LexARUN KUMAR AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
~ I ARUN KUMAR AND ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. APRIL 3, 2007 · [DR. ARIJIT PASAYA T AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] Service law: Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959: Rules 2(b) and 14-Appointment-Absorption of deputationist in cadre-Correctness of-Held-On strict interpretation of the Rules, deputation is not a source of recruitment, but it could be in exceptional cases-In such cases benefit of absorption can not be faulted if it is genuine exercise. A B c Rules 2(b), 13 and 14-Assistant Commandant in CRPF on deputation D to Punjab Police-Regularization of her service in Punjab Police as Deputy S. P. from date when she was appointed in CRPF, and not from date when she was appointed as deputationist-Correctness of-Held-Service Rules governing CRPF and Punjab Police Service were different, and even functionally, two cadres were different; apart from policing, officer of Punjab E Police Service had to investigate crime and have knowledge of CrPC, /PC etc., which was not required in CRPF-Further, her absorption concerned inter se seniority in post of Deputy S. P. since that seniority ultimately, counted for promotion to next higher cadre-In absence of rules, no weightage could be given to services rendered by her in CRPF, even as exceptional case, especially as deputation was not a source of recruitment in Punjab Police- F Rule 14 found inapplicable as it contemplated existence of a rule of recruitment, and as there was no rule providing for deputation as source of recruitment, government could not relax a non existent rule-However, due weightage ordered to be given for her experience as Deputy S. P. in Punjab Police Service. Appointment-Compassionate grounds-JPS officer in Punjab Police , Service killed by terrorists-His sister appointed in Central Reserve Police Force keeping in view that it was relatively safer than Punjab Police Servfce and as she was only child of her old parents, she had to be protected- G 707 II 708 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R. A Held-Her appointment was not compassionate but exceptional. B Seniority-lnter-se-Fixation of-Held-Concept of equality has to be applied-Rights of those who have been in service and who are also entitled to seniority and promotion in cadre, have to kept in mind-Constitution of India, 1950-Artic/es 14 and 16(1) Deputation-Nature of-Held-It equates with transfer, not with direct appointment. Respondent no. 4 is sister of an IPS officer in the Punjab Police Service who was killed by terrorists. On account of that incident she was appointed C on 9.6.1989 as Assistant Commandant in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). This assignment was given to her as it was relatively safer than Punjab Police Service. Her appointment was governed by CRPF Rules. On completion of her probation, she was appointed on deputation to the post of Superintendent of Police in Punjab Police on 16-17.8.1993. She retained her D lien as Assistant Commandant in CRPF till 11.9.1998 when she was absorbed as DSP in Punjab Police. She was allowed all benefits including pay and seniority from 9.6.1989. In between, she was promoted to the post of Deputy Commandant in CRPF in March, 1995. The appellants are officers of Punjab Police Service. They filed writ E petition challenging absorption of respondent no. 4, but same were dismissed. Hence the present appeal. Appellants contended that (i) absorption of respondent no. 4 in Punjab Police was without authority of law and in violation of their fundamental rights under Article 14 read with Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India, 1950 F particularly in view of the Government conferring the benefit of seniority on her with effect from 9.6.1989; (ii) she was not entitled to the double benefit of appointment in CRPF on compassionate grounds and absorption in Punjab Police Service again on compassionate grounds; (iii) deputation is not a source ofrecruitment under the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959; (iv) CRPF in its activities is confined to law and order whereas Punjab Police functions G H require crime detection, in addition to policing; respondent no. 4 had not undergone that required training; (v) the State Government has not maintained ACRs ofrespondent no. 4 between 16/17.8.1993 and 11.9.1998 under the 1959 Rules, as she had a lien to a post in CRPF; her entire service record during the above period was governed by the CRPF Rules. + ~ , ....., -/ ARUN KUMAR v. U.O.l. 709
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.