
Additional SP, Guna
13. Dilip Soni
S/o Shri ML Soni
Aged about 42 years
Additional SP, Saagar
14. Smt. Manisha Soni
W/o Shri Dilip Soni 38 years
Additional SP, JNPA, Saagar
15. Pankaj Pandey
S/o Shri RP Pandey
Aged about 40 years
Additional SP,
Narcotics, Neemach
16. Abha Toppo
D/o Shri Micheal Toppo
Aged about 36 years
Sub Divisional Officer (police), Anooppur
17. Rajesh Mishra
S/o Shri DP Mishra
Aged about 37 years
Additional SP Bhopal
18. Ku. Anjana Tiwari
D/o Shri O Tiwari
Aged about 42 years
Deputy Commandant,
Ujjain
19. Sudhir Agrawal
S/o Shri GD Agrawal
38 years
Additional SP
Ashok Nagar (MP)
20. Amit Saxena
S/o Shri S.K.Saxena
Aged about 42 years
Additional SP
Bhopal
21. Amit Singh
S/o Shri R.K.Singh
Aged about 41 years
DSP, EOTB, Bhopal ... Applicants
(By Advocates : Shri Amit Singh Chadha with Shri Abhishek
Sharma and Shri Sahil Mongia)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary,
M/o Personnel and Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi 110 001
2. Union Public Service Commission
through its Secretary
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi 110 001.
3. The Joint Secretary
Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House
Shajahan Road, New Delhi 110 001.
4. The State of Madhya Pradesh through
Secretary
Home Department,
Vallabh Bhavan
Bhopal (462001) . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K. Gangwani)
OA 2993/2013
1. Indian Police Service Association
Rajasthan Cadre represented
Through its Secretary
Shri Bhupendra Singh Yadav
IPS S/o late Shri Devi Singh Yadav
Aged around 53 years
R/o A-7 Tagore Nagar
Ajmer Road, Jaipur
2. Ashok Rathore, IPS
S/o Shri N.K.Rathore,
Aged around 44 years
R/o 11/11, Gandhi Nagar
Jaipur presently posted in Police HQ Jaipur . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao)
VERSUS
1 The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
Government of India
New Delhi.
2. Secretary,
Department of Personnel & Training
Government of India,
New Delhi.
3 Union Public Service Commission
through its Secretart
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi 110 069. Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 2994/2013
Saiyed Mustafa Ali Zaidi
S/o Dr.Shri Mohammed Ali Zaidi
Aged 45 years,
R/o 2846. Ramchandra Colony
(presently working as CO, Rajgarh, Alwar,
under the office of Director General of Police,
Jaipur. . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao)
VERSUS
1. The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary
Dholpur House, New Delhi
3. Director General of Police
State of Rajasthan, Jaipur . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 2995/2013
Shri Lalit Kishor Sharma
S/o Shri Ramji Lal Sharma
Aged about 36 years, R/o 73, Ajmera Garden
Kings road
Ajmer Road, Jaipur
Working as Assistant Commissioner of Police, Bassi,
Jaipur East, Jaipur. . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri Neeraj Batra)
VERSUS
1. The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Union Public Service Commission
Through its Secretary,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi -110069. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 2996/2013
Gurusharan Rao
S/ Shri Lalaram Rao (SC)
Aged about 42 years,
R/o D-76, Kalayan Colony,
Malviya Nagar
Jaipur
Presently working as ACP (Theft and
Burglary, Police Commissionerate,
Jaipur). . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri Neeraj Batra)
VERSUS
1. The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Union Public Service Commission
Through its Secretary,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi -110069.
. Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 2997/2013
Nazim Ali Khan
S/o Shri Asgar Ali Khan, aged about 42 years
R/o 175, Sanjay Nagar-B,
Jhotwara Jaipur-15
(presently working as Dy. S.P., Barmer
under the office of Director General of Police, Jaipur) . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao)
VERSUS
1. The Union of India
Through its Secretary
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel & Training)
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Union Public Service Commission
Through its Secretary,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi -110069.
3. Director General of Police, State of Rajasthan
Jaipur . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3185/2013
1. Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava
Aged about 42 years,
S/o Shri Pyare Mohan Srivastava
Presently working as Deputy Superintendent of Police
ATS, Lucknow,
R/o 5/1225, Viram Khand,
Gomti Nagar, Lucknow
2. Chiranjeev Nath Sinha
Aged about 39 years,
S/o Shri Dina Nath Sinha,
Presently working as Deputy Superintendent
Of Police, Circle Officer,
Hasanganj
Unnao (UP)
R/o House No.B-586, Anubhav Special,
Eldeco Udyan-2,
Raibareli Road,
Lucknow
3. Rajesh Dwivedi, aged about 42 years
S/o Shri Yadu Nath Dwivedi
Presently working as Deputy Superintendent of Police,
ATS Lucknow,
R/o 301, Grandeur Apartments,
Dalibagh Lucknow
4. Manoj Kumar Awasthi, aged about 42 years
S/o Shri Krishna Dutta Awasthi,
Presently working as Deputy Superintendent of Police
Circle Officer Bighapur,
Unnao (UP)
r/o D-10, Sector A,
Aliganj, Lucknow.
5. Manish Kumar Mishra aged about 37 years
S/o Shri Ram Pratap Mishra,
Presently working as Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Meerut, r/o B-22, SSP compound
Opposite Meerut College
Meerut.
6. Anand Kumar, aged about 40 years
S/o Shri Birju Ram
Presently working as Deputy Superintendent of Police
Jaunpur,
R/o Village-Lahurapur
Post Bhojapur,
Thana Mardah
District-Ghazipur-UP
7. Vinay Chandra aged about 41 years S/o Shri Jagdish Chandra
Presently working as Deputy Superintendent of Police Vigilance
(HQ) Lucknow UP.
8. Ashok Kumar Verma, aged about 45 years
S/o Shri Ram Nayan Verma
Presently working as Deputy Superintendent of Police
Lokayukta Prashashan
Lucknow
9. Rahul Srivastava aged about 38 years
S/o Late Shri Arun Kumar Srivastava
Presently working as Deputy Superintendent
of Police, Intelligence Headquarter,
Lucknow. . Applicants
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary
M/o Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension,
Department of Personnel & Training, New Delhi.
3. The Union Public Service Commission
Dhoulpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi through its Secretary
4. The Sate of UP through the Principal Secretary (Home)
UP Civil Secretariat Lucknow. ..Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3247/2013
Shri Sanjeev Kumar Kanchan
S/o Shri Purushottam Narayan Kanchan
Age 43 years Occupation-DSP (at District Special Branch Bhopal)
R/o DSP, District Special Branch Bhopal (MP)
Pin Code 462016 . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao, Shri S.K.Srivastava)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through
Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block
New Delhi
Pin Code No.110 001.
2. Union of India through
Secretary
M/o Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension,
Department of Personnel and Training,
North Block,
New Delhi
Pin Code No.110 001.
3. Union Public Service Commission through
Its Chairman,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi
Pin Code No.110 003.
4. State of Madhya Pradesh through
Principal Secretary
Ministry of Home
Vallabh Bhawan
Bhopal
Pin Code No.462 004. . Respondents
.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3195/2013
1. Dinesh Kumar Dwivedi, aged about 37 years
S/o Shri B.R.Dwivedi,
Presently posted as C.O.City, Bahraich
2. Vijay Tripathi, aged about 42 years
S/o Sri G.D.Tripathi
Presently posted as CO Mishrikh,
Sitapur . Applicants
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao)
VERSUS
1. The Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block
New Delhi.
2. The Secretary,
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension,
Department of Personnel and Training,
New Delhi.
3. The Union Public Service Commission,
Dhoulpur House
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi through its Secretary
4. The State of UP through the Principal Secretary (Home)
UP Civil Secretariat
Lucknow. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3196/2013
Avanish Kumar Sharma
S/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma
Aged about 39 years,
R/o E-17, Bank Colony, Ambabari,
Jaipur . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao and Shri Neeraj Batra)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through the Secretary
Ministry of Personnel & Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel & Training)
New Delhi.
2. The Union Public Service Commission
Through its Secretary
Dhoulpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3208/2013
Mukund Bihari
S/o Shri Babu Lal, Aged about 37 years
R/o E-17, Gandhi Nagar,
Jaipur
Presently posted at Dy.S.P. GRP, Bikaner . Applicant
(Through Shri Amit Singh Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhishek Sharma and Shri Sahil Mongia, Advoates)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary
M/o Personnel and Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi.
2. The Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary, New Delhi
3. Director General of Police,
State of Rajasthan,
Jaipur . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3209/2013
1. Santosh Kumar Singh aged about 42 years
S/o Shri Ram Narayan Singh
Presently posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police
Traffic, Lucknow
2. Umesh Kumar Yadav aged about 41 years
S/o Shri Ram Adhar Yadav presently posted as
Deputy Superintendent of Police Sultanpur
3. Anil Kumar Yadav aged about 41 years
S/o Shri Ram Sahabad Yadav posted as CO Milak,
District Rampur
4. Aseem Chaudhary aged about 38 years
S/o Dr. Sudhir Chaudhary presently posted as
Deputy Superintendent of Police
Kashiram Nagar
5. Manoj Kumar Pandey aged about 40 years
S/o Suresh Chandra Pandey Deputy Superintendent
of Police Faizabad
6. Asit Srivastava aged about 38 years
S/o Late Shri R.C.Srivastava presently posted as CO
City III, Allahabad.
7. Anurag Darshan aged about 39 years
S/o Late Shri Ramesh Aherwar presently posted
As CO city II, Allahabad
8. Neeti Dwivedi aged about 36 years
W/o Vineet Dwivedi presently posted as Deputy Superintendent
of Police, R/o MU-IV/531, Muir Road
Allahabad
9. Rajesh Kumar Singh, aged about 38 years
S/o Shri Girija Shanker Singh, presently
Posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police
Muzaffarnagar.
10. Vikas Chandra Tripathi, aged about 37 years
S/o Shri Chandra Prakash Tripathi presently
Posted as Deputy Superintendent of Police
Meerut.
11. Purnendu Singh, aged about 35 years
S/o Shri Mahadev Pratap Singh,
Presently posted as Deputy Superintendent of
Police, Gonda
12. Martand Prakash Singh, aged about 37 years,
S/o Bhanu Pratap Singh, presently posted at 35
Vahini, PAC, Lucknow.
13. Manisha Singh, aged about 38 years
W/o Sangram Singh, presently posted as
Deputy Superintendent of Police
Meerut.
14. Ravindra Kumar Verma, aged about 40 years
S/o Sri Ram Kumar Verma, presently
Posted at CO, City Ballia
R/o Civil Line Colony,
Ballia. . Applicants
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao)
VERSUS
1. The Union of India through the Secretary
M/o Home Affairs, North Block, New Delhi
2. The Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and
Pension, Department of Personnel and Training,
New Delhi.
3. The Union Public Service Commission,
Dhoulpur House
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi through its Secretary
4. The State of UP through the Principal Secretary (Home)
UP Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3210/2013
Dilip Kumar Saini
S/o Shri Prbhu Dayal Saini
Aged about 37 years, R/o House No.20,
Shyam Vatika,
Ram Nagar Extension, Sodala,
Jaipur
Rajasthan presently working as CO, Lalsot,
District Dausa, Rajasthan . Applicant
(Through Shri Amit Singh Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhishek Sharma and Shri Sahil Mongia, Advoates)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary
M/o Personnel and Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi.
2. The Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3211/2013
Himanshu
S/o Shri Ganpati Lal
Aged about 38 years
R/o Plot No.72, Shri Kalyan Nagar
Kartarpura
Jaipur
Rajasthan presently working as CO Dausa
District Dausa,
Rajasthan . Applicant
(Through Shri Amit Singh Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhishek Sharma and Shri Sahil Mongia, Advocates)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary
M/o Personnel and Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi.
2. The Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary, Dholpur House
New Delhi . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3228/2013
Naresh Khatik
S/o Shri Udailal (SC)
Aged about 38 years
R/o Qtr. No.5, Family Quarters
Behind Police Control Room
Yadgar,
Ajmeri Gate
Jaipur (Presently working as ACP, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur). Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri Neeraj Batra)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary
M/o Personnel and Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi.
2. The Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary, New Delhi . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3229/2013
Ram Swaroop Sharma
S/o Shri Mahavir Prasad Sharma
Aged about 39 years,
R/o BB-10, Anita Colony,
Bajaj Nagar,
Jaipur-15
(Presently working as APO, attached as Addl. SP, Legal Cell,
PHQ, Jaipur) . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri Neeraj Batra)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary
M/o Personnel and Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi.
2. The Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary, New Delhi . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3230/2013
1. Surendra Kumar Jain
S/o Shri Nirmal Kumar Jain
Aged 41 years,
Occupation-Service
R/o Add. S.P.AJK Jabalpur
MP 482002
2. Sandeep Kumar Mishra
S/o Shri Jagdish Prasad
Aged 43 years,
Occupation- Service
R/o SDOP, Jabalpur
MP 482002
3. Pranay Nagavansi
S/o Shri Suresh Kumar Nagavansi
Aged 36 years, Occupation-Service
R/o SDOP Dabra
Gwalior MP 475110. . Applicants
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao and Shri Prashant Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary, M/o Home Affairs
North Block,
New Delhi
Pin No.110 001
2. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
Department of Personnel & Training,
North Block
New Delhi.
Pin Code No.110 001.
3. Union Public Service Commission
Through its Chairman
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi
Pin Code No.110 003.
4. State of Madhya Pradesh
Through Principal Secretary
Ministry of Home, Vallabh Bhawan Bhopal
Pin code No.462004. . Respondents
.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3231/2013
1. Neeraj Kumar Chandrakar
S/o Shri Arun Kumar Chandrakar age 38 years
Occupation DSP (at CM Security, Raipur) R/o DSP, CM Security,
Raipur (Chhatisgarh)
PIN 492001
2. Surjan Ram
S/o Shri Puruwa Ram
Age 46 years Occupation Addl. SP
Sukma R/o Addl. SP Office Sukma
(Chhatisgarh) PIN 494111
3. Chain Das Tandon
S/o Chandan Singh Tandon
Age 48 years
Occupation Addl. SP Kanker
R/o Addl. SP Office Kanker
(Chhatisgarh)
494354 (PIN). . Applicants
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao and Shri S.K. Nandy)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary
M/o Home Affairs
North Block,
New Delhi Pin Code No.110001.
2. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension,
Department of Personnel and Training,
North Block
New Delhi
Pin Code No.110001.
3. Union Public Service Commission
Through its Chairman
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi
Pin Code No.110 003.
4. State of Chhatisgarh through
Principal Secretary
M/o Home
Mantralaya (D.K.Bhawan)
Raipur Pin Code No.462004. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3232/2013
Samir Kumar
S/o Shri Om Prakash
Aged about 39 years
R/o E-740, Janpath
Gandhi Nagar,
Jaipur
Working as ACP, Ramganj, Jaipur North, Jaipur . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri Neeraj Batra and Shri K.P.Sunder Rao)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary
M/o Personnel and Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi.
2. The Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary, New Delhi
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi 110 069. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3246/2013
1. Gajendra Singh Vardhman
S/o Shri Devi Singh
Aged about 37 years
CSP, Ratlam
Dist. Ratlam (MP)
2. Praveen Kumar Bhuriya
S/o Shri Man Singh Bhuriya
Aged about 38 years
SDO (P) Paraswada, Dist.
Balaghat (MP)
3. Prem Lal Kurwe
S/o Durgoo Lal Kurwe
Aged about 38 years
SDO (P) Deosar
Dist. Singrauli . Applicants
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao and Shri Brajesh Choubey)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary
M/o Personnel and Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi.
2. The Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary,
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi
3. The Joint Secretary
Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi -11
4. The State of MP
Through Secretary
Home Department, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal 462001. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3248/2013
1. Neeraj Pandey
S/o Shri R.P.Pandey
Aged 37 years,
Occupation Service
R/o CSP Morar,
Gwalior
M.P. 474005.
