MUKUL KUMAR GHOSH Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above mentioned application have been preferred by the applicatnt/Writ petitioners for review of the Full Bench judgment and order dated 5.10.93 passed in Civil Rule No. 133/92 and other connected Civil Rules. As these Civil Rules involved similar and identical issues for consideration. All the Civil Rules had beem referred to a larger Bench by the Division Bench of this court by order dated 29.1.92 in CR 129/90 with the consent of all thecounsel of both sides. Six out of the nineteen writ petitioners preferred Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court and they are before this court as applicants for review of the Full Bench judgment. The petitioner in Civil Rule No. 37/90 preferred the review application, though he did not approach the Apex Court, but seeks relief on the basis of the direction of the Apex Court said to cover his case.

(2.) In Civil Rule No. 133/92 (Review application 16/94) the writ petitioner was a direct recruit as Sub Inspector of Police under 1962 Rules. Under the Rules, 1962 a Sub Inspector of Police after completion of three years continuous service becomes eligible for promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police and accordingly he became eligible for promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police on 13.10.1973, because he entered into the service as SI of Police on 13.10.1970. Further under Rule, 1962, no such officer is required to pass anypre-promotional examination. As in 1981 a fresh set of Rules for recruitment to the post of Inspector of Police were framed wherein provisions for pre-promotion examination was inserted for promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police he sat for the examination and passed with 60% marks, but inspite of that he was not given promotion on his due date, i.e. in 1973, but was promoted only on 13.2.1984. It is to be noted that 1981 Rules enhanced the years of continuous service for promotion from 3 years to 8 years. Consequently respondent No. 4,5 and 6, who were much junior to him, were promoted to the post of Inspector of Police alongwith him. It was alleged that withholding of the promotions to the rank of Inspector of Police in time according to 1962 Rules created serious grievances among the eligible Sub Inspectors of Police who filed writ petitions (CR 107/87) and a Division Bench of this court held that these Sub Inspectors of Police recruited prior to 1981 were to be given promotion in accordance with the 1962 Rules. IE/ compliance with the aforesaid judgement and order many Sub Inspectors of Police have been allowed promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police without examination with retrospective effect, petitioner's prayer was that, if that be the case, the petitioner has also to be given the promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police (UB) with effect from 13.10.1973; that private respondents were given further promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from 23.9.1984 superseding the petitioner. In Civil Rule No. 111/90 (Review Application 17/94) the writ petitioners case is similar who entered into service as Sub Inspector of Police during the period 1.6.73 and 211.77 and recruitment Rules, 1962 was applicable to them and accordingly their promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police was due between the period of 1976 and 1980, but they were not promoted without reason though there were vacancies. That some of the private respondents, junior to them, were allowed promotion superseding the petitioners. They claimed relief under 1960 Rules which was applicable to them. In Civil Rule No. 129/90 (Review Application 19/94) the writpetitioners claimed promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police from the post of Inspector of Police. Though petitioners No. 2,3 and 4 were retired they claimed all the benefits of the promotions with all service conditions under the 1962 Rules, claiming that 1981 Rule was not applicable in their cases. In Civil Rule No. 143/90 (Review Application 21/94) the petitioners No. 1 and 2 were serving as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and petitioners No. 3 and 4 were serving as Constables who were subsequently promoted to Assistant Sub Inspector of Police. Petitioners claimed benefit of promotions under 1962 Rules as some juniors alleged to be recruited much later to them (under 1981 Rules) wene promoted. These petitioners claimed relief as awarded by the Division Benchof this Court in Civil Rule No. 29/ 79 (Sri Radha Binod Pal-vs-State of Tripura). In Civil Rule No. 94/90 (Review Application 22/94) the three petitioners joined the-posts of Sub Inspector of Police on 13.10.70, 21.2.70 and 21.12.70 respectively. That respondents No. 3 to 15 were appointed either on promotion or as direct recruit to that rank much after the appointment of the petitioners to the rank of Sub Inspector of Police. The petitioners invoked the applicability of 1962 Rules for their promotions as the recruits under 1962 Rules and