Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4.1 Thereafter, the Tribunal held that since the promotees had been working as Sub-Inspectors for a long period even before recruitment of the direct recruits, the Memorandum issued by the Director General of Police was valid.

4.2 The Tribunal further observed that the temporary Sub Inspectors had continued as such for number of years and they were otherwise qualified to be promoted to the post of regular Sub-Inspectors of Police, but they were not earlier promoted because of the absence of the Range Promotion Board. In the earlier round of litigation, the Tribunal had held that such persons can be regularised from the date of their earlier appointment as temporary Sub-Inspectors of Police and only in accordance with such direction, the Memorandum dated 16.4.1999 has been issued regularising such persons with effect from February, 1995 and November, 1995 and there was nothing illegal or improper in such regularisation. Giving of such retrospective regularisation was also based on equitable principle and accordingly there was nothing arbitrary in such decision. On the basis of the aforesaid conclusion, the Original Applications were dismissed.

10. The contention of the petitioners to the effect that the Tribunal has committed an error in holding that the seniority of the direct recruits should be considered from the date of the training and the subsequent posting, may be correct. But, even if the above view is taken, the question which still remains is whether the order regularising the services of the promotees /ASIs with effect from an earlier date was justified. Even assuming that seniority of the direct recruits should be counted from 1.3.1996, the date on which they were asked to undergo training, yet if the order regarding retrospective regularisation / fixation of seniority is accepted, the petitioners may not be entitled to any benefit. It is therefore necessary to consider whether the official respondents are justified in regularising the promotion of the ASIs with effect from an earlier date.

11. The Tribunal has referred to several decisions of the Supreme Court, wherein counting of seniority of a temporary promotee from the date of his initial temporary promotion has been considered as valid. In the present case, it has been emphasised by the Tribunal that there was no Range Promotion Board for a quite long period and the ASIs / Head Constables were promoted on temporary basis. In such peculiar circumstances, when the Tribunal had directed that such persons may be considered for regularisation without going through the Range Promotion Board on review of their performance, which has been implemented by the Government and the seniority has been given from an earlier date, such decision of the official respondents cannot be characterised as arbitrary. As a matter of fact, almost under similar circumstances, the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2003(4) Supreme 332 = (2003) 5 SCC 511 (SANTHOSH KUMAR v. STATE OF ANDHRA PRDDESH AND OTHERS) has upheld the action of the Government in giving retrospective regularisation in relaxation of the Rules. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the said decision is applicable to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.