2. Arvind Kumar Dubey
S/o Shri Ram Kumar Dubey
Aged 38 years,
Occupation Service
R/o CSP Gwalior
MP 474002
3. Amirtlal Meena
S/o Shri Ramdayal Meena
Aged 37 years,
Occupation Service
R/o Additional SP Hosangabad
MP 461001
4. Ashish Khare
S/o Shri Sharda Prasad Khare
Aged 36 years
Occupation Service
R/o Dy. S.P.Bhopal
MP 462016
5. Priyanka Mishra
D/o Shri Suresh Mishra
Aged 39 years
Occupation service
R/o Dy.S.P.P.H.Q. Bhopal M.P.-462016
6. Vinod Kumar Singh
S/o Shri Navratan Singh
Aged 43 years,
Occupation Service
R/o Add. S.P.Narsinghpur
MP - 487001
7. Pankaj Shrivastava
S/o Shri H.S.Srivastava
Aged 41 years,
Occupation Service
R/o Add S.P.Mandsaur
MP 458001
8. Suman Gurjar
D/o Shri Krishan Bahadur Singh Gurjar
Aged 39 years
Occupation Service
R/o 17B Vahini,
Bhind
MP 477001
9. Pritam Patel
D/o Shir Pooran Patel
Age 37 years
Occupation service
R/o Dy.S.P. Bhopal
MP 462016
10. Yashpal Singh
S/o Shri Virendra Pal Singh
Aged 41 years
Occupation Service
R/o Additional S.P.Shivpuri
MP 473551
11. Santosh Kumar Kori
S/o Shri Ghanshyam Das Kori
Aged 41 years,
Occupation Service
R/o Add. S.P.Panna
MP 488001.
12. Manoj Kumar Kediya
S/o Shri Raj Kumar Kediya
Aged 38 years,
Occupation Service
R/o AIGPHQ,
Bhopal
MP 462016
13. Prachi Shukla
D/o Shri Dinesh Shukla
Aged 38 years,
Occupation Service
R/o Dy. S.P.Indore
M.P. 452002
14. Roopesh Kumar Dwivedi
S/o Shri Siya Saran
Aged 39 years
Occupation service
R/o CSP Indore
MP 452002
15. Rasmi Sharma
D/o Shri Amabalal
Aged 40 years
Occupation service
R/o Dy.S.P. Gwalior
MP 474006
16. Naveen Kumar Chaudhary
S/o Shri Nand Kishor Chaudhary
Aged 41 years
Occupation Service
R/o SDOP Chhatarpur
MP 471 001.
17. Malay Kumar Jain
S/o Shri Devendra Kumar Jain
Aged 41 years,
Occupation Service
R/o Dy.S.P.Indore
MP 452 002
18. Pradeep Kumar Shinde
S/o Shri Anant Kumar Shinde
Aged 36 years
Occupation service
R/o Dy.S.P.Indore 452002.
19. Sunil Kumar Pandey
S/o Shri K.S.Pandey
Aged 43 years
R/o Jonel SP, SB Gwalior
MP 474 001
20. Pradeep Patel
S/o Shri Vijay Singh,
Aged 39 years
R/o CSP Jhansi Road,
Gwalior
MP 474009
21. Irmeen Shah
D/o W.A.Shah,
Aged 38 years
R/o Dy.S.P.Bhopal
MP 462016
22. Sunil Rajore
S/o Shri N.P.Rajore
Aged 40 years
R/o Dy.S.P.Cyber Cell,
Bhopal
MP 462016
23. Manjulata Yadav
D/o Shri J.S.Yadav
Aged 42 years
Occupation service
R/o SDOP
Bhitarwar,
District Gwalior
MP 475 220
24. Anil Vishvkarma
S/o Shri Mithulal,
Aged 41 years
R/o DSP,
SB Reewa
MP - 486006 . Applicants
(By Advocates: Shri Amit Singh Chadha, Shri Abhishek Sharma and Shri Sunil Mongia)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through Secretary
M/o Home Affairs,
North Block
New Delhi.
2. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block,
New Delhi
Pin Code No.110 001
3. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Chairman
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi
4. The State of MP
Through Principal Secretary
M/o Home, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal 462004. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3249/2013
1. Rajnesh Singh
S/o Shri SR Singh,
Aged about 40 years
Posted Additional SP (INT)
PHQ, Raipur-492001 CG
2. Dr. Lal Ummed Singh
S/o Late Shri K.Singh
Aged about 41 years
Additional SP Raipur
CG 492001
3. Rajesh Kumar Agrawal
S/o Shri BP Agrawal
Aged about 41 years
Posted as Additional SP
Kabirdham
CG (491995)
4. Umesh Choudhary
S/o Shri C.P.Choudhary
Aged about 37 years,
Posted as Additional SP
Sarguja (CG)(497001)
5. Manoj Kumar Khelari
S/o Shri JD Khelari
Aged about 41 years
Additional SP
Raipur 492001
6. Vijay Kumar Pandey
S/o Shri Gram Panchayat Pandey
Aged about 38 years,
Additional SP
Korba CG (495677)
7. Pankaj Chandra
S/o Late Shri G.Chandra
Aged about 39 years
Additional SP
Jagdalpur CG (494001).
8. Bhavna Pandey
D/o Shri D.C.Pandey
37 years
Additional SP
Bilaspur CG (495001)
9. Harish Rathore
S/o Shri ML Rathore
Aged about 41 years,
Additional SP Raj Bhavan Raipur 492001
10. Vedvrata Sirmour
S/o Shri R.K.Sirmour
Aged about 42 years Additional SP,
Bilaspur CG (495001)
11. Smt. Rajshri Mishra
W/o Shri A. Mishra
Aged about 42 years,
Deputy Commandant 2nd Battalion
Bilaspur CG 495001
12. Ms. Shweta Shrivastava
D/o Shri KK Shrivastava
Aged about 35 years
Additional SP
Raipur CG 492001
13. Arvind Kumar Tiwari
S/o Shri S.K.Tiwari
Aged about 42 years, CSP
Gwalior 474001. . Applicants
(By Advocate:Shri Pankaj Dubey and Shri K.P.Sunder Rao)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary
M/o Personnel and Public Grievances
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi.
2. The Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary,
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi
3. The Joint Secretary
Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road
New Delhi -11
4. The State of Chattisgarh
Through Secretary
Home Department, DKS Bhawan,
Raipur 492001. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3266/2013
1. Amritendu Shekhar Thakur
S/o Shri Bachcha Thakur
R/o Mithila Colony
PO Bataganj
Digha, District Patna 800018
Presently posted as Dy. S.P.
Vigilance Investigation Bureau
Patna
2. Rajesh Kumar
S/o Shri Ram Prasad Thakur
Mohalla
Raghuvar Nagar
PO Suhirdya Nagar
PS Town, District Begusarai
Presently posted as Dy.S.P., CM Security,
Patna.
3. Manoj Kumar
S/o Late Ramchandra Prasad
H/o Baij Nath Prasad,
Near Vijaya Bank,
Near Dr. Vijay Jain, A.N.Road
Murarpur
Gaya 201301
Presently posted as Dy. SP
Vigilance Investigation Bureau (SVU)
Patna
4. Lalit Mohan Sharma
S/o Shri Kedar Nath Sharma
A-1994, PC Colony, Kankar Bagh
Patna 800020
Presently posted as Dy.S.P. (Law & Order).
Patna. . Applicants
(By Advocate:Shri A.S.Thakur)
VERSUS
1. The Union of India through the Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block
New Delhi
2. The Secretary
M/o Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions
(Department of Personnel and Training)
New Delhi.
3. The Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi through its Secretary
4. The State of Bihar
Through the Principal Secretary (Home)
Govt. of Bihar
Old Secretariat, Patna . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3263/2013
1. Hemant Chauhan
S/o Shri A.P.S. Chauhan
Aged 43 years
Occupation Service
R/o AIGPHQ, Bhopal
MP 462001
2. Gopal Prasad Khandel
S/o Shri Bhagwat Prasad
Aged 49 years
Occupation Service
R/o Add. S.P. Umariya MP 484661 . Applicants
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao and Shri Devender Kumar)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary
M/o Home Affairs,
North Block
New Delhi.
2. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block,
New Delhi
Pin Code No.110 001
3. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Chairman
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi
4. The State of MP
Through Principal Secretary
M/o Home, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal 462004. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3264/2013
1. Raghuwansh Kumar Singh
S/o Shri Phul Kumar Singh
Aged 42 years
Occupation Service
R/o Additional S.P. Gwalior
MP 474002
2. Shraddha Tiwari
W/o Shri Sanjay Tiwari
Aged 41 years
Occupation Service
R/o Dy.S.P. Indore
MP 452002 . Applicants
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao and Shri S.P.Singh)
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
Through its Secretary
M/o Home Affairs,
North Block
New Delhi.
2. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block,
New Delhi
Pin Code No.110 001
3. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Chairman
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi
4. The State of MP
Through Principal Secretary
M/o Home, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal 462004. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3265/2013
1. Abhishek Rajan
S/o Late Shri Umesh Kumar Sinha
Aged about 36 years working as SDOP,
Sarni, Distt. Betul (MP)
2. Prashant Choubey
S/o Shri Awad Bihari Chobey
Aged about 36 years working as
SDOP, budni, Distt. Sihore (MP) . Applicants
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao and Shri Akhil Sinha)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block,
New Delhi
Pin Code No.110 001
2. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi
3. The Joint Secretary
Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi
4. The State of MP
Through its Secretary
Home Department, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal 462001. .. Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3267/2013
1. Nischal N Jharia
S/o Shri NP Jhariya
Aged about 41 years
Posted as SDOP, Ghati Gaon
Gwalior 474001
2. Neeraj Soni
S/o Shir BP Soni, aged about 38 years, DSP
Chindwara 48001
3. Savyasachi Saraf
S/o Shri S.S.Saraf
Aged about 43 years
Posted as Additional SP, PHQ, Bhopal
4. Durgesh Kumar Rathore
S/o Shri IML Rathore
Aged about 37 years, posted as CSP,
Chattarpur (MP) 471001
5. Santosh Kumar Mahto
S/o Shri BP Mahto Aged about 38 years
SDOP, Mandla (MP) 481661
6. Manu Vyas
S/o Shri CM Vyas
Aged about 42 years CSP
Bhopal 462001
7. Devendra Pratap Singh Rajput
S/o Shri MP Rajput
Aged about 38 years
CSP, Pardesipura
Indore (MP) 452001
8. Sidharth Choudhary
S/o Shri RP Choudhary
41 years,
Additional SP, Bhopal 462001.
9. Sanjay Sahu
S/o Shri Shyam Babu Sahu
Aged about 37 years, CSP
Kotwali
Ujjain 456001
10. Rajesh Kumar Singh Bhadoriya
S/o Shri AKS Bhadoriya,
Aged about 41 years CSP
Habibganj
Bhopal (MP)-462001
11. Sameer Kumar Yadav
S/o Shri Sudha Ram Yadav
Aged about 41 years, SDOP
Manasa Neemuch (MP) 458441
12. Vikas Pathak
S/o Shri AN Pathak
Aged about 42 years
Deputy Commandant 9th Battalion Rewa, MP
13. Arvind Kumar Tiwari
S/o Shri SK Tiwari
Aged about 42 years, CSP, Gwalior 474001
14. Padmvilochan Shukla
S/o Shri J.P.Shukla
Aged about 43 years, Additional SP, Mhow,
Indore 452001
15. Manoj Kumar Rai
S/o Shri US Rai 43 years
Additional SP Indore 452001
16. Roopesh Kumar Dwivedi
S/o Shri SS Dwivedi
Aged about 40 years
CSP Indore 452001
17. Satyendra Singh Tomar
S/o Shri DRS Tomar aged about 43 years
Additional SP Burhanpur 472001
18. Prachi Shukla
W/o Shri R.K.Dwivedi aged about 39 years
Assistant Commandant Indore 452001
19. Vijay Kumar Bhagwani
S/o Shri TD Bhagwani aged about 42 years
Additional SP,
Satna (MP) 485001.
20 Rajeev Kumar Mishra
S/o Shri M.K.Mishra
42 years, Additional SP, Dhar
21. Dinesh Kumar Kaushal
S/o Shri BD Kaushal
Aged about 41 years, CSP
Rewa 486001
22. Geetesh Kumar Garg
S/o Shri DP Garg
Aged about 38 years,
CSP, Katni (MP) 483501
23. Amit Verma
S/o SB Verma
Aged about 38 years
SDOP
Bhind 477001
24. Surendra Singh Gaur
S/o Shri NS Gaur
Aged about 40 years, CSP, Bhopal 462001
25. Yogeshwar Sharma
S/o Shri RC Sharma
Aged about 41 years
SDOP, Sihore (MP) 466001
26. Sunil Tiwari
S/o Shri KN Tiwari
Aged about 44 years
Additional SP Chattarpur
MP 471001
27. Sanjeev Kumar Sinha
S/o Shri SS Singh
Aged about 41 years,
Additional SP PHQ
Bhopal 462001
28. Jitendra Singh
S/o Shri Sardar Singh
Aged about 43 years
DSP Crime
Indore 452001
29. Dharmendra Singh Chhawei
S/o Shri B.L.Chahwei
Aged about 43 years DSP, Additional SP
Mandla 481661
30. Smt. Shalini Dixit
W/o Shri Sandeep Dixit
Aged about 37 years
CSP, Satna
MP 485001
31. Sandeep Dixit
S/o Shir RK Dixit
Aged about 39 years
DSP Satna
(MP) 485001
32. Smt. Rekha Singh
W/o Shri DS Chhawei
Aged about 41 years
Assistant Commandant 35th Batalion
Mandla
(MP) 481661
33. Pramod Kumar Sinha
S/o Shri SL Sinha aged about 41 years
Additional SP Tikamgarh 472001
34. Rajesh Pingolia
Shri SS Pingolia
Aged 39 years
About CSP Ujjain 456001
35. Tusharkant Vidyarthi
S/o Shri Dr. N.Vidyarti
Aged about 41 years
Additional SP
Jabalpur 482001
36. Rajesh Chandel Shri RP Singh
Aged about 41 years
Additional SP Bhopal 462001
37. Ashish Khare
Shri DC Khare
Aged about 42 years
Additional SP
Bhopal 462001
38. Shahshank Garg
S/o Late Shri ED Garg,
Aged about 37 years
SDOP, Rehli Sagar 470227
39. Dharamveer Singh
S/o Shri Surendra Pal Singh
Additional SP
Bhopal 462001
40. Amrendra Singh
S/o Shri Kammod Singh
Aged about 38 years
CSP Indore 452001
41. Dhananjay Shah
S/o Shri Devi Shah
Aged about 41 years
SDOP Shahdol
42. Prashant Khare
S/o Shri P. Khare
44 years
Additional SP Bhopal 462001. . Applicants
(Through Shri Amit Singh Chadha, Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhishek Sharma and Shri Sahil Mongia, Advoates)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block,
New Delhi
Pin Code No.110 001
2. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi
3. The Joint Secretary
Union Public Service Commission
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi
4. The State of MP
Through its Secretary
Home Department, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal 462001. . Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3268/2013
1. State Police Service Association
Registered under the MP Society
Registrikaran Adhiniyam, through
Shri T.K. Vidyarthi
S/o late Dr. Narendra Vidyarthi
Aged about 41 years
Working as Add. Superintendent of Police
Jabalpur
R/o Near Police Control Room, Omti
Jabalpur . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through
Secretary
M/o Home Affairs
North Block
New Delhi.
2. Union of India
Through Secretary
Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension
Department of Personnel & Training
North Block,
New Delhi
3. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Chairman
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi
4. The State of MP
Through its Secretary
Home Department, Vallabh Bhawan,
Bhopal 462001. ... Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3283/2013
L.S.Chowhan
S/o H.S.Chowhan
Aged about 38 years
Occ. Deputy Director,
Andhra Pradesh Police Academy
Hyderbad, R/o H No.118, Magadha Village
Narsingi
Hyderabad . Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri K.P.Sunder Rao)
VERSUS
1. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi
2. The Union of India represented by
Its Secretary, M/o Personnel and Public Grievances
North Block, New Delhi
3. The Secretary to Govt. of India,
M/o Home Affairs
North Block,
New Delhi. ... Respondents.
