SUBODH KUMAR JAISWAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the writ petitions filed by Gulabrao Dharmu Pol, re spondent No.4 in appeal relating to SLP (C) No. 12364/2006 and Mr. Suresh A. Kakkar, respondent No.4 in appeal relating to SLP (C) No.1178/2007.

(3.) A brief reference to the factual position would suffice. The position as obtain ing in the appeal relating to S.L.P.(C) No. 12364/2006 is noted as the factual sce nario is common to both the appeals. On 18-4-1979, respondent No.4 was appointed as trainee Deputy Superintendent of Police by the Government of Maharashtra subject to completion of training, prac tical training and passing of tests in certain subjects. According to the appellants, only if these conditions are fulfilled, he was to be appointed on regular basis to a cadre post in the cadre of Dy.SP/ACP. In other words, it is stated that on completion of the probation satisfactorily, respondent No.4 was appointed to the cadre post and started officiating as Dy.SP/ACP on regular basis w.e.f. 3-8-1981 in terms of the Home Department, Government of Maharashtra Order dated 1-2-1982. The Appellants were directly recruited to the Indian Police Service (in short IPS) and allo cated to the State of Maharashtra with the allotment year as 1985. By order dated 13-4-1989, respondent No.4 was confirmed as DSP w.e.f. 31-12-1987. According to the appellants, there was no challenge to the delay, if any, in his confirmation. On 3-8-1989, in terms of the third proviso to Regulation 5(2) of the applicable Regula tions, i.e. Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (in short Regulation) he became eligible for consideration for promotion to the IPS on completion of eight years of continuous service in the post of DSP in the State cadre, On 26-2-1990, the Selection Committee met and considered the candidates who were substantive Dy.SPs who were eligible as on 1-1-1990 including respondent No.4. On 8-3-1991, respondent No.4 was promoted to IPS along with seven others, including Shri S.A. Khopde. They all became juniors to the appellants who were appointed at least six years earlier. Respondent No.4 did not press his claim for consideration for promotion in the year 1988 itself. On 9-2-1993, he and other promotees of his batch were confirmed in the IPS w.e.f. 8-3-1992. They were given 1987 as the year of allotment in the IPS. On 27-7-1994, a representation was made by respondent No.4 to treat 1984 as the year of allotment by treating him as having been appointed in the year 1988 itself. Subsequently, another representation was made in January, 1995. O.A.No.807/1996 was filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (in short, the Tribunal) praying for appropriate year of allotment in the IPS on the ground that though he was eligible, he was not considered for the vacancies of 1988. The Union of India and the Union Public Service Commission (in short, UPSC) resisted the claim of respondent No.4. The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. inter-alia holding that the O.A. was barred by time and suffered from delay and laches as the respondent No.4 made a representation for the first time on 27-7-1994, much after his alleged claim for the year of allotment being 1988. It was held that if his claims were to be allowed, it would unsettle the settled position for about eight years. The review petition filed by respondent No.4 was also dismissed. A writ peti tion was filed by respondent No.4 challenging the judgments of the Tribunal. The same was allowed by condoning the delay in approaching the Tribunal and it was directed that the official respondents were to redetermine his year of allotment as 1987 (which was later corrected to be 1988). It was also held that if respondent No.4 was eligible for being considered for the vacancies in 1988, his seniority shall be determined treating him as entitled to be promoted in the year 1988 and his year of allotment should be determined accordingly. A contempt petition (C.P.No. 10/2006) was filed by respondent No.4 and the Union of India implemented the judgment of the High Court without preparing any seniority list for the year 1988 by changing his year of allotment from 1987 to 1984 and placing him above the appellants who were direct recruits of the year 1985. This was done under threat of contempt. The High Court disposed of the contempt petition as not pressed since the judgment had been complied with. As the appellants were not parties before the High Court, after obtaining permission to file S.L.P., the Special Leave Petitions were filed.