P. PRABHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging an order dated 18/5/2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench, in O.A. 56/2009. As per the impugned order, the Central Administrative Tribunal ('CAT' for short) has dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to include his name in the select list for the year 2007, for selection and appointment by promotion to the Indian Police Service ('IPS' for short) and for consequential reliefs.

(2.) THE petitioner is a retired Superintendent of Police (non - cadre). He retired on attaining superannuation at the age of 55 years on 31/12/2008 as the Superintendent of Police (non -cadre), Office of the Commissioner of Excise, Vikas Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram. His initial entry into service was as a Sub Inspector of Police on 15/7/1976. Later on, he was promoted successively as a Circle Inspector of Police, Deputy Superintendent of Police and finally as a Superintendent of Police (non -cadre). According to the petitioner, as per the grading prepared by the State Government, of persons eligible for appointment by promotion to the Indian Police Service, he was categorised as 'outstanding'. However, he was not selected for the only reason that there was no vacancy available for him to be promoted. The petitioner was also below the zone of consideration for such promotion, in accordance with Regulation 5(1) of the Indian Police Services (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955.

(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, Clause (1) of Regulation 5 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations mandates that the selection committee shall meet every year and prepare a list of members of the State Police Services who are suitable for promotion to the cadre of the Indian Police Service. Relying on the dictum in the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah and Ors. : (1996) 6 SCC 721, it is contended that the purport of the regulations is to cast a mandatory duty on the selection committee to meet every year for the purpose of making the selection from amongst the State Police Officers who satisfy the eligibility conditions on the first day of January of the year in which the committee meets and fall within the zone of consideration as prescribed by Clause (2) of Regulation 5. It is therefore contended that the omission on the part of the Selection Committee to perform its mandatory duty has caused serious detriment to the rights of the petitioner to be promoted to the IPS cadre. If a cadre review had been conducted before the petitioner was considered for selection in the year 2007, there would have been sufficient vacancies to promote him also, is his contention. Therefore, he seeks the issue of appropriate directions for conducting such a cadre review with effect from the year 2007, to consider him for selection to the IPS cadre and to grant him the promotion that was denied to him in the manner stated above. Such promotion would entitle the petitioner to continue in service until he attains superannuation in accordance with the terms of service of the IPS cadre.