RAFIQ, J. - (1.) THESE two appeals are directed against the common judgment whereby the learned Single dismissed three identical writ petitions. The writ-petitioners had challenged the order dated 21. 9. 1993 whereby the promotions from LDC to UDC granted in Anti Corruption Department (for short-`acd') of the police treating it to be a separate range were ordered to be reviewed by convening Department Promotion Committee afresh treating the ACD as part of the Police Headquarters in terms of the Standing Order No. 1 dated 17. 1. 1996.
(2.) THE appellant-writ petitioners who had secured promotion in the meantime because of the ACD being treated as separate range than the Police Headquarters apprehending reversion consequent upon review Department Promotion Committee being held, approached this Court by filing the writ petitions. Now with the dismissal of the writ petitions, they are before the division bench in the present special appeals. We have heard Shri Ashok Gaur and Ms. Neerja Khanna, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri B. L. Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel for the respondents. Shri Ashok Gaur, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the Secretary to the Government in its Home Department issued an order on 24. 5. 1966 according to which the Anti Corruption Organization was to work as a separate unit with the Deputy Inspector General of Police, ACD as its head. By orders of the Government dated 20. 4. 1967 and 23. 4. 1973, the Dy. Inspector General of Police was nominated as Chairman of the Selection Committee for recommending promotions in subordinate service exclusively for ACD. Shri Ashok Gaur also referred to the order of the Government dated 4. 3. 1989 to argue that the Government by that order directed that the seniority of the members of the subordinate service should be maintained range wise and ACD being separate range, was rightly maintained separately and the promotions were conferred upon the petitioners and few others, treating ACD as separate range. Shri Ashok Gaur also sought to support his arguments by letters of the Government dated 16. 5. 1989, 19. 9. 1992 and 13. 10. 1992 and argued that ACD was declared as a separate range according to Rule 2 (j) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 and later of 1989 (for short - `the Rules' ). It was argued that once the Government issued a specific order dated 24. 5. 1966 constituting ACD as a separate unit, the Standing Order dated 17. 1. 1966 issued by the Inspector General of Police stood superseded. The affidavits filed on behalf of the Govt. by Shri Shivnath Singh Kuria, the Additional Superintendent of Police did not specifically deny this aspect of the matter. Direction of the Government to review the DPC earlier held by revising the seniority list treating the ACD as part of the headquarters and not as a separate range was therefore bad in law. It was argued that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration all these aspects and did not consider the aforesaid documents in correct perspective. It was also argued that the respondents before issuing the impugned order did not provide any opportunity of hearing to the appellants who were likely to be affected thereby. This order being violative of principles of natural justice as also Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, is therefore liable to be quashed. Shri Ashok Gaur cited the judgment of Supreme Court in B. S. Bajwa & Anr. vs. State of Punjab & Ors. (1998) 2 SCC 523 and argued that the Supreme Court in that case has held that seniority dispute raised with delay of more than a decade after joining service when in the meantime promotions had also taken place, should not be reopened. It was therefor prayed that the appeals be allowed and the impugned order be quashed and set aside. Shri B. L. Awasthi, learned Additional Government Counsel for the respondents opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petitions because the order dated 24. 5. 1966 did not at all declare the ACD as a separate range, although within the Police Headquarters, it was merely treated as a separate unit. Learned counsel submitted that the entire confusion was created because of the letter issued by the Dy. Inspector General of Police (Headquarters) dated 16. 5. 1989 which by citing the order of the Government dated 28. 6. 1980 stated that in that order the Government has declared ACD as a separate range under Rule 2 (j) of the Rules. Shri B. L. Awasthi then cited the order of the Government dated 28. 6. 1980 and argued that in that order, only CID Crimes and Railways and CID, Special Branch were ordered to be treated as separate range within the meaning of Rule 2 (j) of the Rules. Shri B. L. Awasthi then cited the order of the Government dated 28. 6. 1980 and argued that in that order, only CID Crimes and Railways and CID, Special Branch were ordered to be treated as separate range within the meaning of Rule 2 (j) of the Rules and ACD was not at all mentioned therein. Learned counsel argued that the preparation of separate seniority list and granting promotions on that basis to the appellants and few others had worked to the detriment of many others who were already serving in the police headquarters for a pretty long period of time. It was argued that due to this illegal action, the appellants were able to secure accelerated promotions, whereas many other candidates in the same cadre were awaiting such promotion from decades. Learned counsel argued that issuance of writ would have amounted to restoration of an illegality. Now when the matter has been heard by the learned Single Judge and even by the division bench and the appellants are not able to persuade this Court, they cannot be permitted to complain about infringement of the principles of natural justice. This Court upon hearing the arguments of the parties and the impugned judgment and the order dated 19th February, 2008 observed that legality of the promotions granted to the appellants on the post of UDC vide order dated 12. 4. 1991 against the promotion quota of 1982-83 in ACD would depend upon the answer to the question whether ACD is the independent range for the purpose of Rules of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Rules of 1974. The Court after referring to various documents which we have mentioned above and the affidavits filed by the Officer Incharge before the learned Single Judge required the Director General of Police to clarify the position on affidavit. Shri A. S. Gill, the Director General of Police has filed his affidavit on 20. 