(By Advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
OA 3361/2013
K. Narayan Naik
S/o Dharma Naik Aged about 37 years 2 months
(Date of birth 01.06.1974)
Greyhounds, Post Bax,1. Puppalaguda Post
Hyderabad R/o Flat No.401, Plot No.513
Basava Punnaiah Residency,
Near Ayyappa Temple
Madhapur
Hyderabad . Applicant
(By Advocate:Shri K.P.Sunder Rao)
VERSUS
1. Union Public Service Commission,
Through its Secretary
Dholpur House
Shahjahan Road
New Delhi
2. The Union of India represented by
Its Secretary, M/o Personnel and Public Grievances
North Block, New Delhi
3. The Secretary to Govt. of India,
M/o Home Affairs
North Block,
New Delhi. . Respondents
(By advocate: Shri H.K.Gangwani)
O R D E R
MR. P.K. BASU, MEMBER (A) These batch of OAs have been filed challenging the notification dated 29.08.2011 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions and notification dated 3.03.2012 of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) whereby amendments have been made to the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954. Whereas prior to this amendment, recruitment to Indian Police Service (IPS) was either by direct recruitment through the Civil Services Examination held by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) or by promotion of members of State Police Service, these Rules added the third channel of recruitment to the IPS by Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) to be conducted by the UPSC from amongst those who have completed five years of continuous and actual service as Deputy Superintendent of Police in States under State Police Service or Assistant Commandants in Central Para Military Forces (Central Reserve Police Service, Boarder Security Force, Indo Tibet Border Police, Central Industrial Security Force and Sashashtra Seema Bal) or Officers of the Rank of Captain or Major or equivalent in the Armed Forces. The age limit for eligibility was considered as 35 years on 1.08.2011, i.e. he/she must have been born not earlier than 2.08.1977. However, the upper age limit prescribed above was relaxable by one year for Other Backward Classes and two years for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe. This Notification has been challenged either wholly or partially in these OAs.
2. In OA Nos.1321/2012, 2993/2013 and 3268/2013, the IPS (Recruitment) Amendment Rules, 2011 and Rules for the examination notified have been challenged and prayer is made to declare them ultra vires of the Constitution as well as Section 3 (1) of the All India Services Act 1951 and to quash and set aside Para 4 (1) (b) of the IPS (Recruitment) Amendment Rules, 2011.
3. In OA Nos.867/2012, 1387/2012, 972/2012, 1258/2012, 1257/2012, 1283/2012, 3247/2013, 1224/2012 and 1158/2012, 3361/2013, 3283/2013, 3264/2013, 3263/2013, 3266/2013, 3248/2013, 3185/2013, 3231/2013, 3230/2013, 3209/2013 and 3195/2013, the challenge is only to the age limit of 35 years prescribed relaxable by one year for Other Backward Classes and two years for SC/ST candidates, praying for direction to the respondents to give five years relaxation for ST and raise maximum age limit from 35 years.
4. In OA Nos.4001/2012, 3232/2013, 3228/2013, 3211/2013, 3210/2013, 3208/2013, 3196/2013, 2997/2013, 2996/2013, 3246/2013, 3229/2013, 2994/2013, 2995/2013, 1245/2012, 1234/2012, 3249/2013, 3265/2013 and 3267/2013, the prayer is similar as in OA 867/2012, with a specific request of raising the age limit to 45 years.
5. In OA No.1606/2012, the applicant has raised the question that whereas the UPSC notice for IPS Limited Competitive Examination is dated 10.03.2012, the condition stipulated in para 3 (b) that the candidate must not have attained the age of 35 years as on 1.08.2012 is arbitrarily determined, resulting in overage of the applicant as he is May 1977 born and had the UPSC followed the normal cut-off date of the notice dated 10.03.2012, he would have been eligible.
6. In the first batch of cases, it was argued by Ms. Jyoti Singh, learned senior counsel for the applicants that according to the amended Rule 4 (2) (a), the method of recruitment to be adopted for the purpose of filling up any particular vacancy or vacancies as may be required to be filled during any particular period of recruitment, shall be determined by the Central Government in consultation with the Commission and the State Government concerned. Similarly, Rule 4 (2) (b) provides that the number of persons to be recruited by each method shall be determined on each occasion by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government concerned. Section 3 of the All India Service Act 1951, which is the source of the rule making power of the Central Government, reads as follows:
3. Regulation of recruitment and conditions of service (1) The Central Government may, after consultation with the Governments of the States concerned (including the State of Jammu and Kashmir], (and by notification in the Official Gazette) make rules for the regulation of recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed to an All India Service.
7. The learned counsel for the applicants contends that the applicants belong to the State of Delhi and as required under Section 3 of the All India Service Act 1951, neither was the Delhi Government consulted through its Lt. Governor nor any consultation held as provided for under Rule 4 (2) (a) and 4 (2) (b). It was further argued that as per DoP&T OM No.AB.14017/48/2010-Estt (RR) dated 31.12.2010, it is mandatory for the Central Government to make such amendments in the RRs only after consultation with the DoP&T, Ministry of Law and the UPSC, which was not followed. Para 2.4 and 2.5 of the OM provides as follows:
CONSULTATION WITH DOPT 2.4 Ordinarily, the draft Recruitment Rules will be returned by the Department of Personnel & Training with their comments, within a month from the date of reference to that Department. If the circumstances of a case require more time for scrutiny/discussion, the administrative Ministry/Department will be informed of the same and where there are many points for clarification, the Ministries may also be requested to discuss the case with the officers of the Department of Personnel & Training.
CONSULTATION WITH UPSC 2.5 After obtaining the concurrence of the Department of Personnel & Training, the Administrative Ministry/Department should refer the draft Recruitment Rules for posts/services which are within the purview of the UPSC in a self-contained letter to the Commission, along with the information in the prescribed proforma (Annexure II). It should be stated in the letter to the Commission, whether the clearance of the Department of Personnel & Training (and also the Department of Pension & Pensioners Welfare where required) has been obtained in respect of the proposals in question. Where the procedure for consultation with the Commission has been followed and information necessary for consideration of the proposal has been fully given, it should be possible for the Commission to convey their advice ordinarily within 4 to 5 weeks. If the Commissions advice is not received within this time, the administrative Ministry/Department may settle the matter by personal discussion with the officers concerned in the Commission. It is contended that the UPSC had not agreed to the amendment and neither had the Ministry of Law. It is also mentioned that several of the State Governments in their comments had advised the Central Government that they were not in agreement with the change and letters in this regard from the Governments of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Punjab, Tripura, Goa, Meghalaya, Arunachal Pradesh, Nagaland and West Bengal have been annexed to the OA. All the State Governments had not agreed to such amendment giving detailed reasons. The learned counsel for the applicants in this set of OAs also produced before us letters from the Directorate General, ITBP and CISF strongly objecting to this amendment. Similarly, the Service Branch of the Ministry of Defence in their letter dated 15.03.2012 had indicated the following:
3.(a) Regular Officers - As per policy vide Para 2 of AO 27/87, Regular Officers may apply for such Central/ State Government or Local Funds Owned Undertakings in Private Sector only if they meet any one of the following criteria:-
(i) Two years prior to their compulsory retirement for the rank held.
(ii) Finally superseded officers may apply as soon as information of such supersession has been received.
(iii) Placed in such a permanent low medical category as is unacceptable for further promotion.
(iv) Placed in such a low medical category as is unacceptable for retention in service.
(v) Those who have completed 18 years of service and have not yet passed part `D promotional examination or equivalent.
8. The UPSC had also in its letter dated 15.03.2010 strongly opposed the idea of LCE. This is also clear from the minutes of the meeting held on 7.07.2010 where the UPSC expressed serious misgivings about such a move by the government. It was argued that Articles 320 of the Constitution of India conceive of consultation, which should be meaningful consultation. Our specific attention was drawn to two paragraphs of the notesheet of the Ministry of Law which read as follows:
4. As regards the proposed insertion, it may be stated that Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951 provides for regulation of recruitment and conditions of services. Sub section (1) thereof empowers the Central Government to make rules for regulation of recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to an All India Service, after consultation with the Governments of the States concerned including the State of Jammu & Kashmir by publishing a notification in the official Gazette. Here it may be pertinent to mention that consultation with the Governments of the States including the State of Jammu & Kashmir is the condition precedent for making rules of recruitment and the conditions of service of persons appointed to an All India Service. In the instant matter, it may be seen from Para 6 of the referring note at p.20-21/N that the consultations have not been done with all the State Governments. Out of the state Governments consulted, some have opposed, some sought certain clarifications and others have agreed to the proposed insertion. Further, Article 320 (3) of the Constitution requires the UPSC to be consulted on all matters relating to method of recruitment to Civil Services and for civil posts. The UPSC in the instant matter has suggested to substantially increase the annual intake through Civil Service Examination instead of resorting to the proposed Limited Competitive Examination.
