D VIJAYADEVARAJ Vs. G V RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An unfortunate dispute which should not normally arise among the higher echelons of the Indian Police Service borne on the Karnataka cadre, has arisen between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 to the posts of Inspector General of Police (hereinafter referred to as the 'IGP') and the Director General of Police (hereinafter referred to as the 'Director') of the Government of Karnataka. But, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution, cannot avoid determining the same, for which reason it is necessary to notice the salient facts in the first instance and, thereafter deal with the questions that arise for determination.

(2.) On 10-8-1946, the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Superintendent of Police in the then princely State of Mysore. On the merger of the said State in the Indian Union and the formation of the 'new State of Mysore now called as Karnataka, under the States Reorganisation Act, the services of the petitioner stood allotted to the new State. But, even before the formation of the new State, the petitioner who had satisfactorily completed his probation and confirmed, was appointed under the special Rules made thereto to the Senior scale of Indian Police Service (hereinafter referred to as 'IPS') with effect from 13-5-1952, one of the premier All India Services constituted under the All India Services Act of 1951. On his appointment to the IPS, the petitioner was allotted 1949 as the year of allotment. On 11-11-1968 the petitioner was promoted as DIG. On 10-6-1976 he was promoted as Addl.IGP. On 31 7-1977 he was further promoted as Spl. IGP in the time scale of Rs. 2,500-2,750 and was confirmed in that post with effect from 1 6 1979.

(3.) On 1-11-1950 respondent No. 1 entered IPS by direct recruitment and was allotted to the then Hyderabad State, from which State he stood allotted to the new State from 1-11-1956. He was promoted to IPS senior scale with effect from 13 9 -1955. So far as the said cadre, respondent No. 1 is senior to the petitioner and this is not disputed by him also.