Supreme Court of India
STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.versusMAHESH KUMAR AND ORS ETC. ETC.
- Citation
- 1997 INSC 447
- Decided
- 29 April 1997
- Disposal
- Leave Granted & Allowed
Holding
The power to grant relaxation of marks includes the power to withdraw it on valid grounds, and the candidates had no vested right, so the withdrawal did not violate natural justice.
Summary
The respondents, who were Head Constables, appeared for the promotion examination to Assistant Sub‑Inspectors in December 1993. Because very few candidates passed, the Director‑General of Police (DGP) granted 15% grace marks to general candidates and 10% to reserved‑category candidates, but only for the Jabalpur zone, resulting in many additional passers who were subsequently sent for training. The DGP later realized the relaxation was erroneous and withdrew the grace marks without hearing the affected candidates. The Madhya Pradesh Administrative Tribunal held that the withdrawal violated the principles of natural justice, but the Supreme Court examined whether the candidates had any vested right to the grace marks and whether the power to relax marks could be withdrawn. The Court held that the candidates had no vested right, that the power to grant relaxation includes the power to withdraw on valid grounds, and that no breach of audi alteram partem occurred. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order was set aside and the appeals were allowed, confirming the withdrawal of the grace marks.
Issues considered
- Whether the withdrawal of granted grace marks without hearing the candidates violates the principles of natural justice.
- Whether candidates who were granted grace marks acquire a vested right to such relaxation.
- Whether the power to grant relaxation of marks includes the power to withdraw the same on valid grounds.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 16(4)
- Madhya Pradesh Police Regulationss. 50-A, s. 70
Subjects
service lawpolice promotiongrace marksnatural justicevested rightpromotion examinationArticle 16(4)Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations
Judgment
A STATE OF M.P. AND ORS.
v.
MARESH KUMAR AND ORS ETC. ETC.
APRIL 29, 1997
B [K. RAMASWAMY, S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND
G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.) -
Service Law :
M.P. Police Regulations :
c _._
Regulation. 7<>-Promotion of Head Constables to the posts of Assis-
tant Sub-lnspectors--Examinatiom-Adequate number of candidates could
not qualify-Grace marks 15% to general category candidates and 10% to
reserved category candidate$ allowed--Candidates so selected sent for train-
D inir-l..ater, realising the mistakes, relaxation withdrawn-Held, candidates
who failed had no vested right for grant ofgrace marks-l'ower to relax would
include power to withdraw on valid grounds-If candidates were not heard
before withdrawal of relaxation, principle of natural justice not violated--Can-
didates who have already undergone training would not be sent for fresh
training in the event of their passing the written examinations-Natura/ justice.
E
Legal Maxim-Audi alterem parte11t'-'-Discussed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3573 of
1997 Etc. Etc.
F From the Judgment and Order dated 28.2.96 of the Madhya Pradesh
Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 110 of 1995.
Anoop G. Choudhary, Yogamaya Agnihotri, S.K. Agnihotri, Madhur
Dadlani, Rajendra Singhvi, Shiv Sagar Tiwari, Prakash Srivastava, S.V.
G Deshpande and Ashok Kumar Singh for the appearing parties.
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Delay condoned.
-
H Leave granted. We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
1098
STATE v. MAHESH KUMAR 1099
These appeals, by special leave, arise from the orders of the Madhya A
Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, made on February 28,
1996 in O.A. No. 110/95 and batch.
The admitted facts are that the respondents are Head Constables.
For promotion as Assistant-Sub-Inspectors, examinations were conducted
on 29th and 30th December, 1993 throughout the State comprising of B
different zones. 50% of the total marks were prescribed as passing marks
for general candidates and 40% for the reserved candidates belonging to
Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (for short, 'Dalits and Tribes'
respectively). Only one Dalit candidate and three general candidates
passed with the prescribed standard and the rest of the Head Constables C
..J.
in Jabalpur Zone failed. Consequently, the Inspector General of Police .
Jabalpur Zone had suggested to the Director General of Police (D.G.P.)
to award 15% grace marks to the general candidates and 10% grace marks
to the reserved category. The D.G.P. agreed for the same. As a conse-
quence, 60 candidates belonging to the general category and 15 candidates
belonging to the reserved category were declared passed. They were cm- D
panelled for appointment to the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors and were
sent for training. Realising the mistake committed by the D.G.P., that
relaxation could not be granted only in respect of one zone, the relaxation
was withdrawn by proceedings dated December 2, 1994. The said order
came to be challenged by the respondents. in the the Tribunal. The Tribunal E
has held that since the empannelled candidates were not heard before
withdrawing of the grant of further additional grace marks, it is violative
of principles of natural justice; therefore, the order is bad in law and
accordingly it allowed the O.As. Thus, these appeals by special leave.
The only question that arises for consideration is : whether the view F
taken by the Tribunal is correct in law? It is not in dispute that under
Section 70 of the M.P. Police Regulations, power has been given to issue
orders to be notified in the Gazette. It reads as under :
"70. The system of promotions in the subordinate executive ranks G
will be as laid down in the supplement to the Madhya Pradesh
Police Gazette dated 5.10.1960."
