PRAN KRISHNA GOSWAMI Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Wars of the Roses go on. How else is one to describe the perpetual battles waged between the 'direct-recruits' and the 'promotees' This time the front is the Calcutta Police, the Posts are those of Sub-Inspectors of Police and the question is the same old one of seniority. Petitioners 1 and 2, who joined the Calcutta Police as Constables in November 1947 were first promoted as Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police and later on August 6, 1957, as officiating Sub-Inspectors of Police. They were confirmed as Sub-Inspectors of Police on January 1, 1915. In. the meanwhile, a large number of persons were directly recruited as Sub-Inspectors of Police and also confirmed .as such. All of them are now ranked above the petitioners in the seniority list, and the petitioners, therefore, have a natural grievance. They claim that as laid down by a series of decisions of this court, their seniority must be reckoned from the date of their continuous officiation as Sub-Inspectors of Police. Petitioner No. 3, we may mention, was promoted as officiating Sub-Inspector of Police on September 6, 1975, but the precise date of his confirmation is not available from the record. Apart from the claim to seniority, the petitioners also alleged that they were never considered for promotion to the next higher post of Inspector of Police, because of their delayed confirmation and because of the insistence of the, Rules that they should be confirmed as Sub-Inspectors of Police before they could be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police. They want the offending rule to be quashed. Other reliefs were claimed in the writ petition filed by them in the High Court, but we are not now concerned in this appeal with those other reliefs. While the State of West Bengal appeared to support the claim of the appellants to seniority on the basis of continuous officiation, the direct-recruits contested the. writ petition in the High Court. The High Court refused to recognise the claim of the appellants to seniority from the dates of their continuous officiation on the ground that their promotion as officiating Sub-Inspectors of Police could only be considered as promotion to posts outside the cadre. The High Court held that their seniority could only be reckoned from the date of their confirmation. The High Court further held that the rule prescribing confirmation as Sub-Inspector as a condition precedent for promotion to the post of Inspect-or of Police was not invalid. The 'Promotee' Sub-Inspectors have preferred this appeal by special leave of the court under Art. 136 of the Constitution.

(2.) It is necessary now to refer to the various recruitment and seniority rules made from time to time under the powers conferred by the statute. Rule 2(b) of the Recruitment Rules for the Subordinate Ranks of the Calcutta Police, 1936 provided that twenty-five per cent of the vacancies shall be filled by promotion of Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Sergeants, and the rest by direct recruitment. Rule 2(f) prescribed the qualification for outside candidates meaning thereby direct-recruits. What is important to be noted is that they were required to be Graduates of a University. Rule 2(g) prescribed the qualifications for departmental candidates and it is necessary to extract the whole of it, which is as follows:-

(3.) The Probation Rules for the Subordinate Ranks of the Calcutta Police, 1936 prescribed that for Sub-Inspectors, the period of probation of a person directly recruited or of an officer who was promoted from a lower rank shall be two years counting from the date of his joining the Calcutta Police Training School. While Rule 2 sub-rule (3) provided that persons directly recruited shall draw the minimum pay in the time-scale of Sub-Inspectors throughout the period of their probation. Rule 2 sub-rule (4) provided that promoted officers shall draw the minimum pay in time-scale of Sub-Inspectors, subject to the condition that they shall count towards increment, officiating and temporary service in that rank rendered prior to their appointment as probationers and also their probationary period or any part thereof and draw increment that may fall due to them during the period of their probation. It was further stipulated that a probationer shall be confirmed on the termination of his probationary period unless the Deputy Commissioner in charge of a District shall during the period of probation make an order extending this period of probation or discharging him from service or reverting him to his substantive rank. An order of extension of probation was not to extend beyond one year, except with the sanction of the Commissioner of Police.