LT. CDR. M. RAMESH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 6 S.C.R. 763 · Decided: 17-04-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
763
LT. CDR. M. RAMESH
v.
  UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Transferred Case (Civil) No.11 of 2017
WITH
     I.A. No.132315/2017 – Clarification/Direction)
APRIL 17, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH AND
DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 and Amended
Rules, 2011– r.8 as amended – Union of India introduced Limited
Competitive Examination (LCE) to make appointments to the Indian
Police Service (IPS) – Examination took place from 20.05.2012 to
22.05.2012, however, results of the same were not declared –
Thereafter, Union of India took the decision in 2018 to scrap the
LCE held in the year 2012 – Whether the decision of Union of
India to cancel the selection process is legal or not – Held: Legal
and valid – Decision to scrap the LCE was taken in larger public
interest and it cannot be termed to be arbitrary, discriminatory or
capricious – The result of the said examination was expected to be
declared in the year 2013 and the officers would have been sent
for training in the same year – The officers, who may have been
selected in the year 2013 at the upper age limit of 35 years or 36
years would be 5 years older in year 2018 and their induction or
recruitment in the IPS would have been delayed by more than 5
years – Government  had fixed the upper age limit of 35 years and
with delay of more than 5 years the purpose for upper age limit,
whatever it would have been, was defeated – If Union of India had
made appointments, it would have led to a plethora of litigation
where the persons recruited to the IPS between 2013 and 2018
would have claimed seniority over the persons, who appeared in
the LCE – Litigation by officers against each other would have
achieved no higher purpose – LCE was introduced keeping in view
the shortage of police officials in the IPS and to fill up the
vacancies, however, the percentage of vacancies in last 5 years
had fallen considerably, therefore, the decision of the Government
to scrap LCE cannot be termed  irrational – The induction through
   [2018] 6 S.C.R. 763
763
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
764
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 6 S.C.R.
LCE was mainly limited to persons belonging to the State Police
Services and Central Police Organization – The gain, in the IPS,
would have been set off by a consequent shortage in the State
Police Services and the Central Police Organization – The decision
to scrap the LCE is not mala fide and is a reasonable one in the
facts and circumstances of the case – Indian Police Service
(Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 – r.3 – Service Law.
Service Law – Union of India introduced the Limited
Competitive Examination (LCE) keeping in view the shortage of
police officials in the IPS – Examination took place from 20.05.2012
to 22.05.2012, however, it was subsequently scrapped – Whether
the petitioners have any vested right to claim declaration of results
and appointment pursuant to selection – Held: It is well settled that
merely because a person has been selected, does not give that
person an indefeasible right of claiming appointment – In the
instant case, results have not been declared and even the selection
process was not complete – Petitioners had no enforceable right to
claim that the result should be declared or that they should be
appointed if found meritorious.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present cases, results of Limited
Competitive Examination (LCE) have not been declared and even
the selection process is not complete.  As such, there is no
manner of doubt that the petitioners have no enforceable right to
claim that the result should be declared or that they should be
appointed if found meritorious. The law is well settled that even
though the candidates may not have a vested right of
appointment and the State is not under any duty or obligation to
fill up the vacancies, the State has to act fairly and it cannot act in
an arbitrary manner.  The decision, not to fill up the vacancies
pursuant to the selection process, must be taken bona fide and
for justifiable and appropriate reasons. [Paras 15, 16] [772-G-H;
773-A-B]
2.  In the instant case, there is no manner of doubt that it
was expected that the result of LCE would be declared in the
year 2013 and the officers would be sent for training in the same
year. The officers, who may have been selected in the year 2013
at the upper age limit of 35 years or 36 years would now be 5
years older.  No doubt, they are members of the State Police
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
765
Se

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.