Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. In all this group of petitions the facts are interconnected and to some extent the issues involved are also interconnected and therefore they are being dealt with by this common judgment.

2. The short facts of the case are that during the period prior to 1980 the recruitment to the post of Police Sub Inspector (hereinafter referred to as "PSI" for short) was made by separate Recruitment Board constituted under the provisions of Gujarat Police Manual, 1971 Part I Rule 61. The said Selection Committee was headed by the Inspector General of Police. It appears that during the period of 1980 vide Notification, dated 21.1.1980 such work for recruitment for the post of PSI in the State was entrusted to Gujarat Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "GPSC" for short). It further appears that thereafter there was a report of Bavecha Committee and it was recommended in the said report that the recruitment of Class I & II officers should be concentrated by the Public Service Commission and the recruitment of Class III officers should be handed over to different agency according to need. Therefore, accordingly, the State Govt had constituted a Subordinate Staff Selection Board for the recruitment of various Cl.III cadres and the work for such purpose was entrusted to the said Board in the year 1991 and it was taken out from the purview of GPSC as per notification, dated 23.4.1991. It is the case of the State Govt that on account of aforesaid process of recruitment Class III cadres and the work for such purpose was entrusted to the said Board in the year 1991 and it was taken out from the purview of GPSC as per notification, dated23.4.1991. It is the case of the State Govt that on account of aforesaid process of recruitment of Class III cadres being assigned to Staff Selection Board, the matter was considered and the Govt had thought it fit to constitute a separate and independent Recruitment Board for un-Armed PSIs being Cl.III cadre and such Board was to be made under the Home Dept of the State Govt and therefore ultimately vide resolution, dated 9.10.1997 of the State Govt, the PSI recruitment Board was constituted and simultaneously the Recruitment Rules were also framed for the post of PSI in exercise of powers under section 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951. It may be stated that in the mean time vide Notification dated 28.8.97 function for recruitment of PSI was excluded from the purview of GPSC by deleting Entry No. 22 Cl(h) which was earlier in existence. It is the case of the State Govt that such Gujarat Police Sub Inspector Recruitment Board (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") is required to be constituted as and when recruitment process for the post of PSI is to be undertaken and after the process is over, the Board shall stand dissolved. In the present case it is the case of the State Govt that such Board came to be constituted on 31.1.1999 comprising of Mr.A.K.Bhargava, Addl.Director General of Police (Admn) as the Chairman and other members being Mr.K.Nityanandam, Secretary (Home), Mr.A.I.Saiyed, IGP, & Principal, PTC, Junagadh and Mr.Pramodkumar, DIG(Int), Gujarat Stae.

(iv) On the basis of observations and findings on the aforesaid three points, whether the concerned petitioners will be entitled to any relief and, if yes, to what extent?

20. Since the submissions made on behalf of respective petitioners and on behalf of concerned respondents are to some extent co-related and to some extent common and when the interest is common, for the sake of convenience, they shall be dealt with at appropriate place to the extent they are found relevant by record.

21. The contentions raised by Mr.Tushar Mehta and Mr.Rathod are that taking away the power from the Public Service Commission(in the present case GPSC) by excluding the mode of recruitment for the post of PSI is in violation of Articles 315 and 320 of the Constitution of India. It has been submitted that the post of PSI is an important post and therefore with a view to maintain the spirit of the Constitution in any event the mode of recruitment for the post of PSI ought not to have been excluded from the purview of GPSC which was in existence prior to 1980. It has also been submitted that such exclusion specifically violates Article 320(1) and the provisions of Sub.Article (3) of Article 320 enables the power to the President or the Governor of the State, as the case may be for granting exemption in respect of the matters specified in Sub-Article (3) of Article 320 only but the requirement for conducting of examination for appointment to the services of the State for any post is compulsory in view of the mandate of Article 320(1) of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the GPSC at the relevant point of time has also objected for excluding the mode of recruitment for the post of PSI from its purview for conducting the examination and the other selection process. It is also submitted that the Recruitment Board which is constituted under the Bombay Police Act is of a peculiar type, namely, that it has no permanent existence and it gets constituted only when the recruitment is to take place and it automatically gets dissolved as and when the recruitment process is over and therefore such power can not be assigned to the Board to undertake the recruitment process for the important post of PSI and therefore it is submitted that the process undertaken by the Board for selection is unconstitutional and void.

23. Even otherwise also, by the notification dated 21.1.1980 the recruitment for the post of PSI was included within the purview of GPSC and it continued for a period of ten years and as per the notification dated 23.4.1991 the same was taken out from the purview of GPSC on account of Bavecha Committee report recommending the concentration for the recruitment of Class I & II cadres of the State services by GPSC and for assigning the work of recruitment of Class III cadre to different agency. The aforesaid notification was issued in the year 1991 and the petitioners have approached in the year 1999 and thereafter that too after having applied for the post pursuant pursuant to the advertisement issued by the Board. It further appears that inclusion of various cadres in State services and assigning of such work and the process of regulating such work by GPSC is legislative function of the State and the scope of judicial scrutiny to the challenge to such legislative function would be very limited. Attempt made on behalf petitioners that as per the scheme of the Constitution of India and more particularly in view of Article 320 of the Constitution of India, the power of holding the examination vests with the PSC only and not with any other authority no longer detains me further because as back as in the year 1957 in the case of State of UP vs M.L.Srivastava reported in AIR 1957 SC 912, the Apex Court has held that Article 320(3)(c) of the Constitution of India does not confer any right on a public servant and it is not a right which can be recognised and enforced by writ. It is pertinent to note that in the aforesaid decision the Apex Court has held that the provisions of Article 320(3)(c) are not mandatory and noncompliance thereof does not afford cause of action to the public servant a court of law.

25. In view of the aforesaid position of law settled by the Apex Court, I can not accept the contentions that the power of recruitment for the post of PSI must vest with the Public Service Commission. So far as Article 320(1) is concerned, in my view, it can not be read in isolation as sought to be canvassed on behalf of petitioners. The duties assigned under Sub-Article (1) of Article 320 can be read only if such provisions are made under Sub-Article (3). In any event, no right can be said to have been conferred on the petitioners if such examinations are not held by GPSC since it was not assigned with such functions as per regulations. Whether the PSC can allow the regulations for inclusion and/or exclusion of its powers for conducting of examination for services of the State or not, in my view, is not a question which is required to be decided at this stage since the GPSC has not approached this court and therefore the said question is kept open.