V.Balakrishna Eradi, J. - (1.) The petitioners in these two writ petitions are two officers of the State Police Force who were occupying posts equivalent to that of Superintendent of Police at the time of filing these original petitions. The petitioner in O.P. No.2236 of 1977 was holding the post of Commandant, Armed Reserve, Trivandrum and the writ petitioner in O.P. No. 3258 of 1977 was holding the post of Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Northern Range, Calicut. The grievance put forward by the petitioners is that they have been illegally and unjustifiably superseded for promotion to the Indian Police Service Cadre at a selection conducted in 1977 and that five other officers who have been impleaded as respondent Nos. 5 to 9 in O.P. No 2236 of 1977 (respondent Nos. 4 to 8 in O.P. 3258 of 1977) who, according to the petitioners, did not even possess the requisite qualifying service prescribed by the rules, were illegally promoted overlooking the petitioners legitimate claims. They have accordingly challenged the validity of the said selection conducted in February, 1977 and prayed that the selection of the aforementioned respondents for promotion to the I.P.S. Cadre should be quashed and that a mandamus should be issued by this court directing the State of Kerala, the Union of India and the Union Public Service Commission (respondent Nos. 1 to 3) to consider the petitioners claims for promotion and appoint the petitioners to the Indian Police Service.
(2.) The petitioner in O. P. No. 2236 of 1977 - Sri A. K. Balakrishnan Nambiar - joined service as a Sergeant in the Armed Reserve in January, 1947. After working in various capacities he was appointed as Assistant Commandant, Armed Reserve on 10-10-1964, Subsequently, on 16-5-1977 the petitioner was appointed as Commandant of the Armed Reserve. The petitioner contends that the post of Assistant Commandant, Armed Reserve has been declared by the State Government to be equivalent to that of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Principal Police Force of the State and since the petitioner had put in more than 8 years of service in the said capacity he was fully eligible for consideration for promotion to the Indian, Police Service under the relevant provisions of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner has an excellent record of unblemished service and besides earning several encomiums from his superior officers he was also awarded the President's Police Medal in the year 1970 in recognition of his outstanding service. The petitioner contends that in view of the excellent record of his service there could be no valid justification at all for superseding him in the matter of promotion to the Indian Police Service, if only there had been a just and fair consideration of the petitioners claims by the Selection Committee. It is contended by the petitioner that respondent Nos. 5, 7 and 8 (Messrs. A. K. Veeramani, v. V. Abdulla Shafee and A. K. Gopala Menon) did not have the minimum qualifying service of 8 years; as Deputy Superintendents of Police on the 1st day of Jan. 1977 and that hence they were not eligible at all for being, considered for promotion. It is contended by the petitioner that the fact that, the selection has been made "overreaching the qualifications prescribed" clearly indicates mala fides. The petitioner has further alleged that Sri Veeramani was given an extension of service by the State Government "presumably with the only object that he may not retire before Indian Police Service is conferred on him" and that "the whole process was engineered with the sole purpose of benefiting some persons."
(3.) The writ petitioner in O. P. No. 3258 of 1977 - Sri. D. Ahamed Kutty - joined the Police Dept, as, the Sub-Inspector of Police in 1946. He was appointed as a Deputy Superintendent of Police on 9-7-1968 and was later-promoted as Superintendent of Police in the State Police Service. The petitioner submits that he has an excellent record of service and has earned as many as sixty-three rewards for good work. He was also the recipient of the. Presidents Indian Police Medal in 1970. The petitioner has produced and marked as Ext. P-1 a copy of the citation read on the occasion of the presentation of the Police Medal to him on Independence Day 1970. Besides raising all the points that have been urged by the writ petitioner in O.P. No. 2236 for challenging the validity of the promotions given to respondent Nos. 4 to 8 herein, the petitioner has raised a further contention that officers holding the posts of Assistant Commandants in the Armed Police are not entitled to be considered for selection to the Indian Police Service Cadre, since there has not been any valid declaration by the Kerala Government that the post of Assistant Commandant, Armed Police is equivalent to that of Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Principal Police Service. In as much as the 4th respondent has been selected and promoted to the Indian Police Force on the basis of the erroneous assumption that the service rendered by him as Assistant Commandant in Armed Police could be treated as equivalent to service as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Kerala Police Service the petitioner contends that the selection of the 4th respondent is liable to be declared illegal and void. (In respect of this contention there is a direct conflict between this petitioner and the writ petitioner in O. P. No. 2236 of 1977 who belongs to the State Armed Police and whose claim for relief in the writ petition is based on the specific plea that by virtue of his having held the post of Assistant a Commandant in the Armed Police for more than eight years he was eligible to be selected and promoted into the Indian Police Service). It is averred by the writ petitioner that judged by any reasonable test, his record of service is far superior to that of respondent Nos. 4 to 8 and that respondents Nos. 4 and 6 to 8 are also juniors in relation to himself. The petitioner contends that there has not been a just and fair consideration of his claim for promotion and that hence the impugned selection and promotions are violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.;