UNION OF INDIAversusK.H. SRINIVASAN & ORS.

                             12008] 13 s:c.R. 743


                              UNION OF !NOIA                                 A
                                       V.
                          K.H. SRINIVASAN & ORS.
                    (Civil Appeal No. 5745-47 Of 2008)
                           SEPTEMBER 19, 2008
                                                                             B
           [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM
                          SHARMA, JJ.]

             Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regu-
       lations, 1955 - High Court directing appointment of an appli-         c
       cant to the /PS against a vacancy, that occurred in 1998, with
       effect from 18-01-2000 - Challenge to - Held: High Court had
       not considered the effect of the amendment to the Regula-
       tions in 1997 - Matter remitted to it to consider the matter afresh
       in the light of the amended Regulations.
                                                                             D
            The. High Court, by the impugned judgment, directed
       appointment of a applicant to the Indian Police Service
       (IPS) against a vacancy, that occurred in 1998, w.e.f. 18-
       01-2000. While passing such directions, the High Court
       placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Syed E
       Khalid's case and Vipinchandra Hirata/ Shah's case ..
            In appeals to this Court, the judgment of the High
       Court is challenged on the ground that it did not keep in
  y    view the effect of the amendment made to the Indian Po-
       lice Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations,                  F
       1955 in 1997 as well as the scope and ambit of Regula-
       tion 5.
            Allowing the appeals, the Court
            HELD: The pre and post amendment Regulation 5 G
       of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion)
'-1.   Regulations, 1955 are conceptually different. Since the
       High Court. has not considered the effect of the amend-
       ment to the Regulations in 1997 and applicability of the
                                  743                           H
    744       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 13 S.C.R.


A   ratio in Syed Khalid's case and Vipinchandra Hirata/ Shah's
    case thereafter, it would be appropriate to set aside the
    impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the mat-
    ter to it to consider the matter afresh in the light of the
    amended Regulations. [Paras 9,10] [749-A-C]
B         Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1993)
    Suppl. 3 SC 575 and Union of India & Ors. v. Vipinchandra
    Hirata/ Shah (1996) 6 SCC 721 - referred to.
                           Case Law Reference
c         (1993) Suppl. 3 SC 575 referred to              Para 6
          (1996) 6 sec 721            referred to         Para 6

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    5745-47 of 2008
D
         From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.3.2005 of the
    High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 14837
    of 2001 (CAT) (S), 14843 of 2001 and 35109 of 2001 (S-CAT)

         Vikas Singh, ASG, Rekha Pandey and Sushma Suri for
E   the Appellant.

         P.R. Ramasesh, Binu Tamta, S.N. Bhat, Sanjay R. HegdE,
    Amit Kumar Chawla and A. Rohan Singh for the Respondents.

          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
          Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
          2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division
    Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing the writ petitions
    by directing as follows:
G         'This takes us to the kind of relief that we may grant in
          these writ petitions, having regard to the subsequent
          developments brought to our notice. It is seen that if the     y
          selection committee were to conduct separate selection
          process by drawing up separate list to l'i:I up 011e vacancy
H
             UNION OF INDIA v. K.H. SRINIVASAN & ORS.           745
                     [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

          that occurred in the year 1998, the appellant alone could A
          have been selected to l.P.S. inasmuch as the other two
          candidates who could have come under zone of
          consideration were admittedly found to be 'unfit'. Of the
          three selected candidates, Sri S.S. Annegowda, Petitioner
          in Writ Petition No. 14842 of 2001 died during the ·B
          pendency of the writ petition. Since, the two others
          including Sri S.S.Annegowda who would have come under
          zone of consideration with regard to the vacancy that
          occurred during the year 1998 are found to be unfit, they
          would be unfit for consideration even with regard to the     c
          two vacancies that arose in the year 1999. In that view of
          the matter, there is no need to disturb the appointment of
          the two writ petitioners to the l.P.S. viz., K.H. Srinivasan
          (Petitioner in W.P.No.14837 of 2001) and, H.N.Siddanna
          (Petitioner in W.P.No.14843 of 2001.
 "                                                                      D
          In the result, we dispose of these writ petition, and, in
          substitution of the impugned order of the Tribunal, we direct
          the official respondents to appoint the applicant B.
          Jkamalanabhan to the IPS against the vacancy that
          occurred in the year 1998 with effect from 18.01.2000, the E
          date of the Notification impugned before the Tribunal with
          all consequential benefits, pecuniary and otherwise,
          flowing therefrom. In the facts and circumstances of the
          case, the parties shall bear their respective costs."
'1
           3. Before the High Court it was urged by the respondents    F
     as follows:
          "The fourth respondent, namely, Sri B. Kamalanabhan in
          Writ petition No. 14837 of 2001 is the applicant in O.A.
          No. 655 of 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the 'applicant'
                                                                      G
          for the sake of convenience). The applicant was initially
'(        appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police, a Group
          A Junior Scale Post in the Karnataka State Police Service
          (hereinafter referred to as 'KSPS') in the year 1982. The
          applicant was promoted as superintendent of police, a
                                                                      H
    746         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2008] 13 S.C.R.   ,..

