Koshal, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against a judgment of a learned single Judge of that Court dismissing with costs a petition filed by the present appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging his demotion from the post of Superintendent of Police to that of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
(2.) The facts giving rise to the dispute between the appellant and the State of Madhya Pradesh are now admitted on all hands and may be briefly stated. Prior to 13th April 1960 the appellant was a member of the Madhya Pradesh State Police Service and was working as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. On that date a meeting of the Committee set up in accordance with regulation 3 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (hereinafter called the Regulations) was held, and therein was prepared a list of such members of the State Police Service as were eligible and suitable for promotion to the Indian Police Service. The said Committee is popularly known as the "Selection Committee" and will be so referred to hereinafter. The list was approved by the Union Public Service Commission and thus became the Select List as envisaged in regulation 7 of the Regulations. The appellant was accordingly promoted to the Indian Police Service and was posted as a Superintendent of Police which position he held till the impugned reversion effected by an order dated 11th September 1964. The reason for that reversion was that on the 18th of September 1963 the Selection Committee reviewed the Select List, purporting to act in accordance with regulation 5 of the Regulations and recommended that the appellant and 27 others be superseded. The sole ground for the supersession was thus stated by the Selection Committees: "The Committee considered that, on an overall assessment, the records of these officers are not such as to justify their appointment to the Indian Police Service at this stage."
(3.) The reversion of the appellant was challenged before the High Court with the contention inter alia that the ground set out by the Selection Committee in that behalf did not specify any reason, good, bad or indifferent, for his supersession, that under regulation 5 of the Regulations it was duty of the Selection Committee to record reasons an that that not having been done the review of the Select List made on the 18th of September, 1963 was clearly in contravention of the Regulations and, therefore, as good as non est. The contention was turned down by the learned single Judge of the High Court, who dismissed the appellant's petition, with the following, observations: "The contention of learned counsel for the applicant that the giving of reasons under sub-regulation (5) of regulation 5 for superseding an officer makes the order justiciable, does not appeal to us. It is not for the Court to see whether the reasons given by the Committee are sufficient or not, but it is for the State Government and the Central Public Service Commission to see the sufficiency of the reasons." The contention thus rejected has been reiterated before us;