claimed that their case was squarely covered by the judgment and order of Division Bench of this court whereby direction was given to promote the petitioners therein to the rank of Inspector of Police under the provisions of 1962 Rules. In Civil Rule No. 100/90 (Review Application 23/94) the four writ petitioners are recruits under 1962 Rules and entered into service on different dates. They were accordingly promoted to the posts of Sub Inspector of Police and contended that their promotions were guided by the 1962 Rules, but their promotions were withheld for reasons not intelligible. They claimed promotions to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police on the plea that their case of promotions were covered by the decision of the Division Bench of this court in CR 109/87. In Civil Rule No. 37/90 (Review Application 26/94) the three petitioners claimed relief under 1962 Rules as they were superseded by their juniors apparently under the provisions of 1981 Rules. These writ petitioners did not prefer Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, but has preferred the Review application claiming that their case is covered by the direction of the Apex Court. Admittedly no petition for condonation of delay in filing the review application was filed along with the review application. In that view of the matter our considered view is that unless the inordinate delay is not condoned by specific order of the court review application cannot be entertained. However, as the applicant has claimed that the application was similar with other review applications, the findings of this court shall be applicable to this review application also.

(3.) Apparently the cases for which the present applications for review have been filed belong to the same batch wherein all the petitioners claimed that they were eligible for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Tripura Police Service, Gr-II) with effect from the date of completion of 3 years continuous service with incidental benefits as direct recruits or by promotion under Tripura Police Service Rules, 1962 which governed the method of recruitment and qualifications necessary for appointment to the Police Department (Armed and Unarmed); that as the subsequent Rules, i.e. 1981 Rules; have no retrospective effect, their promotion has to be considered under 1962 Rules as per the decision of the Division Bench of this court in Civil Rule No. 107/87. After a long hearing the Full Bench of this court heard all the petitions on merit and by judgement and order dated 5.10.93 disposed of the writ petitions holding that no vested right of any officer has been taken away or purported to be taken away under 1981 Rules. When new Rules were framed all officers in service at that time would naturally be governed by those Rules, and if the retrospective effect is not granted to the Rules, vested right will not be effected; that officers in service when 1962 Rules were repealed did have a right to be considered for promotion to the next higher post in accordance with those Rules, but only to the vacancies which existed at (the time of the repeal; that they do not have a right to contend that all future: vacancies in cadre of Inspector of Police should be governed only by Rules in force when they became Sub Inspector of Police; that their claims must necessarily be confined to those vacancies which existed when new Rules came into effect. Direction to the State Government was given to verify the number of vacancies existing in the cadre of Inspector of Police on 12.2.81 and to verify which of the vacancies were filled up subsequently by virtue of judgment of court and if any vacancy remain, to consider case of the petitioners, subject to eligibility, under the 1962 Rules and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Admittedly petitioners sought relief under 1962 Rules for their promotion to Deputy Superintendent of Police as stated above. As it is apparent in the judgment for review, the Full Bench summarised the facts and merits of each case at para 10 of the judgment. We feel reproduction of para 10 of the judgement is necessary to examine the contention of the review applicants wherein faint attempts have been made to interpret the order of the Hon"ble Apex Court that merit of the petition as contended in the writ petitions were not at all considered by the Full Bench and petitioners' rightful claim for promotion was not decided though in the facts and merit of their individual cases court could have given direction to the respondent State to promote the applicants/writ petitioners; that their case .has nothing to do with the 1962 Rules or 1981 Rules for recruitment; that their only case was against supersession of their juniors. In para 101 of the judgement for review the Full Bench, as stated above, summarised the facts and merits of the cases after hearing each case at length and found that at the time of hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners restricted their arguments to some aspects. As stated above para 10 of the judgement is reproduced here accordingly: