- (1.) In these appeals as well as the writ petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, a common question of law arises for consideration. The appellants are State Police Service Officers, who have been promoied to the Indian Police Service. The sole grievance of theirs in these matters is that inaction on the part of the Competent Authority to have triennial review, whether entitles the appellants to have a mandamus from the Court to have a review, in accordance with law and the consequential directions for reconsideration of the appellants for promotion to the post of Indian Police Service from an anterior date.
(2.) The tribunal in the impugned judgment, though came to the conclusion that there has not been a triennial review for re-determination of the cadre strength, in accordance with the statutory provisions, but refused to issue mandamus, on a finding that no prejudice thereby has been caused to the appellants, and as such the appellants are not entitled to the issuance of mandamus from the Court.
(3.) The Central Government, in consultation with the State Governments as well as the Union Public Service Commission, made the Regulation in exercise of powers under subrule (1) of Rule 9 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Recruitment Rules'] and a set of Regulations called the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Promotion Regulations']. The Central Government also in exer- cise of powers conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the All India Services Act, 1951 [hereinafter called 'the Act'] in consultation with the State Governments, framed a set of Rules called the Indian Police Service (Cadre) Rules, 1954 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Cadre Rules]. Rule 4 of the Cadre Rules, defines the strength of the cadre to mean : "Rule 4. Strength of Cadres. : (1) The strength and composition of each of the cadres constituted under rule 3 shall be as determined by regulations made by the Central Government in consultation with the State Governments in this behalf and until such regulations are made shall be as in force immediately before the commencement of these rules. (2) The Central Government shall, at intervals of every three years, rexamine the strength and composition of each such cadre in consultation with the State Government or the State Governments concerned and may make such alterations therein as it deems fit: Provided that nothing in this sub-rule shall be deemed to affect the power of the Central Government to alter the strength and composition of any cadre at any other time: Provided further that the State Government concerned may add for a period not exceeding one year and with the approval of the Central Government for a further period not exceeding two years, to a State or Joint Cadre one or more posts carrying duties or responsibilities of a like nature to cadre posts. "sub-rule (2) of Rule 4, as aforesaid makes it obligatory on the part of the Central Government to re-determine the strength and composition of each cadre at intervals of every three years. Notwithstanding the aforesaid provisions, contained in sub-rule (2) , the proviso to said sub-rule empowers the Central Government to alter the strength and composition of any cadre at any other time. The aforesaid Cadre Rules, more particularly, sub-rule (2) thereof was amended on 10th of March, 1995 and by such amendment, in place of the expression 'at the intervals of every three years', the expression 'ordinarily at the interval of every five years' was substituted. We are however concerned in the case in hand with preamended provisions. Under the Promotion Regulation, when select lists are prepared, the substantive vacancies anticipated in course of the period of 12 months commencing from the date of preparation of the lists are taken into account. The Cadre strength determined under the Cadre Rules, plays an important role inasmuch as the number of members of the State Police Service, included in the list will not be more than twice the number of substantive vacancies anticipated in the course of period of 12 months, as provided under Regulation 5 of the Promotion Regulation. The procedure for preparation of the list -has been succinctly indicated in the aforesaid Promotion Regulation. This being the statutory provisions, the question for consideration is whether infraction on the part of the appropriate authority, in the matter of discharge of its obligation in relation to the determination of cadre, entitles an employee to obtain a mandamus from the Court, requiring the appropriate authority to discharge their obligation in accordance with law and consequently to redetermine the case of these appellants in respect of those vacancies which were found to be available by the competent authority itself. It transpires from the records of these appeals that the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench disposed of two applications O. A. No. 1082/91 and O. A. No. 1125/91, and came to the conclusion that the triennial review required under Rule 4 (2) of the Cadre Rules had been carried out in March. 1979 and the next review was due in March, 1982 but in fact the Cadre Strength had been reviewed in the year 1984 and by such review, seven more posts have been added to the promotion quota in the State of Tamil Nadu, The Tribunal, therefore, directed the appropriate authority to reconsider the case of promotion of the officers of the said Cadre on the basis of the increased cadre strength for the inclusion of their names in the select list. for the year 1984. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Union of India had approached this Court, which however was dismissed after hearing the parties by order dated 13.11.1997 and though, no reasons had been ascribed, but the said order appears to be a decision on merits, affirming the conclusion of the Tribunal.;