3. 2008 enclosing therewith the order dated 28. 6. 1980. A perusal of the said order does indicate that only two units; namely CID Crimes and Railways and CID, Special Branch were vide order dated 28. 6. 1980 declared to be range in the meaning of Section 2 (j) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974. The affidavit also places on record the seniority list of the LDCs working in the ACD dated 25. 9. 1989/ 16. 9. 1989 which states that the said seniority list was issued on the basis of the instruction dated 16. 5. 1989 issued by the Dy. Inspector General of Police (Headquarter), Rajasthan treating the ACD as a separate Range under Rule 2 (j), supra, whereas the instruction dated 16. 5. 1989 has been issued on the purported declaration of ACD as the separate range in the order of Inspector General of Police dated 28. 6. 1980, which is factually not correct. The very basis of issuance of separate seniority list for the LDC working in ACD and consequently the grant of promotions to the appellants, thus treating ACD as separate range, is, therefore, wholly unfounded. In the affidavit, Director General of Police has also clarified that the Standing Order No. 1 dated 17. 1. 1966 has never been superseded and in continues to hold good till date. Reference has been made to para 1 (f) of the said Standing Order in which the following has been grouped together as one range-      " PHQ/range including PHQ/pts/kishangarh/grp/acd/cid (SB) & (CB)/fsl & P. R. C. "
(3.) IT would be thus evident that ACD along with CID (SB) & (CB), FSL & PRC mentioned in that order were combined to be a range and it was never declared as a separate range. Director General of Police in his affidavit has clarified that in the communication dated 16. 5. 1989 issued by DIG (Headquarters), it was mentioned by mistake that vide order dated 28. 6. 1980, the ACD has been declared as separate range, whereas there is no such mention in that order. When this mistake came to light, the then Director General of Police by its order dated 21. 9. 1993 clarified the position by saying that Standing Order No. 1 dated 17. 1. 1966 has not been amended so far and therefore the combined seniority list of LDCs of the Police Headquarters and the ACD was required to be prepared and the proceedings of promotions conducted on the recommendation of various DPCs in contravention of the said Standing Order No. 1 were ordered to be cancelled and accordingly required to be revived. In view of the categorical clarification made by the Director General of Police in his affidavit, we are inclined to agree with the view taken by learned Single Judge that the impugned orders were merely sought to undo the wrong committed to save other employees from injustice in preference to whom the appellants were able to get accelerated promotions. Had the ACD not been treated as separate range, there would be no question of a separate seniority list and also early promotion being granted to LDCs working in the ACD alone. We are therefore inclined to hold that issue of mandamus in such like a case would tantamount to restoration of illegal order which in the scope of writ of mandamus, which being a remedy of equity and discretion should not be granted. When the entire matter has been scrutinized by this Court firstly by the learned Single Judge and now in intra- Court appeal by the division bench and the appellants have been unable to show that the ACD was ever declared as a separate range in the meaning of Rule 2 (j), supra, we are not inclined to interfere in the matter even on the alleged ground of infringement of principles of natural justice or alleged violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the facts of the case, thus, we are satisfied that requiring the respondents to now pass fresh order after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellants would be an empty formality as it is likely to return the same result. In such like case, if the facts on which the action complained of is founded are wholly incontrovertible, this Court need not insist upon adherence to principles of natural justice by invoking "doctrine of useless formality. " This is so because we find that direction contained in order dated 24. 5. 1966 that Anti Corruption Organization would work as a separate unit with DIG Police as its head does not tantamount to declaring ACD as a separate range and in the absence of a specific declaration made by the Inspector General/director General of Police, treating the ACD as equivalent to police range, it cannot be treated to be a separate range merely by process of reasoning or interpretation. The ratio of Supreme Court judgment in B. S. Bajwa, supra, cited by learned counsel for the appellants has also no application in the facts of the present case because therein the dispute pertains to the fixation of common seniority of the writ petitioners and the respondents whereas in the present case, the seniority list of the appellants was separately prepared in violation of the Standing Order No. 1 dated 17. 1. 1966 which required the police headquarters and the ACD to be treated as part of the same range. DIG of the Police Headquarters by its order dated 16. 5. 1989 on misreading of the order of the Inspector General of Police dated 28. 6. 1980 directed the ACD to be treated as separate range under Rule 2 (j) whereas in fact no such discretion was made. The separate seniority list issued on 25. 9. 1989/16. 10. 1989 was consequence of this letter dated 16. 5. 1989 which itself was result of a mistaken and incorrect reading of the order of the Inspector General of Police dated 28. 6. 1980. The promotions were secured by the appellants on the basis of such an illegal order issued under the unfounded belief of the ACD being a separate range. Now the respondents are merely seeking to correct that mistake with a view to re-convening the meeting of DPC by treating the ACD and the Police Headquarters as one range and accordingly revising the seniority. The question of delay cannot be interpreted in such a manner as may ultimately require the respondents to perpetuate the aforesaid illegality even though in fact ACD was never declared as a separate range within the meaning of Rule 2 (j ). ;