GH HASSAN KINAH Vs. STATE OF J&K

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is a member of State Police Service calls in question the selection process initiated by the respondents for induction of the police officers into Indian Police Service mainly on the ground that the consideration accorded to him is in violation of the rules and that he is to be considered only with his equals and not un -equals. He also questioned the denial of consideration for induction for the years 1999 and 2000 on the ground that he is ineligible having already attained the age of 54 on the ground that selection having not taken place after 1994 -95, age cannot stand in his way.

(2.) THE stand of the respondents is that he has been considered for induction in accordance with the rules, but because of his lower grading his name does not figure in the select list. His exclusion from the consideration for the year 1999 -2000 is justified on the ground that he has been considered for the previous years but since he could not make the grade his further consideration after he had crossed the age bar is not permissible.

(3.) MIAN Qayoom, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the writ petitioner was wrongly superseded at the time of induction in the "year 1994 -95 though he was under suspension yet the sealed cover procedure had to be followed while considering him. In case he was exonerated and had made the grade induction should have followed. Since this course was not followed, the induction of his juniors in the year 1994 -95 was bad. That the failure of the respondents to convene meeting of the selection committee from 1995 to the year 2000 when it last met cannot be a ground to justify his consideration with un -equals who were not eligible in 1995 -96 or 1996 -97. Similarly since the selection committee did not meet argued the learned counsel, he cannot be denied consideration for the year 1999 -2000 on the ground that he had crossed the age of eligibility. In support of this contention, he heavily relied on the 2nd proviso to sub -regulation (3) of Regulation -5 of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations 1995 (for short hereinafter Promotion Regulations). Mr. Bhan, Sr. Standing Counsel has, however, argued that the petitioner has been considered for induction in accordance with the Promotion Regulations by the Selection Committee. He however, failed to make the grade and, therefore, could not be included in the select list. Since he has not challenged the decision of the Selection Committee either on the ground of bias or malice, the petition according to Mr. Bhan is not maintainable in the absence of any challenge to the vires of the Promotion Regulations. The contention of Mr. Qadri learned Senior Additional Advocate General on the other hand argued that the petition is pre -mature because induction has not taken place. His contention is that untill the select list is approved by respondents and appointment order issued writ petition would not lie. He further argued that the petitioner has not been able to show how his grading is vitiated without challenging the grading of those who have been graded excellent or very good.