SHAKUNTALA SHUKLA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition and the connected writ petitions have been filed for a writ of certiorari praying for quashing the select list of 1996-97 of persons who had been selected for promotion from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police to the post of Inspector. A true copy of the select list is Annexure-4 to the writ petition.

(2.) In pursuance of an interim order dated 15.9.97 in Writ Petition No. 23137 of 1997, the selected candidates have been served notices through the D.I.G. (Karmik) in Police Headquarters. A large number of points have been raised by several counsel for the petitioners in this case as well as in the connected petitions. I have perused the petitions, counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit and have heard submissions of the parties, in my opinion, this petition and the connected petitions deserve to be allowed on two of the points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and I am not expressing any opinion on the other points (e.g., whether the Selection Committee was validly constituted) as that is unnecessary since the petitions are being allowed on the first two points.

(3.) Under Regulation 438 of the U. P. Police Regulations, promotion to the post of Inspector from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police should be made every year. In the present case, however, the facts disclose that there was no selection from 1991 to 1997 and instead by the impugned order, selections have been made for vacancies which occurred from 1991 to 1997 by clubbing all these vacancies together. In my opinion, this is clearly illegal, and my view is supported by the decisions of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Vipin Chandra Hira Lal, 1996 (6) SCC 721 and Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India, 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 575. In both these decisions, it was held that selections should ordinarily be held every year, and the clubbing of the vacancies of several years in a combined select list is illegal.