B.L.Yadav - (1.) WHETHER the sealed cover procedure followed by the Departmental Selection Committee was justified under the circumstances of the case, and whether the observations and findings recorded by High Court in respect of suitability-cum-merit of the petitioner could be ignored by the Departmental Selection Committee are the short questions that fall for consideration in the present petition filed by the petitioner, sub-Inspector in Civil Police, seeking the relief for the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the order/recommendation of the Departmental Selection Committee dated 31st October, 1971 (Annexure 7-A to the petition), and to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to select and promote the petitioner on the post of Inspector In the batch of 1988.
(2.) THE protrayal of the essential facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector in Civil Police in 1969. No case pertaining to misconduct was registered against him. His integrity was above board and he has obtained 100 rewards for the meritorious services rendered as sub-Inspector and Station Officer Inchargs. As required by G O. No. 6012/Aath-1-1-85/85 dated 22-10-1983 and the G.O. No. 5969/Aath-l-85/85 dated 8th October, 1985, after completing 10 years service, he became entitled to the promotion as Inspector in Civil Police. THEre being no adverse entry, he was working as Station Officer since 1976. THE Departmental Selection Committee held the interview in December, 1988. Apart from two other candidates, respondents 3 to 9 shown in Writ Petition No 2071 of 1989 decided on 21st November, 1990 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) were selected even though they were Junior to the petitioner and had some adverse entries in their character rolls. THE petitioner had to file the aforesaid writ petition, which was allowed on 21st November, 1990 and the Selection Committee was directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Inspector of Police and accordingly the petitioner and two other candidates were to be promoted. THE petitioner in that petition and two other candidates, however, were not to claim seniority against the candidates selected from 1988 batch. Against that judgment a review petition was filed which was allowed partly by this Court by the judgment dated 27th September, 1991 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) by which the operative portion In the earlier judgment was modified to the extent that the Selection Committee was to be constituted within one month from the date of filing a certified copy of the order and It was to reconsider the case of the petitioner for promotion as Inspector of Police according to the Government Order applicable to the said promotion, and if promoted- the seniority was to be fixed according to law without disturbing, however, the seniority of the candidates shown as respondents 3 to 9. The Selection Committee thereafter met on 31st October, 1991 and scrutinised the service record of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that at the time of the interview there were two departmental proceedings pending against the petitioner. Consequently, the earlier result of the Selection Committee was not to be modified even after the decision of the High Court, rather the result of the petitioner was kept in the sealed cover and was to be opened only after the completion of the departmental proceedings. This order has been challenged in the present petition and the aforesaid reliefs have been claimed. Shri N. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, effectively urged that, the procedure of sealed cover, adopted by the Departmental Selection Committee under the circumstances of the case, was not justified and that the observation of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2171 of 1989-Udai Narain and others v. State of U. P. and others allowing the petition on 21st November, 1990 and the order dated 27th September, 1991 in the review petition modifying slightly the operative portion of the judgment, but agrecing with the observations pertaining to the merits and suitability of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police having become final, was binding on the respondents, particularly on the Home Secretary and the Director General of Police/Chairman of the Selection Committee and the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Karimik) as they were parties to the earlier petition and doctrine of Stere-Decisis was applicable. Hence, those observations could not be ignored by the Selection Committee. It was further urged that keeping the result of the petitioner in the sealed cover, on the basis of the pendency of two fresh departmental proceedings, as indicated in the order of the Slection Committee dated 31st October, 1991 (Annexure 7-A to the writ petition) till the disposal of those two departmental proceedings, when in fact the petitioner was exonerated in those proceedings vide order dated 13th December, 1991 passed by Shri Ram Sunder Tiwari, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Basti and the order dated 19th October, 199i, passed by Shri V. K. Tiwari. Superintendent of Police, Basti (Annexures RA-1 and RA-2), as mentioned in paragraph 12 of the rejoinder affidavit, which remained uncontroverted, was unwarranted and unjustified. Learned counsel for the petitioner leaned heavily on the decisions in Union of India v. K. V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 and Union of India v. Kewal Kumar, (1993) 2 UP LB EC 1428 = AIR 1993 SC 1585.
(3.) SHRI R V. Singh, learned standing counsel for the respondents, has filed a counter affidavit and urged;that the sealed cover procedure was correctly adopted by the Selection Committee in the present case and the Selection Committee was not bound by the observations made in the judgment of this Court or the opinion expressed in the first judgment allowing the petition and the second judgment modifying the operative potion of the judgment. Subsequent development or the fresh departmental proceedings initiated would not indicate that the members constituting the Selection Committee were biased. The initiation of contempt proceedings against the senior officers of the department had no impact at all on the members constituting the Selection Committee and keeping the result of the petitioner in the sealed cover. Reliance was placed on a decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Sri Kant Chaphekar, (1992) 2 UP LB EC 1380. The learned counsel for both sides agreed that petition be decided on merits. Having scrutinised the submissions of the learned counsel of the parties, the points that fall for determination are as to whether the ratio of the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2071 of 1989 between the parties, Udai Narain Rai and others v. State: of U. P. and others decided on 21st November, 1990 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and the ratio of the decision dated 27th September, 1991 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) would be binding on the respondents and whether -the procedure of sealed cover was justified under the circumstances of the case.;