M. BALAKRISHNAN Vs. I.G. OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The judgment of the Court was delivered by Gopalan Nambiyar, C. J.- The writ petition was referred for decision by a Division Bench by a learned Judge of this Court. The petitioner prayed to quash Exts. P11, P15, and P16 Orders. The petitioner is now a Superintendent of Police, Crime Branch, Calicut. He was appointed Sub Inspector of Police by the Government of Madras on 1st April 1948. After there organisation of the States and the formation of the Kerala State with effect from 1st November 1956, he was allotted to this State. The 3rd respondent was also a Sub Inspector of Police who came in this State from Madras. The 3rd respondent was senior to the petitioner as Sub Inspector. In Ext. P1, the final integration list of Sub Inspectors as on 1st November, 1956 drawn up in accordance with the general principles for equation of posts contained in the integration Government Orders and Circulars issued by the Government of India, the petitioner's rank was 146 and that of the 3rd respondent, 132. A selection was made in 1961 to the post of Sub Inspectors by a Departmental Promotion Committee in accordance with the accustomed mode of selection to selection posts, on considerations of merit and ability. The petitioner was selected and the 3rd respondent was not. The petitioner was appointed Circle Inspector on 26th October 1961 and completed his probation on 26th October 1962. Against the above selection the 3rd respondent filed a representation on 3rd September, 1961 which was rejected on 25th January 1962. The matter does not appear to have been carried up any further. In 1962 the Departmental Promotion Committee met again for the selection of Circle Inspectors. On 23rd February 1963, the 3rd respondent was selected as Circle Inspector. There were certain complaints and challenges in respect of the select list then prepared and drawn up, and the matter had been brought to this court by one U. P. R. Menon, in O.P. No. 348 of 1965. Enumerating the general grievances and contentions raised by him, this Court directed a consideration of those contentions after affording a reasonable opportunity to the writ petitioner therein. There was thus a provocation for the review or reconsideration of the select list prepared in the year 1962. A seniority list of Circle Inspectors as on 1st January 1966 was published by the Inspector General of Police vide Ext. P2, dated 4th February 1966. In that list, the petitioner's rank was 36 and the 3rd respondent's was No. 58. There was again Ext. P3 list dated 3rd February 1967 which showed the position as on 1st January 1967. Petitioner's rank was No. 30 therein and the 3rd respondent's was No 51. Again, as on 1st January 1968, Ext. P4 list showed the petitioner's rank as No. 32, and the 3rd respondent as No. 51. Ext. P5 again as on 1st January 1969 showed that the petitioner's rank as No. 24 and the 3rd respondent's as No. 42. In all these lists, the petitioner retained seniority over the 3rd respondent. It does not appear that the 3rd respondent filed any representation against these lists, Exts. P2 to P5. Against the Promotion of some Circle Inspectors as Deputy Superintendents of Police, O.P. No. 4273 of 1969 was filed in this Court and was dealt with in Ext. P6 judgment. The O.P. was dismissed as not pressed in view of certain statements made in the counter affidavit. Thereafter by Ext. P7 order dated 25th June 1970 the petitioner and 3rd respondent and others were promoted as Deputy Superintendents of Police. By Ext. P8 proceedings of the Inspector General of Police dated 9th June 1972 the select lists of Sub Inspectors fit for promotion as Circle Inspectors prepared from 1957 to 1967 were reviewed. As a result of this view the 3rd respondent was included in the 1961 select list notionally. A revised seniority lift of Circle Inspectors prepared in accordance with the revised select list approved by the Government was also attached as Annexure to Ext. P8 order. That annexure showed the 3rd respondent as serial No. 61 and the petitioner as Serial No. 73. The petitioner filed a representation (Ext. P9) against the said list and the demotion of his rank as Circle Inspector. This was rejected by Ext. P10 order dated 3rd July 1973. Exts. P8 and P10 were challenged in O.P. No. 3521 of 1973. By Ext. P12 judgment, a Division Bench of this Court considered the matter at length and directed reconsideration of the petitioner's grievance as the impugned order in that case had been passed without notice to the petitioner therein and without affording him an opportunity for explanation. The reconsideration directed by Ext. P12 judgment accordingly followed. Ext. P13 memo dated 29th March 1977 was issued to the petitioner and to the 3rd respondent. Ext. P14 is a copy of the petitioner's objection to the course of action proposed to be followed in Ext. P13. Ext. P15 dated 10th August 1977, is a copy of the order rejecting the request of the petitioner and directing that he and the 3rd respondent will retain the rank and seniority as in Ext. P8. By Ext. P16 G.O. dated 14th July 1977 the Government regularised the provisional promotion of Deputy Superintendents of Police with effect from the dates shown against each of the persons mentioned therein. In the appendix which showed the list of persons whose promotions were thus regularised the 3rd respondent figures as serial No. 10 and the petitioner as serial No. 18. It was under these circumstances and against this background that the petitioner filed the writ petition to quash Exts. P11, P15 and P16. Ext. P11 it may be noted is the order which directed that the 3rd respondent's name be included in the 1961 select list of Circle Inspectors.

(2.) It will be noticed from the above resume of the facts, that the appellant was selected by the Departmental Promotion Committee in the select list for the year 1961, and the 3rd respondent was not. The troubles started by reason of the attempts made to review the said select list, ultimately resulting in the inclusion of the 3rd respondent in the select list by the Government. At the relevant time, the procedure for compiling the select list and the power of reviewing the same, were regulated by G.O. (P) 420, Public (Rules) Department dated 29th December 1967. The relevant rules are R.8 and 8A. According to R.8, the select list had to be prepared from among eligible officers on the basis of merit and ability, seniority being considered only where merit and ability are approximately equal. According to R.8A the select list prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee is to be published by the Convener of the Committee after approval by the Government. No modification of such list shall be made, under R.29 of the General Rules, on the basis of reevaluation of the confidential reports. However, if any officer who has been superseded and whose name has not been included in the list makes, within one month from the date of publication of the list, a written representation to the Convener of the Departmental Promotion Committee, the Committee is to consider the representation and after hearing the parties concerned revise the list if so felt necessary. This was the power of the Committee itself to revise the list. Apart from this, the Government had power to revise the list in "exceptional circumstances'' which warrant a departure from the advice of the Departmental Promotion Committee "in public interest". In such cases the Committee should be given a fresh opportunity to consider the proposals of the Government to modify the select list. After receipt of the recommendations of the Committee, if the Government is satisfied about the exceptional circumstances and considerations of public interest, it can revise the list. By G.O. (MS) No. 903 dated 19th October 1959, it was decided that all cases of disagreement between the Departmental Promotion Committee and the Ministers concerned will be placed before the Council of Ministers for decision. This is an inconsequential provision as far as the facts of the present case is concerned.

(3.) In the light of the above Government orders, we are of the opinion that no grounds at all were disclosed for the Government to take action to proceed to revise the select list of Circle Inspectors for the year 1961, and include the name of the 3rd respondent in the said list. The 3rd respondent himself had not filed any representation, challenging Exts. P2 to P5 lists. Neither any exceptional "circumstances" nor considerations of "Public interest" have been disclosed for reviewing the list. Ext. P13 notice which preceded the impugned action does not at all set out or disclose any of these considerations; and on the facts and the circumstances disclosed, we are unable to see any exceptional features or pressure of public interest to warrant interference with the select list.