Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

  S. No.         Name of the promotee officer           Date of retirement
1.             Shri P. Kishan Rao IPS (94)              31.3.2003
2.             Shri R. Sitarama Rao, IPS (80)           30.8.2003
3.             Shri P. Babji, IPS (80)                  30.9.2003

12. Four more vacancies have arisen due to the increase in the promotion quota from 59 to 63 consequent on the cadre review as notified vide notification dated 5.11.2003. As per Regulation 5(1) of the Promotion Regulations, the select list for the year 2004 has to be prepared for the above seven vacancies i.e., 4 + 3 vacancies, which are available as on 1.1.2004. In their letter dated 25.3.2004, the Government of India have already determined the vacancies for preparation of the select list for the year 2004 as seven. As per the integrated seniority list of the State Police Service officers published by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, the name of the applicant figures in the list of eligible officers at Sl. No. 14 i.e., below Shri PVS Ramakrishna (Sl. No. 13) and above Shri KVV Gopal Rao (Sl. No. 15). Since only three times the number of the vacancies are to be taken into consideration for the zone of consideration for the year 2003, the select list zone of consideration would be 4 x 3 = 12. Since the applicant is at Sl. No. 14 he has not come within the zone of consideration for the year 2003 select list.

25. In view of the above and since the Government of India has already determined the vacancies for preparation of the select list for the year 2003 as four vide letter dated 15.1.2003 which they have done in pursuance of the Regulation 5(1), the number of vacancies for 2003 is correctly determined as four only. The applicant's plea that the vacancies that arose during the year 2003 should be added to this and taken together as the vacancies for the year 2003 is not acceptable for the reasons discussed above. Similarly, the Government of India, vide letter dated 5.11.2003 have determined the vacancies for the year 2004 as seven in terms of the Regulation 5(1) above i.e., four vacancies which have arisen due to increase in promotion quota from 59 to 63 and three vacancies due to the retirement of promotee officers during the year 2003.

30. In the light of the above discussions, the OA fails and has to be dismissed. The OA is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

31. Now, in the instant case, it is admitted that as on 1st January, 2003 there were only four vacancies. So, according to the respondents 1 to 6, the select list for 2003 was prepared only for four vacancies as on 1.1.2003. There were three vacancies which arose due to the retirement of promotee officers during 2003. But these would have to be taken into account only for the next year as on 1st January. Of course, further four more vacancies arose due to increase of the promotion quota from 59 to 63. Thus, as on 1st January 2004, there were seven vacancies, according to the respondents. This is the point of dispute between the applicant and the respondents. The learned Counsel for the applicant, taking into account the interpretation of the 2nd proviso as above, argued that because there were no meetings held between 2003 and 2004 and when such a meeting was held in 2005, there shall be separate select lists for each year viz., 2003 and 2004 with the difference that for 2003 the vacancies not only standing as on 1.1.2003 shall be taken but also the vacancies that arose during the year 2003 i.e, as on 31st December of that year shall be taken. According to the learned Counsel for the applicant, the actual number of vacancies that should have been reckoned for the year 2003 is 4+3=7 and not only four. According to him, the vacancies for 2004 will be nil. Whereas the respondents have stated that the vacancy position has to be determined in accordance with the proviso to Regulation 5(1) and so they are bound by the number of vacancies as on 1st January of each year. Accordingly, the vacancies for 2003 will be only four and the vacancies that arose during the year 2003 would be reckoned as on 1st January 2004 and will be taken into account only for the year 2004, with the additional vacancies which will be seven for the year 2004 and not as stated by the applicant.

32. According to the first proviso, where no meeting is held during a particular year for the reasons other than those mentioned in the above proviso, that means, there being no vacancy or the Central Government decides that no recruitment shall be made, in such case, when the committee meets again, the select list shall be prepared separately for each year during which the Committee could not meet as on 31st December of each year. It is this portion of the Regulation which requires interpretation. A clear reading of the same shows that the second proviso does not lay down the procedure for determining the vacancies that are covered by the main proviso to Regulation 5(1). What is provided in the 2nd proviso is only that when the Committee meets after a gap of a period, then the select list will be prepared for each year. The words during which the committee could not meet as on 31st December of each year, will have to be read together. The learned Counsel for the applicant has argued that the words as on 31st December of each year would clarify that the select list shall be prepared separately for each year. We are afraid, such an interpretation is not correct, since the main Regulation has already laid down the procedure for determining the vacancies for any year i.e., substantive vacancies as on 1st January of that year. The proviso clause would not again touch upon the question of determining the vacancies once again. What all the 2nd proviso says is only that there shall be no clubbing and the select list shall be prepared separately each year during which the committee did not meet. To be abundantly clear, perhaps, the words as of 31st December of each year, has been placed in the proviso to make it beyond any doubt, in our opinion. In view of the above, since the Government of India has already determined the vacancies for preparation of the select list for the year 2003 as four vide letter dated 15.1.2003 which they have done in pursuance of the Regulation 5(1), the number of vacancies for 2003 is only four. The applicant's plea that the vacancies that arose during the year 2003 should be added to this and taken together as the vacancies for the year 2003 is not acceptable for the reasons mentioned above. Similarly, the Government of India, vide letter dated 5.11.2003 have determined the vacancies for the year 2004 as seven in terms of the Regulation 5(1) above i.e., four vacancies which have arisen due to increase in promotion quota from 59 to 63 and three vacancies due to the retirement of promotee officers during the year 2003. In the light of the above, we answer the point (a) in para 18 above in affirmative. None of the case laws cited by the applicant would come to his rescue. On the other hand, the case law cited by the respondents in the case of Vijay Singh Charak (supra) would apply to the present case. In the said case, their Lordships have held vide para 11 that there cannot be clubbing of the vacancies several years and there cannot be common select list for these years. Their observations in para 12 also are relevant wherein it has been observed as follows: