PRABHAKAR & ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 2 S.C.R. 315 · Decided: 22-10-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.K. GOSWAMI · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

I 
315 
PRABHAKAR & ORS. 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
October 22, 197 5 
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALLA, JJ.] 
Bombay Police Officers (Combined Cadre) Conditions of Service Order, 1954-
Clause 7(1) (a)-Rule of fixation of seniority by taking the date of the com-1 
mencement of training is constitutionally valid, not discriminatory and does not 
offend Art. 14and;16 of the Constitution. 
Appointments to the posts of sub-inspectors (either to the Distt. Policei Force 
or the Police Force of Greater Bombay) in the State of Bombay, prior to 1st 
of May 1939, were after a training of 18 months at the Police Training School 
at Nasik. Between the period 1st May 1939 and 1st of June 1949, a new train-
ing school at Naigaum a part of Greater Bombay was started wherein the period 
of training varied from 3 to 8 months and after the short training the cadets 
were appointed straight away as Sub-Inspectors of Police in Greater Bombay. 
Separate seniority lists were maintained for the Dist!. force and the city force. 
The Nasik school continued to exist side by side with 18 months training. On 
the general principle of fixation of seniority when the combined cadre service 
order came into force w.e.f. 1-8-54 the two seniority lists were, maintained on 
the basis of their passing out the training and in order of merit obtained at the 
passing examination. After the formation, when transfers were to be made. a 
difficulty arose in fixing the inter-Se seniority of the officers appointed after 
fu!J 18 months training and one appointed after training for a shorter period 
and to avoid anomaly and hardship a provision was made in clause 7 whereby 
for the purpose of seniority (i) in the case of officers whose training com~ 
menced on any date from 1-5-39 to 1-6·1949, the date of commencement of 
the training was taken. and 
A 
B 
c 
D 
(ii) in other cases, the dote of successful completion of such a course 
E 
and inter-se the place occupied in the result~ of the examination held at the end 
·of such a course was taken. 
When the constitutionality of 'clause 7 (!)(a) was challenged, the High 
<Court of Bombay declared Clause 7(1) (a) of the order void, being violative of 
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on three grounds : 
(!) That the Government had reduced the period of training at N aigaum 
School as against the resolution dated April 6, 1940 providing for 
the establishment of a Training School at Naigaum. 
, 
(2) That according to the sai'd clause of the Order the commencement 
of the training period of the Mofussil officer was to be taken for 
determination of his seniority whereas in case of the· officer belong-
ing to the Greater Bombay Police Force, the date of his appointment 
was to be taken and in the opinfon of the High Court, this was 
clearly discriminatory. 
( 3) That in case of a cadet whose period of training had been ext-ended 
on account of his failure at the examination the impugned clause 
gave an advantage even to such a bad officer. 
Dismissing the appeal appellant No. 3 and allowing the appeal of appellants 
Nos. I and 2. the Court 
F 
G 
HELD : (i) The High Court has committed an error in the interpretation 
H 
·of the provision contained in clause 7(1) (a) of the Bombay Police Officers 
- '(Combined Cadre) Conditions of Service Order. On transfer of any police officer 
'from Greater Bombay to the District and vice-versa, if his training had com~ 
A 
n 
c 
D 
316 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 2 S.C.R. 
-
menced on any date between the period of !st May 1939 to 1st June 1949 then 
his seniority was to be determined vis-a-vis the police officer of the force to 
which he was transferred with reference to the dates on which their training 
commenced. It is not that in one case. it will be the date of commencement 
of the training and in the other it will be date of appointment. [319-C-D]. 
(ii) Ordinarily and generally method of fixation of seniority as provided 
in sub-clause (b) of clause 7(1)(a) of the order was the correct and proper 
method to be followed. 
But because of the special situation of appointment 
of some police officers during the period of 10 years on a shorter period of 
training, a departure was made as provided in clause (a). There was nothing 
wrong, illegal or unreasonable in making a provision in sub-clause (a) that in 
such a situation the commencement of the period of training will be taken as 
the date for the purposes of fixation of seniority. There was a reasonable n

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