Accordingly notification came to be made in the Gazette on October
5, 1960. Clause l(viii) indicates that "papers for the qualifying examination
(as laid down in Central Provinces and Berar Police Regulation, 115) will H
1100 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.
A be set by such of the Superintendents of the Constables Training Schools
as may be nominated by the Inspector-General of Police."
The papers were directed to be set down in the order prescribed there-
under, Clause (2) to (7) postulate thus :
B "(2) Promotion to Head constables to Assistant-Sub- Inspectors
(1) Eighty per cent (80%) of the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors
will be filled in by promotion of Head Constables who qualify at
--
an examination to be held each year. A Head Constable will be
given three (3) chances to appear at the examination. The subjects
c and papers for the examination will be the same as for the Suh-
Inspector cadets at the Madhya Pradesh Police Training College,
Sagar. In order to qualify for the examination a Head Constable
should have put in at least three (3) years' service as a Head
Constable if he is a matriculate, and if not, he ~hould have put in
a minimum of five (5) years as Head Constable. Out of this, he
D should have worked for at least one ( 1) year al a police State, the
C.I.D. or Special Branch experience being quoted to that at the
Police Station.
(ii) Twenty per cent (20)% of the Posts will be filled in by
E nomination of Head Constables who have a minimum of fifteen
(15) years' overall service at the time of promotion. For this,
nominations will be submitted by the Superintendents of Police by
1st of May each year.
F Records of Head Constables who qualify in the examination
and those nominated by Superintendents of Police through the
Deputy Inspectors-General of Police will be examined by a Com-
mittee of the Deputy Inspectors-General of Police. The fit list will
be prepared by 1st of June.
G (iii) Head Constables brought on the fit list will be required to
pass the Pre-promotion course to be held at the Constables Train-
ing School of the Range. One extra chance will be given to the
Head Constable who fails in the Pre-promotion course. The year
of allotment will be the one in which the name is brought on the
H fit list.
STATE v. MAHESH KUMAR 1101
(iv) Seniority of Head Constable brought on the fit list will be A
prepared by the Committee of the Deputy Inspectors- General of
Police according to the rules of service.
(3) Promotion of Assistant Sub-Inspectors to Sub- Inspectors; (1)
Superintendents of Police will be required to nominate deserving
Assistant Sub-Inspectors who have put in a minimum of five (5)
B
years' service as Assistant Sub-Inspector and the Deputy Inspec-
tors-General of Police Committee will prepare the fit list by
Scrutiny of records by the end of June each year. Nominations will
be submitted by the Superintendent of Police through the Deputy
Inspectors-General of Police by Ist May, each year and the Deputy C
Inspectors-General of Police Committee will prepare the list by
the end of June. The fit list for a particular year will be according
lo seniority of service as Assistant Sub-Inspector.
(ii) Officers brought on the fit list will be required to pass a D
Pre-promotion course at the Constables Training School of the
Range. Those failing at the course will be given one extra chance,
without disturbing the year of nomination.
(4) Promotion of Sub-Inspectors in Circle Inspectors : (i) Super-
intendents of Police will nominate deserving Sub- Inspectors who E
have put in a minimum of eight years (8) if Directly appointed and
five years (5) if promoted. The Committee of the Deputy Inspec-
tors-General of Police will interview these Officers, scrutinise their
record and prepare the fit list by the end of June. Fifty per cent
(50%) of the marks will be reserved for interview and the remain- F
ing fifty per cent (50%) marks for records. Nominations will be
submitted by the Superintendents of Police by 1st of May each
year. According to standing orders, the name of a sub-Inspector
who has put in 9 to 12 years' service but has not been nominated
will be reported to the Range Deputy Inspector-General of
Police together with reasons for not nominating him. G
(ii) The names of officers nominated in a particular year will be
arranged according to the length of service as Sub- Inspector. For
this purpose, the length of service of a promotee will be counted
from the date of confirmation as Sub-Inspector. H
1102 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 3 S.C.R.
A (iii) Officers brought on the fit list will be required to undergo a
pre-promotion course at the Madhya Pradesh Police Training
College, Sagar. One who fails in the course will be given one extra
chance without disturbing his year of nomination.
{
(5) Promotion of Sub-Inspectors to Assistant Police Prosecutors :
B Fifteen per cent (15%) of the Assistant Police Prosecutors posts
will be filled in by nomination of willing and suitable sub-Inspectors
Nominations will be submitted by the Superintendents of Police by
Ist of May each year and the Committee of the Deputy Inspectors-
General of Police will prepare the list by the end of June.
c (6) Promotion of Sub-Inspectors of Platoon Commanders to Sub-
edars : Fifteen per cent (15%) of the Subedar's posts will be filled
in by promotion of willing and suitable Sub-Inspectors or Platoon
Commanders. Nominations will be submitted by the Superinten-
dents/Commandants of Police by 1st of May each year and the
D Committee of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police will prepare
the list by the End of June.