5. The matter has been telephonically discussed with Shri R.K. Gupta, Director in DOPT who informed that on the directions of the Honble Prime Minister, the Honble Home Minister with the Honble Minister of Law & Justice and the Honble Minister of State (PP) held a meeting on 18.06.2010 to discuss the issue to hold a competitive examination as per the scheme of Ministry of Home Affairs. The Cabinet Secretary, Home Secretary, Secretary (Personnel), Director, Intelligence Bureau and Special Secretary (IS) also participated in the meeting. In the said meeting, it was inter alia decided that all attempts would be made to have first Limited Competitive Examination in November, 2010. A copy of the record of discussion of the said meeting has been obtained from DOPT through FAX which may kindly be perused at F/`X.
9. It was emphasized that while several States/ Organizations had serious reservations and had opposed the proposal, para 5 of the above note clearly indicates when the telephonic directions were received from one officer of the DoP&T communicating the orders of the Honble Prime Minister and several other Ministers, that all attempts would be made to have the first LCE in 2010, everybody fell in line. It was the contention of the learned counsel that this was not clearly meaningful consultation and, therefore, the decision making process is vitiated and on this ground alone, the notification should go. It was argued that while the Tribunals are normally not to interfere in policy decisions of the government, in this case since malafide is clearly visible, there are grounds for the Tribunal to interfere and set aside such a decision.
10. The learned counsel also argued that Section 4 of the Delhi Police Act stipulates that Delhi Police is under the control of the Lt. Governor and, therefore, the Lt. Governor should have been consulted which consultation has not taken place and, therefore, Section 3 of the All India Services Act 1951 as well as Rules 4 (2) (a) and 4 (2) (b) of the amended rules have been violated. It was further argued that UPSC consultation is mandatory as laid down in DoP&T circular dated 31.12.2010.
11. In these matters, the Honble High Court of Delhi in Jakat Foundation of India Vs. Union of India & ors., WP ) No.1610/2012 and the Honble High Court of Guwahati in Union of India Vs. Swapnaneel Deka & ors., WP ) No.4880/2012 have passed detailed orders. It was stated by the learned counsel for the applicants that the High Court of Delhi had decided the PIL filed by Jakat Foundation and gone into the question of validity of the said notification and adjudged that the notification was valid and the PIL was dismissed. However, in that case, the applicants were not party and, therefore, they could not get an opportunity to place the detailed facts/law before the Court that are now being raised on non-consultation with the State Government and hence violation of Section 3 of the All India Services Act 1951 and DoP&T circulars on mandatory consultation with the UPSC as well as the other facts of the case presented now. It is argued that the Honble High Court had only looked at the major issue whether States had been consulted and based on the respondents reply that States had been consulted and filling up of the posts was the prerogative of the employer and such decisions cannot be nullified by the Court merely on the ground that this was not a wise decision and there was better alternative, decided against the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, since other facts and law were not considered by the Honble High Court, the conclusion of the High Court need not be relied upon as the ratio deci dendi does not apply in the present case. It is the contention of the applicants counsel that the Tribunal can pass an order as the High Court order is per incuriam.
12. Similarly, the learned counsel argued regarding Guwahati High Court judgment stating that in that case also, the ratio deci dendi was clear from para 77 to 81 of the judgment, which read as follows but does not apply to the present OA:
77. In the present case, apart from the fact that the Union of India has clearly shown that there has been, in terms of the provisions of sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the 1951 Act, deliberations and 'consultations' with the Governments of the States concerned, even lack of such 'consultation' would not have rendered the impugned Amendment Rules, 2011, or, for that matter, the impugned Regulations, 2011, void or ultra vires or invalid, when the same have already been laid on the floor of the Parliament and, more particularly, when the Government of Assam chose not to offer any comment either in favour of the proposed amendments, which stand incorporated in the Amendment Rules, 2011, and which, now, provide for LCE, nor did the Government of Assam voice its objection against the amendments, which were proposed to be made in this regard, though the Governments of Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, Goa, Meghalaya and Arunachal Pradesh had opposed the introduction of the impugned method of recruitment, i.e., LCE, to the Indian Police Service. When a State Government chooses not to offer its comment to a proposed amendment in a case of present nature, it logically follows that the State Government found no comment necessary to make in response to the proposed amendments. In such circumstances, the Central Government cannot be blamed for having incorporated the amendments in the form of the impugned Amendment Rules, 2011.
78. Mr. Raval, learned ASG, has considerable force in his submission that the requirement of consultation, as envisaged by the Recruitment Rules, 1954, will not colour the requirement of consultation as contemplated by the 1951 Act. The learned ASG is also correct in his submission that the 1951 Act will colour the Recruitment Rules, 1954, made under the 1951 Act, and not vice versa.
79. 'Consultation', as contemplated by Section 3(1) of the 1951 Act, with the Governments of the States concerned, is directory and, hence, the views of the State Government concerned could not have been binding on the State Government. Consequently, the consultation, as contemplated by Section 3(1) of the 1951 Act, with the Governments of the States concerned, is not mandatory.
80. At any rate, the framing of the Amendment Rules, 2011, did not require any 'consultation' with the Joint Cadre Authority and though 'consultation', for the purpose of framing the Amendment Rules, 2011, was required to be done with the State Governments, the same was only directory and, in the case at hand, there was, in the facts and attending circumstances of the present case, requisite 'consultation' with the State Governments, particularly, State of Assam; more so, when the Amendment Rules, 2011 as well as the Amendment Regulations, 2011, have both been laid on the floor of the Houses of the Parliament.
81. The finding, therefore, of the learned Tribunal that the impugned Amendment Rules, 2011, were bad in law on the ground of non-consultation with the Joint Cadre Authority is wholly misconceived in law and the grievance expressed before this Court, on behalf of the applicants-private respondents, that there was no effective 'consultation' with the State Governments either before the Amendment Rules, 2011, was framed is also devoid of any force. Situated thus, we are unable to persuade ourselves to concede to the argument advanced by Mr. N. Dutta, learned Senior counsel, that the Amendment Rules, 2011, are bad in law, because the framing of the Rules suffers from the omission to consult the State Governments, particularly, the Government of Assam. Moreover, it was argued that the Honble High Court of Guwahati in para 42 and 44 of its judgment held as follows:
42. The Joint Cadre Authority, in the case of a Joint Cadre, is, therefore, required to be consulted by the Central Government, in the light of the provisions of the Recruitment Rules, 1954, when the Central Government is required to determine the method or methods of recruitment, which it has to adopt for the purpose of filling up of any particular vacancy or vacancies, which may be required to be filled during any particular period of recruitment. Clause (b) of Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 4 of Recruitment Rules, 1954, further lays down that the number of persons to be recruited by each method shall be determined, on each occasion, by the Central Government in consultation with the State Government concerned.
xxxx xxxx xxxx xxxx
44. The power to prescribe mode or methods of recruitment, in the light of the provisions of Section 3 of the 1951 Act, vests in the Central Government, though this power has to be exercised after consulting the `Governments of the States concerned. Within the prescribed methods of recruitment, what method has to be resorted in order to fill up a particular vacancy, on a given occasion, is for the Central Government to decide after consulting the UPSC and also the `State Government concerned, which expression, in relation to a Joint Cadre, would obviously mean Joint Cadre Authority. Therefore, it was argued that the Honble High Court of Guwahati had held that consultation under Rule 4 (2) (b) of the recruitment rules was a must.
13. Thus according to Ms. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants, the rationale for decision in the Deka case was that there was no failure to consult with the State Governments as in that case the Assam Government had been consulted and this did not become an issue. However, in the case of Delhi, there was no such consultation and, therefore, the facts being different, the ratio deci dendi in Swapnaneel Deka (supra) does not apply in the present case. Moreover, consultation under Rule 4 (2) (b) was held to be necessary. The important point raised was that a decision of a superior Court is not binding because of its conclusions but in regard to its ratio. Applicants tried to distinguish both the High Court cases and emphasized that the Tribunal can, for the reasons stated above, treat these orders as per incuriam and pass fresh orders. In this regard, the following judgments were relied upon:
(i) W.P. ) 4539/2012, Union of India and anr. Vs. Biswabijoyee Panigrahi and anr. decided on 15.07.2013 by the Honble High Court of Delhi. Our attention was drawn to para 17 of the order which reads as follows:
17. It may not be the province of a High Court to comment upon the judgment of the Supreme Court which are entitled to respect and in the interest of justice it would be the duty of the High Court to respectfully follow a law declared by the Supreme Court. But faced with conflicting judgments the correct approach by a High Court would be to follow that judgment which appears to the Court to state the law accurately or more accurately than the other conflicting judgments.
