C K APPANNA Vs. STATE OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who has been officiating as Deputy Superintendent of Police on promotion from his substantive post of Inspector of Police, has filed this writ petition for a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ to quash the memo dated 15 -1 -1962 which, in effect, reduces him in rank, on the ground that the provisions of Art. 311(2) of the Constitution had not been followed in passing that order. He has complained that the order has not only resulted in loss of Signer pay and allowances but has also the effect of postponement of his future chances of promotion and consequent loss of seniority.

(2.) THE facts relevant to the points raised by the petitioner in the writ petition are few and simple; The petitioner who is a double graduate of the Madras University joined the Police Department in the former Coorg State as Sub -Inspector of Police in 1935 and served in that capacity till 1 -11 -1949, when he was promoted as Inspector of Police. He was confirmed in the latter grade in 1950 and was the seniormost Inspector of Police on 1 -11 -1956, when the new State of Mysore came into being under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956. The petitioner expressly stated that prior to that date he had been recommended for appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police on the basis of seniority as there was a clear vacancy in the Coorg State but that the State Government only placed him in charge of the office of Deputy Superintendent of Police in that vacancy with the usual allowances from 1 -2 -1957. He continued to hold that charge till 19 -12 -1957, after which he was reverted to the substantive post as Inspector. In the provisional inter -State seniority list of Police Inspectors his rank was 136, while that of G.C. Veeranna was 138 and that of G.P. Sittappa was 141. In due course, all these three, along with one M.T. Abraham, were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police in the order of their seniority on 21 -12 -1961 subject to the approval of the Government. The petitioner assumed charge on 1 -1 -1962, but the State Government served on him, on 20 -1 -1962, an order dated 15 -1 -1962 which he seeks to quash reverting him to the post of Police Inspector even though the two juniors promoted with him were permitted to continue. The petitioner alleged that this order of the State Government amounted to his reduction in rank and was violative of the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. He further alleged that he satisfied the qualification of seniority cum -merit which was the basis for the promotion and that the order of the Government retaining his juniors while demoting him amounted to denial of equal opportunity under Art. 16(1) of the Constitution.

(3.) WHEN this counter affidavit made it clear that the main ground of reversion was that the petitioner was over 52 years of age', the petitioner contended in his supplementary affidavit that the Mysore Police Services (Recruitment) Rules, 1960, were invalid as they violated the provisions contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. He also contended that he had been appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police even after the Rules had come into force and that by promoting him after the Rules came into operation the Government should be deemed to have waived that condition' as regards age. According to him, there was no such restriction for promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police in Coorg State. He cited some instances of promotion of Sub -Inspectors where the rule as regards the age had been relaxed. He submitted that the restriction as regards the age limit for the purpose of promotion was invalid as the consent of the Central Government under Section 115(7) of the States Reorganisation Act had not been obtained. He asserted that under the service conditions applicable to the petitioner prior to 1 -11 -1956 there was no restriction of age limit for the purpose of promotion. In the counter affidavit filed by the Assistant Inspector -General of Police on 21 -8 -1963 the last statement has not been denied though it was explained that the promotion of the three Sub -Inspectors contrary to the Rules was an irregularity in a different category of service and that it did not help the petitioner.