STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. versus MANAS KUMAR CHAKRABARTI AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 72 · Decided: 13-12-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. 
V. 
MANAS KUMAR CHAKRABARTI AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 13, 2002 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND B.N. SRIKRISHNA, JJ.] 
Service law: 
Indian Police Service-Appointment/Selection-Post of Director General 
C and Inspector General of Police in West Bengal-Appointment of an officer 
challenged by another officer-Tribunal upholding the appointment but High 
Court quashing the same-On appeal, Held: There is neither any rule, nor 
guideline, nor practice in the State that only an incumbent in the post of DGP 
is eligible to the post of DG & /GP and the selection was made by credible 
D mechanism-Hence appointment valid-Order of Tribunal restored. 
First respondent and second respondent are officers of the Indian 
Police Service cadre of 1966 batch. In the initial merit list, name of first 
respondent appeared at serial no.2 and of second respondent at serial no.6. 
Second respondent was working as Addi. DGP and was selected and 
E empanelled for appointment as DGP. Few months later second respondent 
who was No. I in the Select List was considered along with three other 
existing DGPs for suitability to be appointed to the post of DG & IGP 
and was promoted and appointed by a composite order to officiate in the 
post of DG & IGP. His appointment was regularized by deleting the word 
"Officiate". First respondent who was holding the post of DG & CGHG 
F challenged the appointment of second respondent as DG & IGP. He relied 
on Government of Karnataka v. C. Dinakar and Ors. and Vineet Narain and 
Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. cases. It was contended that the post of 
DG & IGP was a promotional post, its feeder category being cadre of DGP 
and that there was no "credible mechanism" for the comparative 
G ~ssessment of merit and selection to the post of Chief of Police. Tribunal 
dismissed the petition. However, High Court quashed the appointment of 
second respondent to the vacant post of DG & IGP. Hence the present 
appeal. 
H 
Appellant-State Government contended that there is neither any rule, 
72 
STATE v. MANAS KUMAR CHAKRABARTI 
73 
nor guideline, nor practice, by which the appointment fo the post of DG A 
& IGP in the State of West Bengal is treated as a promotional post from 
the feeder category of DGPs and that the post of DG & IGP should be 
held only by a person who already held the substantive post of DGP; that 
the judgment in Dinakar 's case does not lay down as a general proposition 
of law of universal application that only an officer in the substantive cadre . B 
of DGP could be appointed as DG & IGP; and that High Court fell into 
error in assuming that a "credible mechanism" had not been established 
for selection of officers to superior posts and also in thinking that the 
circular dated 15.1.1999 does not apply to the selection of DG & IGP. 
First Respondent contended that DG & IGP being Police Chief of C 
State, is superior to other DGPs in terms of legal and administrative duties 
and responsibilities, prestige, powers, status, honour and mere posting of 
an officer to the post of DG & IGP as compared to the previous post held, 
amounts to promotion, even if both the posts carry the same scale of pay; 
that deployment of an incumbent in such a post can go only by seniority; 
and that second respondent was not selected to the post by 'credible D 
mechanism'. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. High Court erred in taking the view that there is an 
inexorable proposition of law that only an incumbent in the post of DGP E 
was eligible to the post of DG & IGP. There is no such requirement either 
under the rules/guidelines or practice followed in the State of West Bengal. 
It also erred in assuming that the mechanism by which the second 
respondent was selected for holding the post of DG & IGP was not 
credible. The mechanism by which the selection was made by the appellant F 
was credible. Therefore, the order of Tribunal upholding validity of the 
appointment of second respondent as DG & IGP is affirmed. (85-A-CI 
1.2. The submission that the judgment in Dinakar's case does not lay 
down as a general proposition of law of universal application, that only 
an officer in the substantive cadre of DGP could be appointed as DG & G 
IGP, appears to be justified and must be upheld. Dinakar 's case does not 
lay down as a matter of law that an officer not in the cadre of DGP is 
ineligible for being posted as DG & IGP in all the States. High Court erred 
in assuming the same. Tribunal 

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