(ii) W.P. ) 4835/2002, Shikshan Prasarak Mandal Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors decided on 17.09.2009 by the Honble High Court of Bombay. Our attention was drawn to para 7, 9 and 11 of the order which read as follows:
7. ..The later judgment should be similar to the earlier judgment, which on material facts are the same. Finding ratio decidendi is not a mechanical process but an art which one gradually acquires through practice. What is really involved in finding the ratio decidendi of a case is the process of abstraction. Ratio decidendi is a term used in contrast to obiter dictum which is not necessarily binding in law..
xxxx xxxx xxxx
9. The obligation upon the court to follow the precedent law is subject to well accepted limitation. These limitations play an effective role for helping the court to provide sound reasoning, wherever there are divergent view taken by equi-benches of the highest court of land. The Court would be guided by the settled principles in making up its mind whether the judgments cited before it is a precedent to be followed or not depending on the facts of a given case.
xxxx xxxx xxxx
11. It is clear from the above dictum that precedents are to be applied with due regard to facts while adhering to the principles of ratio decidendi. Precedents are described as, Authorities to follow in determinations in Courts of Justice. Precedents have always been greatly regarded by the Sages of the Law. The Precedents of Courts are said to be the laws of the Courts; and the Court will not reverse a judgment, contrary to many Precedents. Even for a precedent to be binding, it cannot be without judicial decision or arguments that are of no moment. To be a good precedent, it has to be an adjudged case or decision of a court of competent jurisdiction considered as furnishing an example or authority for an identical or similar case or a similar question of law afterward arising. It is the ratio understood in its correct perspective that is made applicable to a subsequent case on the strength of a binding precedent. In a recent judgment, a Full Bench of this court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Prashram Jagannath Auti, 2007 (5) Mh. L.J. 403 : 2007 (5) BCR 847, while referring to the binding precedents, held as under:-
The ratio is variously defined to be the relation between two magnitudes of the same kind in terms of quality and quantity. Ratio decidendi is the reason for deciding as reasoning is the soul of decision making process. It is formulation of an opinion by the Judge which is necessary in the facts of the case for determination of the controversy.
(iii) B.Shama Rao Vs. The Union Territory of Pondicherry, 1967 (2) SCR 650, decided on 20.02.1967 by the Honble Supreme Court. The following observations were relied upon:
In view of the intense divergence of opinion except for their conclusion partially to uphold the validity of the said Laws it is difficult to deduce any general principle which on the principle of stare decisis can be taken as binding for future cases. It is trite to say that a decision is binding not because of its conclusion but in regard to its ratio and the principle laid down therein.
(iv) General Manager, Northern Railways & Anr Vs. Sarvesh Chopra, JT 2002 (2) SC 445, decided on 01.03.2002 by the Honble Supreme Court, in which it was held as follows:
A decision of this Court is an authority for the proposition which it decides and not for what it has not decided or had no occasion to express an opinion on.
(v) Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd and Anr. Vs. N.R. Vairamani and Anr, JT 2004 (8) SC 171, decided on 01.10.2004. In this case, the Honble Supreme Court held as follows:
8. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes.
"The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J., as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge. xxxx xxxx xxxx
10. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.
14. The learned counsel also argued that the Government of India, Transaction of Business Rules framed by the Government of India under the powers conferred by clause (3) of Article 77 of the Constitution have been violated. These rules provide for prior consultation with the Ministry of Finance, which had not been done. The Rule is reproduced as follows:-
(2) Unless the case is fully covered by powers to sanction expenditure or to appropriate or re-appropriate funds, conferred by any general or special orders made by the Ministry of Finance, no department shall, without the previous concurrence of the Ministry of Finance, issued any orders. It was also pointed out that OM No.I-28015/01/2009-Admn.IV(LA) dated 3.09.2009 categorically states that the advice of the Ministry of Law in matters of legal or constitutional issue should be followed.
15. In conclusion, Ms. Singh, learned counsel for the applicants stated that the amendment to the Recruitment Rules is vitiated as the Lt. Governor representing Delhi Government was not consulted; Sec. 3 (1) of the AIS Act, 1951 and Rule 4 (2) (b) were not complied with; DoP&T circulars regarding consultation for amendment in RRs with DoP&T, MOL and UPSC were not followed; and as these factors having not been considered either in the Zakat Foundation (supra) and Deka (supra) cases, these orders are per incuriam and the ratio deci dendi of these cases, will not apply to the present OA; and since it is the ratio deci dendi and not the conclusion of an order of a superior court that is binding, the question of validity of the notification dated 3.03.2012 and 29.08.2011 are res integra and can be adjudicated by this Tribunal.
16. In the second set of cases, the issue raised by Mr. K.P. Sunder Rao, learned counsel is regarding upper age limit of 35 years. Primarily, it was argued that the Notification has been upheld both by the Honble High Court of Delhi and the High Court of Guwahati, as also by the Honble Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction No.6863/2012, Kailash Chander Ahlawat Vs. The Union of India & ors. It is argued that the genesis of this Notification is a report by one Kamal Kumar Committee which was set up to clear back-log of vacancies in IPS and after detailed deliberations, this Committee had given its report. Though the Committee had suggested the upper age limit of 45 years, the Government, in its own wisdom, reduced it to 35 years. It is emphatically argued that the object of the Notification was basically to fill up all vacancies and the age limit of 35 years had no nexus with the original object. If at all the Government was interested in getting physically and mentally fit persons to man the posts of SP, Sr.SP or DIG, they should have prescribed stringent medical tests. It was stated that the applicants in these cases are slightly above 35 years of age, but are otherwise physically fit and, therefore, there is no reason why they should be denied opportunity based on the arbitrary cut off date of 35 years. While the learned counsel for the applicants argued that this issue of age limit is res integra, learned counsel for the respondents stated that the question of age limit of 35 years has been decided against the applicants in the judgment of the Honble High Court of Guwahati. It was argued on behalf of the applicants that the rationale adopted for coming to the conclusion by the Honble High Court of Guwahati renders that order per incuriam as it had not gone into the other issues concerning the age limit. Similarly, it was argued that the Honble Patna High Court judgment also did not go into the question of age limit of 35 years. In conclusion, it was argued that as regards the question of age limit of 35 years, the issue is still res integra and the Tribunal can pass an order on this subject. At this stage, learned counsel Ms. Jyoti Singh interjected and contended that even if one part of the notification is set aside, this would lead to effectively setting aside the whole notification as the complete process of recruitment will have to be undertaken again.
17. In OA 1606/2012, the applicant has raised the issue of upper age limit of 35 years in another context. The applicants date of birth is 6.05.1977 whereas the UPSC notification has fixed 1.08.2012 as the cut-off date for working out the age which means that the candidate must have been born on or after 2.08.1977. The applicant was born on 6.05.1977 and thus debarred for the examination. It is argued that normally the date of notification is taken as the date for the purpose of cut off for working out the age but the UPSC has arbitrarily fixed the date as 1.08.2012. It is, therefore, prayed that the upper age limit should be shifted to 10.03.2012, which was the date of examination notice.
18. The learned counsel for the respondents gave a detailed written reply apart from oral arguments. The main argument advanced was that since the notification had been challenged in both Jakat Foundation (supra) and Swapnaneel Deka (supra) and the Honble High Courts of Delhi and Guwahati had upheld the notification, the issue of validity of the notification is no more res integra. It is submitted that challenge, if any, to the notification is barred by the doctrine of stare decisis and in this regard, the learned counsel for the respondents cited Constitution Bench judgment in Waman Rao Vs. Union of India, (1981) 2 SCC 362. On the question of stare decisis, the Honble Court held as follows:
40. It is also true that for the application of the rule of state decisis, it is not necessary that the earlier decision or decisions of longstanding should have considered and either accepted or rejected the particular argument which is advanced in the case on hand. Were it so, the previous decisions could more easily be treated as binding by applying the law of precedent and it will be unnecessary to take resort to the principle of stare decisis. It is, therefore, sufficient for invoking the rule of stare decisis that a certain decision was arrived at on a question which arose or was argued, no matter on what reason the decision rests or what is the basis of the decision. In other words, for the purpose of applying the rule of stare decisis, it is unnecessary to enquire or determine as to what was the rationale of the earlier decision which is said to operate as stare decisis.
