K MADHAVAN DWARKA NATH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ petitions, being Writ Petitions Nos. 9847-48 of 1983, involve a dispute as to seniority between the two petitioners, K Madhavan and Santunu Sen, on the one hand and respondent 5, O. P. Sharma on the other. It may be recorded at the outset that although the petitioners have also challenged in the writ petitions the seniority of respondent 4, P.C. Srivastava, over the petitioners, at the hearing of the writ petitions the challenge to the seniority of respondent 4 has not been pressed on behalf of the petitioners inasmuch as respondent 4 is to retire from service within about two years from now. We would, accordingly, exclude from our consideration the seniority of respondent 4 which stands confirmed.

(2.) The two petitioners, Madhavan and Sen, were directly recruited as Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) in the Delhi Special Police Establishment (SPE) in the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) on 6-7-1963 and 10-8-1963 respectively. Respondent 5, who was appointed to the post of DSP on 13-7-1962 in the Rajasthan State Police, was sent on deputation to CBI as DSP on 1-7-1967. It may be stated at this stage that majority of the officers in the CBI are deputationists. The case of the respondent is that the CBI Organisation requires very capable and experienced police officers and, accordingly, such police officers are brought to CBI on deputation from different States and, thereafter, they are generally absorbed in the CBI. We shall presently refer to the recruitment rules of police personnel in the CBI, but before that, we may indicate how the dispute between the parties arose with regard to their respective seniority. While Madhavan and Sen were both confirmed in the post of DSP in the CBI on 30-3-1967, respondent 5 was confirmed as DSP in the Rajasthan State Police on 1-12-1964. The petitioners, Madhavan and Sen, were promoted to the rank of Superintendent of Police (SP), in the CBI with effect from 21-10-1971 (AN) and 25-1-1972 (AN) respectively. Respondent 5 was appointed to the post of SP on 28-10-1972. Respondent 2, the Inspector General of Police, Delhi Special Police Establishment, and Director of CBI published a seniority list of departmental SPs on 1-10-1978. In that seniority list, respondent 5 O. P. Sharma was shown below both the petitioners. Respondent 2 also published another seniority list on 17-10-1981. In that seniority list, the date of appointment of respondent 5 was mentioned as 21-10-1971 (FN) (Notional) instead of 28-10-1972 and on the basis of such notional date of appointment to the post of SP in CBI, the name of respondent 5 was placed above the petitioners' names in that seniority list. The petitioners felt highly aggrieved by the said seniority list showing them as juniors to respondent 5 O. P. Sharma, on the basis of a notional date of appointment with retrospective effect from 21-10-1971 (FN), that is, just before the appointment of Madhavan on 21-10-1971 (AN). The petitioners have challenged the said seniority list.

(3.) The case of the petitioners is that the deemed or notional date of appointment of respondent 5 with retrospective effect from 21-10-1971 (FN) has been done mala fide with a view to making the petitioners juniors to respondent 5 without any reasonable justification therefor. It is complained that before that deemed or notional date of appointment was made with retrospective effect, the petitioners were not given any opportunity of being heard to their great prejudice and detriment. The seniority of respondent 5 has been challenged by the petitioners on more than one ground including the ground that respondent 5 was not even eligible for appointment as SP in the CBI. The grounds of challenge will be considered by us presently. But, before that we may indicate the stand taken by the respondents 1 and 2, the Union of India and the CBI, and respondent 5 in regard to his appointment to the post of SP, CBI, with retrospective effect from 21-10-1971 (FN).