TRILOCHAN SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS common judgment disposes of two writ petitions one -preferred by promotee officers to the Delhi -Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service (hereafter "DANIPS") -being W.P. (C) 5973/2003 and the other, W.P. (C) 598/2004, by the Union of India. Both petitions impugn the correctness of two orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in OA 1418/2002, dated 26 -02 -2003 and the order dated 01 -04 -2003, rejecting the review petition (RA 87/2003). The earlier petition was listed today. When it was taken up, parties mentioned about W.P. (C) 598/2004. With consent of parties, that matter too was directed to be listed, and was finally heard along with W.P. (C) 5973/2003.

(2.) THE Petitioners in W.P. (C) 5973/2003 (hereafter called "the promotees") belong to DANIPS. Appointment to that service is through two channels, spelt out in Rule 5 of the Delhi and Andaman and Nicobar Islands Police Service Recruitment Rules, 1971; it is in the ratio of 1: 1 as between promotees and direct recruits, which can, for reasons to be recorded, be varied in the exigencies of public service. The Petitioners were appointed by promotion, after their selection through the procedure of selection set out in Rule 24. They were not appointed under Rule 16. They were appointed to the promotional post of Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP), in terms of Rule 25. Rule 4 of the DANIPS Rules determines the strength of the service; Rule 14 prescribes the conditions of eligibility and procedure for selection; it is through a committee which has to consider eligible officers under Rule 5 (1) (b) "who have served in the respective cadre or posts, as the case may be, for not less than two years and prepare a list of officers recommended for appointment after taking into account the actual vacancies at the time of selection and those likely to occur during a year." The selection is based on merit and suitability. Rule 14 (2) provided that seniority of eligible officers had to be determined by the Central Government having due regard to the dates of their appointments on a regular basis to the respective cadre or posts, the pay scales of the posts etc. Rule 15 requires consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). Rule 16 provides that appointment to the Service "shall be made in order of merit in the list referred to in sub -rule (4) of Rule 15 with due regard to the proportion specified in Rule 5." A seniority list determined inter se seniority of direct recruits and promotees. This led to a round of litigation, whereby the CAT was approached; by its order dated 31 -03 -1992, the application was disposed of. Aggrieved parties approached the Supreme Court. The Court disposed of the appeals in its judgment reported as Union of India v. H.C. Bhatia : 1995 (2) SCC 48; the Central Government was directed to prepare a fresh seniority list in the light of the Court's observations. The Supreme Court held pertinently, that:

(3.) A seniority list was drawn up and published on 2 -08 -1995; this was again challenged by certain direct recruits in OA 791/1996 before the CAT. The application was dismissed on 30 -12 -1996. Later, 51 other promotee officers sought parity with the applicants who had benefited pursuant to the directions in H.C. Bhatia (supra), by filing OA 384/1998 before CAT. This was disposed of on 7 -01 -1999 by a direction to the Union to grant the same relief to the officers as in the case of H.C. Bhatia (supra). The list prepared was challenged; the matter was heard by this Court, in W.P. (C) 2012/1999. That writ petition was disposed with a direction to the Union to take into account the representations of the direct recruits since the seniority had been fixed on a tentative basis. A seniority list was finally prepared and published, on 14 -5 -2002. This became the subject matter of challenge in the present round of proceedings, before the CAT, in OA 1418/2002. The CAT set aside the seniority list.