19. On the question of relaxation in age to SC/ST and OBC, it is stated that the circulars quoted by the applicants are meant for direct recruitment and LCE is not a direct recruitment but an open recruitment. It is argued that general orders of the government cannot apply to this examination and the principle of generalia specialbus non derogant is well established in this regard. In addition, it is argued that the Department of Personnel and Training issued OM dated 27.03.2012 in which it was clarified that SCs, STs and OBCs get age concession in direct recruitment only. There is no provision in this OM for granting age concession in examinations like LCE. Para 5 of the OM reads as follows:
A government servant is not allowed any relaxation of age for recruitment to Group `A and Group `B post on the basis of competitive examination held by the Commission except in cases where it has been specifically provided for in the scheme of the examinations in consultation with the Commission.
20. It was further argued that provisions for age-limit have been laid down in LCE Regulations, 2011 and Gazette notification dated 3.03.2012. Both these are statutory instruments having their genesis in Article 312 of the constitution of India and the All India Services Act, 1951. The question is whether the applicants can challenge the legislative wisdom the way they have done in this batch of OAs. The question is aptly answered by the Honble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board Vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 in the following words:
.It would be wholly wrong for the Court to substitute its own opinion for that of the Legislature or its delegate as to what principle or policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act and to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation-making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act. So long as the body entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the object and purpose of the statute, the court should not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of such rules or regulations. It is exclusively within the province of the Legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. It is not for the Court to examine the merits or demerits of such a policy because its scrutiny has to be limited to the question as to whether the impugned regulations fall within the scope of the regulation-making power conferred on the delegate by the statute. It was submitted that Government has taken a decision regarding upper age-limit after due deliberations, and there are valid reasons for 35 years age for general candidates, 36 years for OBCs and 37 years for SCs/STs. It is not necessary for the Government to apply ratio-proportion method of mathematics, as sought to be done by the applicants. Hyper-technical approach is also not legally warranted in this case. Overall policy is to have younger officers up to 35 years of age. Even for this limit, Government has granted some relaxation to reserved candidates. This satisfies requirements of law.
21. A very important point was raised by the respondents that in none of the OAs, the Limited Competitive Examination 2010, Gazette notification dated 3.03.2012 or statutory instructions through which age limit was fixed in this case, was challenged. The applicants have preferred to assail UPSC advertisement dated 10.03.2012.
22. We were also informed by the learned counsels that SLPs have been filed in the Honble Apex Court against the orders in Deka (supra) and Zakat Foundation cases.
23. We have gone through the documents carefully and also given due weightage to the arguments. Confronted with the problem of shortage of officers in Indian Police Service, the government was looking for a quick process through which these vacancies could be filled up. The idea was floated that the policy could be amended to introduce a LCE for different categories of armed service personnel upto the age limit of 35 years including officers belonging to State Police Service so that these vacancies are filled up. Section 3 (1) of the All India Services Act, 1951 requires consultation with the Governments, of the States concerned. Similarly, Rules 4 (2) (a) and 4 (2) (b) of the Recruitment Rules, 1954 envisage consultation with the State Government concerned. The Government of India consulted the State Governments. From the Government File No.I-11016/4/2009-IRs-I it, however, appears that consultation with Lt. Governor, Delhi was not done, which was essential as contended by Ms. Jyoti Singh on behalf of one set of applicants. A large number of State Governments questioned the wisdom of such a decision and pointed out several serious drawbacks in such a move. The forces which were supposed to be benefited i.e. CISF, Army etc. also advised the government that this was not a wise move. In fact, the Army clearly commented that they were only willing to pass on their not so good personnel for the job. The UPSC objected strongly to this proposal as did Ministry of Law. However, as pointed out by the learned counsel Ms.Jyoti Singh, the whole situation changed once the phone call came from the DoP&T informing that the Prime Minister has desired that LCE be held in November, 2010. Thus the decision was taken and notification was issued. The learned counsel pointed out that DoP&T circular on consultation for amendment of Recruitment Rules was not followed, Finance Ministry was not consulted etc.
24. We agree with the learned counsel that consultation means meaningful consultation and not consultation which is for the sake of it. In this case, it is clear that there was overwhelming view in the country of both State Governments and expert bodies that this requires more careful thought and, if not, outright rejection. But suddenly, all further consultations and discussions came to a halt because the decision is taken at the top to go ahead with the notification. While, the Tribunal cannot interfere in the policy making process of the government, the manner in which the policy decision is taken in this case, leaves many doubts in our minds. Why the matter was rushed through in this fashion is perplexing; clearly not a good example of following the spirit of the Transaction of Business Rules. The cutting edge in district police administration is the State Police Service and they seem to be very apprehensive of this decision as does several senior IPS officers heading the States/ CISF/ ITBP etc. However, as has been stated by the respondents, the notification had been challenged both in Jakat Foundation (supra) and Swapnaneel Deka (supra) and both the Honble High Courts have upheld the notification. It is pertinent to take note of the following findings of the Delhi High Court:
9. The aforesaid sequence of events would demonstrate that before adopting this methodology of LCE as one of the methods of recruitment, not only a Committee was constituted, the recommendations of the Committee were deliberated in depth by all concerned departments. Final product in the form of approval to the system as well as rules which are notified takes into concerns of other departments and their nod to this methodology of recruitment.
10. This Court cannot comment as to whether the system introduced now is impeccable or there could be better alternatives. The facts taken note above, do suggest that the UPS had initially suggested that it could recruit the same number of candidates (70 per year) through its regular Civil Services Examination by increasing its IPS vacancies and, therefore, there was no need for LCE method. No doubt, there were also the reservations on the ground that shortages of officers was there at all the para military forces and the proposal in question may open a Pandoras box leading too much more., such demands for mid career entry into the other two all India services with similar negative consequences. The petitioners also expressed their apprehension that it would reduce the chance of minorities which are already underrepresented in All India Service. At the same time, the view of the Ministry was that there was an emergent need to deploy trained personnel within a short period which could be recruited through LCE. As per the government, it lacks the infrastructure to train a batch of 200 IPS recruits and, therefore, the initial suggestion of UPSC was not viable. Be as it may, as stated above, the matter was ultimately discussed at all levels and the UPSC, Ministry of Law etc. have fallen in line.
11. The decision taken cannot be nullified by the Court or rendered invalidated merely on the ground that it is not very wise decision and there were better alternatives.
12. The manner in which posts are to be filled up including the methodology and the modalities thereof is the prerogative of the employer. Once a policy decision is taken based on expert advice and all the aspects are thrashed out, it cannot be treated as without application of mind or arbitrary. Such functions are best left for the executive and Courts should not interfere with the same. The Honble High Court of Delhi had perused the relevant file and thoroughly examined the procedure followed for consultation and deliberations by the State Government and then upheld the notifications. Therefore, it is not possible for us, after going through the judgments of the Honble Courts, to accept the argument of the learned counsel for the applicants that the question of validity of the notification is still res integra since the Tribunal is not bound by the final decision but only by the ratio deci dendi and that the ratio deci dendi are not applicable as the orders are per incuriam as the Honble High Courts did not have the advantage of many of the facts/law placed before them.
25. In our view, when there is clear finding of the Honble High Courts upholding the notification and clearly stating that they are satisfied that the government has taken the due process of consultation and then taken a decision and SLPs are filed against those orders in the Honble Supreme Court, it is does not lie in the domain of this Tribunal to treat the issue as res integra. And this includes the question of age limit and cut-off date for ascertaining the age limit as well as the Honble Assam High Court had gone into this aspect specifically and upheld this provision of the notification. Therefore, we conclude that the OAs cannot be allowed and, therefore, are dismissed. In view of the disposal of these OAs, the interim orders are vacated. No costs.
26. Before we part, we wish to make one observation. Given the overwhelming views expressed by experts and police organizations against such a policy and given the fact that more than two years have passed indicating that, perhaps, there is no urgency as thought of earlier, the Respondents may consider reviewing the decision for LCE, through a broad based expert committee and then take a final view in the matter.
( P.K. Basu ) ( V. Ajay Kumar ) Member (A) Member (J) /dkm/