HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI AND ORS. versus DINESH KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [2015] 6 S.C.R. 825 · Decided: 11-05-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · 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)

(2015] 6 S.C.R. 825 
HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI AND ORS. 
v. 
DIN ESH KUMAR PANDEY AND ORS. ETC. 
(Civil Appeal No.6549 of2014) 
MAY11,2015 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Service Law - Promotion - Of Constables ~nd Head 
Constables -
To the post of Su!J-lnspectors - Process of C 
promotion challenged by unsuccessful candidates - 3ingle 
Judge of High Court allowed the writ petition on the grounds 
that there was substantial departure from Police Regulations, 
that number of candidates called for interview was much 
higher than the required four times, that sealed cover D 
procedure was not followed and that members of Interview 
Committee did not give separate marks individually -
Division Bench of High Court reversed the order of Single 
Judge - On appeal, held: lnterferymce of Court with executive 
action is warranted only when 'there are oblique motives or E 
there is miscarriage of Justice - The promotion process in 
the present case is not flawed - Moreover, the appellants 
having participated in the process of interview, cannot be 
permitted to challenge the process after declaration of the F 
result- In the present case, in absence of any oblique motive 
or miscarriage of Justice, interference is not called for- Uttar 
Pradesh Police Regulations, 1976- Regulation 445(8)(4). 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. The procedure for selection of 
departmental candidates for the promotion to the rank 
of Sub-inspectors was changed and was amended by 
825 
G 
H 
826 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015) 6 S.C.R. 
A every Government Order viz. the Government Order 
dated 23.01.1999 and 22.02.1999. Thus, the prior 
Government Order was impliedly repealed every time the 
new procedure was laid down. Regulation 445(8) (4) of 
Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, 1976 and clause 8 of 
B the Government Order dated 27.02.1999 provide different 
requirement for being called for the interview. Clause 8 
of Government order did not provide the qualification 
but only eligibility for a candidate to come in the list of 
interview. Clause 8 of the rule makes it mandatory to call 
C for interview, all those who secure 40% marks separately 
in each subject and 50% marks aggregate in the written 
examination. If both the above quoted rules were to exist, 
it would create a contradictory situation. Therefore, 
0 
Regulation 445 cannot be said to prevail over or co-exist 
with the Government Order dated 27 .02.1999, in respect 
of the number of candidates to be called for interview. 
[Para 14) [837-B, E, F-H] [838-A-C] 
State of Rjasthan and Ors. Vs. Basant Agrotech (India) 
E Limited (2013) 15 SCC 1 - referred to. 
2. Regulation 445 of the Regulations of UP 
Government (as amended upto 31.08.1977) which 
provides for qualifications and procedure for promotion 
F from rank of Constable and Head Constables to Sub 
Inspectors, are actually a compilation of Government 
Orders issued from time to time. Therefore, the 
Regulations are not a superior law as compared to the 
Government Orders and it may be amiss to suggest that 
G Regulations would prevail over the Government Orders 
by virtue of being called Regulations. [Para 10) [835-B-
E] 
3. Furthermore, there is no rule of law as to the ratio 
of number of vacancies to the number of candidates for 
H being called for interview; although it may be a rule of 
HC PRADEEP KUMAR RAI v. DINESH KUMAR PANDEY 827 
prudence. Although it may be improper for the Selection A 
Committee to call such large number of candidates for 
interview, but selection cannot be vitiated merely on this 
ground if such an action is not tainted by ma/a fide or 
oblique motive. Moreover, the appellants have not 
presented a case that had they been called for interview, B 
being only four times the number of vacancies, they 
would have been short listed in that list. [Para 15] [838-
D-G] 
Mohinder Sain Garg Vs. State of Punjab and Ors. (1991) C 
1SCC662: 1990 (3) Suppl. SCR 108;Ashok KumarYadav 
Vs. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417: 1985 (1) Suppl. 
SCR 657 -relied on. 
4. The process of sealed cover procedure was o 
devised to prevent any prejudice being caused to the 
persons against whom the disciplinary or criminal 
proceedings are pending. In the present case, it is 
nobody's case that such persons are prejudiced. [Para 
17] [839-D, E] 
E 
5. The purpose of constituting multi member 
interview panel is to remove the arbitrariness and ensure 
objectivity. It is required by each member of the interv
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.