U B S TEOTIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the petitioners, who were absorbed in the Central Reserve Police Force, for short, the Force, on release from the Army as Emergency Commissioned Officers, are entitled to the benefit of their service in the Army for the purpose of fixation of their seniority in the Force and certain consequential benefits in the matter of promotion, either by virtue of any of the rules that may be applicable in that behalf or on the basis of the Principle of promissory estopple, is the principal question that is posed for our consideration by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The relevant facts and circumstances leading to the petition are by and large beyond controversy and may be briefly stated to provide the necessary backdrop. The Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949, for short, the Act, empowered the Central Government to constitute and regulate an armed Central Reserve Police Force by virtue of Entry I of List I of Schedule VII to the Government of India Act, 1935, which corresponds to Entry (2) of List I in Schedule VII of the Constitution of India, which provides for "Naval, military and air forces; any other armed forces of the Union". The Force, which was apparently intended to be a successor to the Crown Representatives Police Force, was intended to be a Reserve Police Force to aid civil authorities in India in the maintenance of law and order in times of emergency. After the lapse of paramountancy with the independence of India on August 15, 1947, there was no longer any Crown Representative in India. The Crown Representative Police Force Law, 1939, ceased to have effect on that date and the Act was apparently passed to provide for the continuance, constitution and regulation of the Central Reserve Police Force by the Central Government. Subsequently, an armed force of the Union for ensuring the security of the borders of India was constituted. The Border Security Force, however, was initially regulated by the Act and the Rules framed thereunder until Parliament passed the Border Security Force Act, 1968 (Act 47 of 1968), for short, B.S.F. Act. By virtue of the provisions of Section 18 of the Act, the Central Government made the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955, for short the Rules, inter alia, to regulate the functioning of the Force. Rule 105 of the Rules provides for appointment and promotion of superior officers. -Until the year 1966, when Rule 105 was amended, inter alia, by the addition of clause (iv-A) to Sub-Rule (4) of it, the only sources of recruitment of superior officers in the Force were the Indian Army and the Indian Police Service, including the retired or released army officers and retired police officers, besides direct recruitment from amongst candidates possessing the prescribed qualifications. By the aforesaid amendment, the Emergency Commissioned Officers and Short Service Commissioned Officers of the armed forces of the Union, who were commissioned on or after November I, 1962, apparently at the time of the Chinese invasion, and were released at any time thereafter, became eligible for recruitment by virtue of the newly inserted clause (iv-A). Rule 8 of the Rules made provision for seniority and clause (i) of sub-Rule (b) of this Rule promissory estopple, is the principal question that is posed for our made provision for inter sc seniority of superior officers. This is how sub-clause (i) of Sub-Rule (b) of Rule 8 runs:-

(3.) The petition is resisted both on behalf of the Union and the affected officers, as indeed the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, on the grounds that the petitioners were ou:side the term "Army Officers" and were, therefore, not entitled to the benefit of Rule 8(b) (i) of the Rules ; that in any event on a proper interpretation of the said Rule the petitioner would not be entitled to the benefit of past service ; that the posts in the Force are civil posts and would attract the application of the Reservation Rules of 1967, which, inter alia, deal with seniority. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioners on the basis of principle of promissory estoppel was sought to be resisted on the ground that the circular merely quoted Rule 8 (b) (i) and neither made any representation nor volunteered an interpretation of it and that the petitioners would still be bound by the true interpretation of the Rule and not by its mere reproduction in the circular. A faint suggestion was also made that the Appendix 'B' to the circular was intended for the benefit of those who were seeking absorption in the Border Security Force and that it had no application to the Emergency Commissioned Officers who were seeking entry into the Force. These, by and large, were the rival contentions at the hearing of the petition. However, after the conclusion of the hearing and in an attempt to salvage the position, which appeared to have been irretrievably lost, a contention was sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioners that, even if it were to be assumed that Rule 8 was inapplicable to the petitioners and was, therefore, incapable of conferring on them the benefit of the past service, the petitioner would nevertheless be entitled to that benefit by virtue of the provisions of Rule 102 of the Rules in so far as the said Rule made a provision that in all matters with respect lo which there was no provision in the Rules, the Rules applicable to the Central Civil Services would apply, which, it was contended, would attract the application of, what popularly came to be known as the June, 1949 Memorandum of the Government of India with regard to seniority and which in terms recognised the entire length of service of a public servant as a criterion for the determination of seniority.