POOKUNJU A Vs. B.ANANDAKUTTAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A series of amendments made to the Recruitment Rules to the post of Police Constables in the Kerala Police Subordinate Service, 1980 (the Special Rules) have given rise to this batch of original petitions.

(2.) The District Armed Reserve and Armed Police Battalions were separate units of appointment for recruitment to the post of Police Constables under Rule 3 of the Special Rules as it originally stood. A Police Constable of the Armed Police Battalion could be transferred to the District Armed Reserve only on completion of a stipulated stint of service as per the existing Rules and Orders. Two provisos were added to Rule 3 of the Special Rules by amendment on 26.12.1980 to protect the seniority of the appointees in the District Armed Reserve from the Armed Police Battalion. The first proviso stated that the seniority shall be determined by the date of the first appointment or the date of first effective advice of the Public Service Commission. The second proviso clarified that the first proviso shall not adversely affect the seniority of those who have already been appointed to the District Armed Reserve prior to the amendment.

(3.) Many Constables recruited to the Armed Police Battalion much earlier got lower ranks and seniority in the District Armed Reserve due to the insistence of a specified stint of service as stated supra. The Government therefore decided to stop the direct recruitment of Constables to the District Armed Reserve by a further amendment to Rule 3 of the Special Rules on 10.3.1989. But a defect occurred in the amendment since the two provisos introduced by the amendment on 26.12.1980 were omitted to be incorporated while effecting amendment on 10.3.1989. This was not noticed by the Government till it was detected by the judgment in K.S.Regi and others v. State and others [2010(2) KLT 265(DB)]. The Constables were being promoted as if the two provisos continued to exist since the standard book on the Special Rules then available had incorporated it even after amendment. The omission was rectified by an yet another amendment to Rule 3 of the Special Rules on 16.2.2017 whereby the two provisos incorporated on 26.12.1980 were re-introduced.