BALJEET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is working as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Haryana State Police, aspires to get inducted to Indian Police Service (for short, 'IPS') and wants appointment to the said cadre under the promotion channel. Undoubtedly, as he was eligible for consideration to IPS, the Selection Committee constituted by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for this purpose duly considered his case along with certain other eligible candidates in its meeting held on 20.12.2005. However, the Selection Committee recommended the names of two officers junior to the petitioner and on the basis of the said recommendation, the said two officers have been appointed superseding the petitioner. The petitioner filed OA No. 556/2006 challenging this act, but without any success as the OA filed by him has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide judgment dated 3.8.2006. Impugning this judgment, the present writ petition is preferred by the petitioner.

(2.) To appreciate the exact controversy revolving around the aforesaid issue, we may take note of certain important facts. The petitioner was appointed as direct recruit Assistant Sub-Inspector in Haryana Police on 25.3.1971. He was promoted as Sub-Inspector on 10.11.1975, as Inspector on 23.1.1984 and thereafter on 16.9.1990, the petitioner was further promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. Officers of this rank can be appointed to the IPS as per the relevant extant rules. However, for this purpose, maximum age limit is 54 years. Though the petitioner became eligible for consideration in the year 2004, which was his last chance as he was crossing 54 years of age, there was delay in holding the Selection Committee meeting for the said year. The petitioner, therefore, approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, which gave directions to the respondents to hold meeting of the Selection Committee within six weeks. This six weeks period was to expire on 22.12.2005. Having regard to those directions, meeting of the Selection Committee was convened on 20.12.2005. The Selection Committee was constituted by the UPSC. It considered the candidature of six officers and recommended the names of the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 herein, though they were junior to the petitioner.

(3.) In the OA filed before the Tribunal, the case set up by the petitioner was that he being the senior official he was wrongly superseded and having regard to his ACRs for the period of preceding 5 years, there was no question or occasion for the Selection Committee to supersede him. He also submitted that he had better/superior record of service than the respondent Nos. 5 & 6 for the relevant years. It was also pointed by him that the respondent No. 5 could not have even been considered, inasmuch as, an FIR had been registered against him under Sections 498-A/406/506/323 IPC with P.S. Model Town, Panipat, in which even charge sheet/challan has been submitted by the Police, after investigation, in the court of the concerned Magistrate. The pendency of such a criminal case, in which charge sheet had been filed, debarred the consideration of the candidature of the respondent No. 5 in view of the provisions of Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. Both the contentions are negatived by the Tribunal while dismissing his OA. Before us, the petitioner has argued on the similar lines.