(7) Promotion of Assistant Police Prosecutor to Police
Prosecutors : The system of promotion will be the same as for
sub-Inspectors to the rank Circle Inspectors. A direct Assistant
E Police Prosecutor with a minimum service of eight years (8) and
a promoted Assistant Police Prosecutor with Five years (5) service
will normally be eligible for promotion as Police Prosecutor.
Nominations will be submitted by Superintendent of Police through
---
Deputy Inspectors-General of Police, list on 1st of May each year
F and the Committee of the Deputy Inspector- General of Police
will prepare the list by the end of June. The Committee will also
interview the officers in addition to scrutinising the records. Fifty
per cent (50%) of the marks will be reserved for interview and
fifty per cent (50%) marks will be for records. Seniority in the fit
list will be by length of service."
G
In furtherance thereof, the examinations came to be conducted and
the marks were relaxed to the extent to Dalits and Tribes by virtue of the
Memorandum dated February 15, 1978 issued by the Government in
respect for the reserved candidates relaxing 10% of the marks. This was in
H exercise of the power under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. As regards
STATE v. MAHESH KUMAR 1103
the general candidates, there is no power to grant relaxation. However, A
since the candidates were not available, a note had been put up for granting
relaxation and the D.G.P. gave the relaxation as found in the note sheet
thus:
"In pursuance of the personal discussion and telephonic conversa- B
tion with you, I am enclosing with this note sheet, the result of
examination of Head Constables to be promoted as Assistant
Sub-Inspector from my zone. The SC and ST candidates have
already been awarded 10% marks earlier. Out of the total 4
candidates declared successful only one candidate belongs to SC
category. The maximum marks for the Regulation paper were 200 C
while that of law were 100. Both the papers were so tough tha~ I
do not know how the candidates in the other zones passed par-
ticularly when the whole of the previous year was full of law and
order problems. Expecting Head Constables to study continuously
for a long period is virtually impossible. If an additional 15% marks D
are granted to the entire zone, 61 candidates of the general
category can be declared successful. In this manner total 76 can-
didates will be declared successful by giving 10% additional marks,
15 SC candidates will be declared to successful by giving grace
marks. Earlier in the year 1991, 1992, 175 and 44 candidates were
declared passed successful respectively. It is, therefore, requested E
that permission to give additional 15% grace and 10% marks be
given to general and SC category respectively."
Admittedly, this relaxation was only in relation to Jabalpur zone. In
all other zones, no such relaxation had been given. Consequently, the F
question arises; whether the action taken by the DGP in granting relaxation
to the Head Constables who appeared in the examinations held in Jabalpur
zone is correct? In view of the fact that no uniform rule applicable to all
the Head Constables throughout the State has been issued, obviously,
realising the mistake committed by him, the DGP had withdrawn the
relaxation granted earlier on February 9, 1994 by proceedings dated G
December 2, 1994. It is true that if any vested right is created in favour of
a person, the same cannot be deprived of or denied without affording to
I
him an opportunity of hearing on the principle of violation of audi alterem ·
partem. In this case, the Head Constables, who had written the examina-
tion, but failed to secure 50% or 40% in the General category and reserved H
1104 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] 3 S.C.R.
A category respectively, had no vested right for further grant of 15% and 10%
grace marks respectively. The reason being that if the DGP grants for only
one zone, they would scale a march over others who are similarly situated,
namely, who failed in other zones in the examination, but were not given
the same relaxation. In view of the above situation, the D.G.P. realising the
B mistake, has rightly withdrawn that relaxation and the 51 Head Constables
belonging to general candidates and 15 Head Constables belonging to
reserved category had no vested right in that behalf. The power to relax
would include the power to withdraw on valid grounds. Thereby, the
principle of natural Justice was not violated. The Tribunal, therefore, was
clearly in error in allowing the O.As. on the ground that it is violative of
C principles of natural justice.
Regulation 50-A of the Regulations reads thus :
"Assistant Sub-Inspectors shall be appointed by the Inspector-
General by promoting Head Constables whose names find in the
D list of Head Constables fit for trial as Assistant Sub- Inspectors,
to be prepared by a Committee of Deputy Inspector- General on
the recommendation of the District Superintendents of Police."
It is brought to our notice that some of the respondents who had
E been put up in the fit list were sent up for training and after completion
of the training they have been appointed as Assistant Sub-Inspectors. If any
of the respondents in these cases happened to be promoted in that manner,
since we are allowing the appeals, they are at liberty to sit in the examina-
tions in the subsequent years. In the event of their passing the written
examinations and coming into the fitmcnt list, since they have already
F undergone the training, they would not be sent for fresh training and will
be given promotions immediately after passing the examinations. They shall
be promoted on the basis of the order of allotment, i.e., from the date for
their immediate juniors in the respective years of allotment.
The appeals are accordingly allowed. No costs.
G
R.P. Appeals allowed.
--
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "service law"Sign in to search