G.S.RAMASWAMY & ORS. versus INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, MYSORE

Citation: [1964] 6 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 21-01-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
6 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
279 
Mr· Ghose, however, . contends 
that the 
appellant's 
1964 
detention in the respondent's office was illegal and that, s. c. San11i•i 
therefore, the respondent could not be said to have been in Bibhuti v.8huilwn 
a position to exercise any lawful authority with respect to 
Chakravor11 
him. It is difficult to appreciate how the appellant's deten-
Mudholkar 
I. 
tion could be said to be illegal because it was in pursuance 
of the investigation of the complaint lodged by Manoharlal 
Seth that he was arrested and brought for interrogation 
before the respondent. It was not disputed before us that 
investigation into Manoharlal's complaint had been ordered 
though there is a dispute as to whether it was ordered by 
the respondent or by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. 
Whether it was by one or the other makes little difference. 
We would like to make it clear that Mr. Ghose did 
not 
contend before us that the appellant's detention in the office 
of the respondent was illegal because his initial arrest was 
without a warrant. 
But we may point out that a police 
officer is legally empowered to arrest a person alleged to 
have committed an offence under s. 420, I.P.C. without a 
warran!. 
Such being the position the High Court was justified in 
q,ushing the process. Accordingly we dismiss this appeal. 
Appeal dismissed. 
0. S. RAMASWAMY & ORS. · 
v . .. 
INSPECTOR-GENERAL OF POLICE, MYSORE 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, K. c. DAS 
GUPTA, J. C. SHAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR JJ.) 
Stlltt Police Strvict-Sub-lnspector1 included in tligibility list of Cir1.:le 
Jruptctor.s-RtorganUation of_ Statt1-Appointment tu Circle Iru-
ptctor1 in new State-Rever1ion on return 
of 1enior o{fictr._,f 
rtduction in ra11k-My1ort Stniority Rult•, 19S1, r. 2(c)-
H1derabad District Polict Mcnual, u. 399, 403, 486. 
1964 
larumry., 21 
1964 
G. s. Ramaswamy 
•• 
/. 
G. Polict. 
Myvor~ 
280 
?UPREME COURT REPORTS 
[r¢4J 
All the petitioners were appointed Sub-Inspecton in the former Hydo-
rabad State. They were considered for promotion as Circle Inspectors and 
their names were included in the eli1ibility list. On account of the merger 
of certain areas of the former State of Hyderabad into Mysore petitioners 
..,.ere transferred to Mysore. The petitioners were promoted ad hoc Circle 
Inspectors from the eligibility list received from the former Hyderabad 
State and they continued to act for varying periods as such. When cer-
tain confirmed Circle Inspectors who were on leave or on deputation out-
side the State returned to the new State, the petitioners were ordered to 
be reverted. 
When tha( happened, the petitioners filed writ petitions in 
the Mysore High Court in which they claimed that as they bad been put 
in the e1igilibity list by the former Hyderabad State, they were entitled u 
of right to promotion as Circle Inspectors and to Continue as such there-
after and the order of their reversion amounted to reduction in rank. They 
prayed for a writ, order or direction quashing the orders of reYersion and 
directing the State Government to continue them as Circle Inspectors and 
confirm them as such. 
Their writ petitions were dismissed by the High 
Court and they came to this Court by special leave. They also filed writ 
petitions. in this Court in addition to the appeals. Two others who had 
not appealed against the orders of the High Court also filed writ petitions 
in this Court. 
The contentions raised before this Court 
were that as their names 
were put in the eligibility list, they got an indefeasible right to promotion 
as Circle Inspectors, that after promotion on a temporary or oftic1aung 
basis they got a right not to be reverted under any circumstances, that as 
they had worked for more than two years on probation, they became auto-
matically confirmed under R. 486. that their reversions amounted to re-
duction in rank in view of R7 2 (c) and that they shou1d be considered 
senior to other Circle Inspectors who were promoted after they were pro-
moted as Circle Inspectors and therefore they should not have been rever-
ted but the other Circle Inspectors who were promoted after them as Circle 
Inspectors should have been reverted on the principle that junior most 
officiating persons must be reverted. Dismissing the appeals and writ peti-
tions. 
Held: The mere fact that a Sub-Inspector's name is once put in the 
eJigibility list does not give him an in'defeasible right to prom
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.