STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS Vs. NARAYAN SINGH NEGI AND OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2012-5-64
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on May 03,2012

State of Uttarakhand and others Appellant
VERSUS
Narayan Singh Negi And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Barin Ghosh, J. - (1.) THE principal challenge in the claim petition filed before the Public Services Tribunal was the validity of the order dated 3rd August 2006, passed by Inspector General of Police (Personnel), Uttarakhand, Dehradun. In addition to that, a prayer was also made for giving charge of Platoon Commander and, grant of benefits admissible to the post of Platoon Commander. The claim petition was filed in 2009. By the order impugned, the Tribunal has quashed the order dated 3rd August, 2006 and, directed the writ petitioners herein, to grant to the respondents herein, all perks and allowances, dress, badges, stars, status and work to which Platoon Commanders are entitled, within a period of three months from the date of the order of the Tribunal, which was passed on 28th September 2011. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed. The facts leading to the filing of the claim petition are that, on 16th December 2001, a Notification was issued, which provided, amongst others, that the vacancies in the posts of Sub Inspector (Civil Police), Sub Inspector (Intelligence), Sub Inspector (Armed Police) and Platoon Commanders shall be supplied by direct recruitment to the extent of 50 per cent of the vacancies and, the remaining 50 per cent by promotion. It was not indicated that, who are in the feeding cadre, for obtaining such promotions. It provided that the minimum educational qualification of those Sub Inspectors and Platoon Commanders shall be Graduation, except Intermediate qualification will do in case of ex -servicemen. It further prescribed the minimum physical standard, respectively for men and women candidates, to supply vacancies in the posts dealt with by the said order. The order held out that for direct recruitees there shall be a written examination. So far as the promotees are concerned, the said order did not speak anything further. On 14th November 2007, the Director General of Police issued an order and, thereby, provided the method of selecting the persons to be appointed in those posts by promotion. There it was provided, amongst others, that the feeding cadre for the said post, shall be Head Constables. It also provided, amongst others, that the maximum age of Head Constable to be promoted in the said posts shall be 40 years, as on 01.01.2001. This order dated 14th November 2007, therefore, applied to a particular selection for promotion. We have not been shown any other Rule, nor the Tribunal was shown any other Rule governing promotions to the posts in question. However, it appears to be the contention of the writ petitioners and, not disputed by the respondents that, only a Head Constable could be promoted to those posts and, as at the time of promotion, the Head Constables were required to be less than 40 years old and, not above 40 years. By an order dated 16th May, 2005 sanction was granted to create, amongst others, 198 posts of Assistant Sub Inspector (Special Category) in permanent form, in which from the date of the order i.e. 16th May 2005, till 28th February 2006, people may be accommodated and, such accommodated people will be entitled to the benefits accorded to the said posts of Sub Inspector (Special Category) by the said order. Though it was stated that, such posts would be created in permanent form, but it was indicated that, such creation could be brought to an end at any point of time. It indicated that, the posts from which people will come to the said created post of Sub Inspectors (Special Category) will remain vacant. The said order clearly indicated that those, who would be posted in those newly created posts of Sub Inspectors (Special Category) would be those Head Constables only, who have completed minimum 24 years of service and, have reached the pay scale of Rs. 5500 - 9000, which pay scale was also applicable to the newly created posts of Sub Inspector (Special Category). It was mentioned that the criteria for posting in those newly created posts will be seniority subject to rejection of unfit. It was mentioned that the people, who would be holding those newly created posts will discharge the duties attached to the posts of Head Constable, enquire into complaints / representations, investigate into ordinary crimes and conduct inquests. After the said order dated 16th May, 2005 was issued, the respondents were accommodated in the posts of Sub Inspector (Special Category). 16 of those posts of Sub Inspector (Special Category) came to be allocated to the Provincial Armed Constabulary, where in respect of Sub Inspector, the nomenclature used is Platoon Commander. The 16 posts of Sub Inspector (Special Category), which became available to the Provincial Armed Constabulary, therefore, were denoted and came to be known as Platoon Commander (Special Category). The respondents were accommodated in those posts of Platoon Commander (Special Category). Inspector General of Police (Personnel) on 3rd August 2006, wrote a letter to the Sr. Superintendent of Police, Nainital, where he held out, amongst others, that the posts of Sub Inspectors (Special Category) are ex -cadre posts and, that the persons holding those posts have lien on the posts of Head Constable. As aforesaid, this letter led to filing of the claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, although, noticed the Government Order dated 16th May 2005, but did not make any endeavour to cull out the purport of the said order. As it appears to us, the Commission felt that in the absence of availability of posts of Assistant Platoon Commander, the respondents were posted against the posts of Platoon Commander. This has been recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 9 of its judgment. By doing so, the Tribunal misdirected itself. A look at the order of the Government dated 16th May 2005, would make it clear that, ex -cadre posts were created thereby. It was provided who shall be accommodated in those ex -cadre posts. It was clearly indicated that, whoever shall be accommodated in those ex -cadre posts, the posts held by them shall remain vacant. In that background, the said order dated 16th May, 2005 did not indicate any intention to give promotion to anyone, either to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, or to the post of Platoon Commander. The fact remains that, 198 ex -cadre posts of Sub Inspector (Special Category) were created, of which 16 were allocated to the Provincial Armed Constabulary and, since Assistant Inspectors in the Provincial Armed Constabulary are designated or known as Platoon Commanders, the newly created ex -cadre posts of Sub Inspector (Special Category) available in the Provincial Armed Constabulary were nothing, but ex -cadre posts of Platoon Commander (Special Category), which, according to the said Government Order dated 16th May, 2005, can be brought to an end at any point of time. Since Head Constables, are in the feeding cadre of Assistant Inspectors, and since they were allowed to occupy the said posts, it cannot be contended that the posts of Assistant Inspectors were created and in those promotions were given inasmuch as upon occupying the said posts, the order dated 16th May 2005, directed that the posts occupied by them earlier will remain vacant. In that background there was no wrong on the part of the Inspector General of Police (Personnel) to communicate by the said letter dated 3rd August 2006, that the posts of Assistant Inspector (Special Category) are ex -cadre posts and, the persons occupying the said posts have lien on the posts of Head Constables. In the circumstances, there was no reason to quash the said order. By the order impugned in the petition, status of those ex -cadre posts have been equated with the in -cadre posts, but without making any attempt to ascertain whether, the incumbents of the in -cadre and the incumbents in the ex -cadre posts, were asked to discharge similar duties, whether they had similar obligations and, whether there was any obligation on the part of the Government to treat them equally. Despite that, the Tribunal has issued directions for giving perks, allowances, dress, badges, stars, status and work of Platoon Commanders to the respondents. The fact remains that, the order dated 16th May 2005, ensured that those Sub Inspectors (Special Category) will continue to discharge the duties of the Head Constables. We, accordingly, interfere with the matter and, quash the order of the Tribunal.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.