A         Group A Senior Scale Post in the KSPS in the year 1991.
          We were told that the applicant retired from service on
          attaining the age of superannuation on 31. 51 May, 2003 at
          the age of 58 years."
        4. According to learned counsel for the appellant the ef-
                                                                          ..
B feet of the amendment to the Regulations in 1997 and scope
  and ambit of Regulation 5 has not been kept in view by the High
  Court. The Regulations are Indian Police Service (Appointment
  by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (in short the 'Regulation').

c       5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand
    supported the judgment of the High Court.
        6. It appears that the High Court placed reliance on the
  decision of this Court in Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of
  India & Ors. [1993 Suppl. (3) SC 575] and Union of India &
D Ors. v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah [1996(6) SCC 721]. Stand              r
  of the appellant-Union of India with the relevant Regulations have
  been amended with effect from 1997 by Indian Police Service
  (Appointment by Promotion) Amendment Regulations, 1997 (in
  short 'Amendment Regulations'). The High Court did not con-
E sider  the effect of the amendment, more particularly, the pro-
  viso (c) to Regulation. Same in its entirety including proviso (c)
  reads as follows:
          "5. Preparation of a list of suitable officers:

F         (1)   Each Committee shall ordinarily meet at intervals
                not exceeding one year and prepare a list of such
                members of the State Police Service, as are held by
                them to be suitable for promotion to the service. The
                number of members of the State Police Service to
                be included in the list shall be determined by the
G
                Central Government in consultation with the State
                Government, and shall not exceed the number of                  y
                substantive vacancies as on the first day of January
                of the year in which the meeting is held, in the posts
                available for them under Rule 9 of the recruitment
H
                  UNION OF INDIA v. K.H. SRINIVASAN & ORS.            747
                          [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

                    rules. The date and venue of the meeting of the           A
                    Committee to make the Selection shall be
                    determined by the Commission:
            Provided that no meeting of the Committee shall be held,
            and no list of the year in question shall be prepared when,
                                                                              B
            (a)     there are no substantive vacancies as on the first
                    day of January of the year in the posts available for
                    the members of the State Police Service under rule
                    9 of the recruitment rules; or

            (b)     the Central Government in consultation with the State     c
                    Government decides that no recruitment shall be
                    made during the year to the substantive vacancies
                    as on the first day of January of the year in the posts
                    available for the members of the State Police Service
  '1                under rule 9 of the recruitment rules; or                 D
            (c)     the Commission, on its own or on a proposal made
                    in either the Central Government or the State
                    Government, after considering the facts and
                    circumstances of each case, decides that it is not
                    practicable to hold a meeting of the Committee to         E
                    make the selection to prepare a select list.
            Explanation: In the case of joint cadres, a separate list
 .,         shall be prepared in respect of each State Police Service."
             7. The stand of the appellant in a nutshell is that Syed F
       Khalid's case (supra) will not have any application after 1996.
       The un-amended Regulation 5 with the 3rc1 proviso makes the
       position clear that the decision in Syed Khalid's case (supra)
       and Vipinchandra Hirata/ Shah's case (supra) had 110 applica-
       tion after the amendment in 1997.                               G

-..         8. The Rule prior to 1997 amendment reads as follows:
            "5. Preparation of a list of suitable officers -
            (2) The Committee shall consider for inclusion in the said
                                                                              H
    748        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008] 13 S.C.R.


A         list, the cases of members of the State Civil Services in
          the order of a seniority in that service of a number which
          is equal to three times the number referred to in sub-
          regulation (1 ):
                                                                           ~
          Provided that such restriction shall not apply in respect of
B         a State where the total number of eligible officers is less
          than three times the maximum p_e·rmissible size of the
          Se!ect List and in such a case the Committee shall consider
          all the eligible officers:

c         Provided further that in computing the numbers for inclusion
          in the field of consideration, the number of officers referred
          to in sub-regulation (3) shall be excluded:
          Provided also that the Committee shall not consider the
          case of a member of the State Civil service unless on the
D         first day of January of the year in which it meets he is
          substantive in the State Civil Service and has completed
          not less than eight years of continuous service (whether
          officiating or substantive) in the post of Deputy Collector
          or in any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto
E         by the State Government.
          Provided also that in terms of any released Emergency
          Commissioned or short Service Commissioned Officers
          appointed to the estate Civil Service, eight years of
          continuous service as required under the preceding proviso
F         shall be counted from the deemed date of their
          appointment to that service, subject to the condition that
          such officers shall be eligible for consideration if they have
          completed not less than fou~ years of actual continuous
          service, on the first day of the January of the year in which
G         the committee meets, in the post of Deputy Collector or in
          any other post or posts declared equivalent thereto by the
          State Government.
          Explanation - The powers of the State Government under
          the third proviso to this sub-regulation shall be exercised
H
                UNION OF INDIA v. K.H. SRINIVASAN & ORS.           749
                        [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

            in relation to the members of the State Civil Service of a A
            constituent State, by the Government of that State."
            9. The pre and post amendment Regulation 5 are con-
       ceptually different.
              10. Since the High Court has not considered the effect of B
       the amendment in 1997 and the applicability of the ratio in Syed
       Khalid's case (supra) and Vipinchandra Hirata/ Shah's case
       (supra) thereafter, it would be appropriate to set aside the im-
       pugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter to it to
       consider the matter afresh in the light of the amended Regula- c
       tions.
            11. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.
       B.B.B.                                      Appeals allowed .




.•



  \

=t

- ,/




--;