SUBODH KUMAR JAISWAL AND ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 3 S.C.R. 1107 · Decided: 05-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 3 S.C.R. 1107 
SUBODH KUMAR JAISWAL AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1776 of 2008) 
MARCH 5, 2008 
B 
~· 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Service Law -Appointment by promotion - Confirmation 
as Deputy Superintendent of police w.e.f. 1987 by order dated 
1989 - In 1991 promoted as /PS - In 1994, Officer claiming c 
for having been considered for promotion for the vacancies 
arising in 1988 and seeking year of allotment as 1984 instead 
of 1987 - Central administrative tribunal rejecting the claim 
on the ground of delay and /aches - In writ petition, High Court 
..,. 
granting the claim condoning the. delay in approaching the D 
Tribunal - Under threat of Contempt, State promoting the 
.. 
officer without preparing seniority list for the concerned year, . 
treating the year of allotment as 1984 -Affected direct recruits 
appointed in 1985 approaching this Court - Held: Order of 
the High Court not sustainable - The order is inconsistent -
E 
There was no explanation for the delay - Normal procedure 
of preparation of year-wise seniority list was given a go-bye -
Direction to draw up year-wise seniority lists for the concerned 
years and then to determine the eligibility of the Officer. 
~--< 
Respondent No. 4 was appointed as Deputy F 
superintendent of Police (DSP) in 1979. In terms of third 
proviso to Regulation 5 (2) of Indian Police Service 
(Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 he was 
promoted to IPS on 8.3.1991. His year of allotment as IPS 
was given as 1987 i.e. the year in which he was confirmed G 
as DSP. Respondent No. 4 made a representation to treat 
1984 as the year of allotment instead of 1987 and treating 
.r ~ him as having been appointed by promotion as IPS in 1988 
as he had become eligible on that date. However, he had 
1107 
H 
1108 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008) 3 S.C.R. 
A not pressed his claim for consideration for promotion in 
1 
1988 itself. He filed application before Central 
Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed on the 
ground that the application suffered from delay and 
laches as respondent No. 4 made representation for the 
B first time in 1994. Review petition was also dismissed. Writ 
petition was allowed condoning the delay in approaching 
~ 
the Tribunal and directed the officials to redetermine year 
of allotment of respondent No. 4 as 1987, holding that he 
was eligible for consideration for the vacancies in 1988. 
c Contempt petition was filed by respondent No. 4 and 
under threat of contempt, State implemented the judgment 
of High Court without preparing any seniority list for the 
year 1988, by changing his year of allotment to 1984 and 
thus placing him above the appellant who were direct 
0 recruits for the year 1985. Hence the present appeals by 
'!'-
the appellants after obtaining permission for filing the 
~ 
same as they were not parties before the High Court. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
E 
HELD: The judgment of the High Court gave 
inconsistent directions; first was to consider the year of 
allotment to be 1987 and consider respondent No.4's 
case. Subsequent part was the conclusion that 
respondent No.4 .was entitled to promotion. There was 
F practically no explanation for the belated approach to the 
Tribunal, and the normal procedul"e of preparing year-
wise seniority list was given a go bye because of High 
Court's direction. Central Government is directed to draw 
up year-wise lists for the concerned years and to 
G determine the eligibility of respondent No.4 and take a· 
decision in that regard. [Paras 6 and 7] (1113-E-H; 1114-A] 
H 
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1776 
of 2008. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 30.04.2004 and 
SUBODH KUMAR JAISWAL AND ORS. v. UNION OF 
1109 
INDIAAND ORS. [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
25.01.2005 of the .. High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ A 
Petition No. 2987 of 2002. 
WITH 
Civil Appeal No. 1777 of 2008. 
K.K. Rai, P.P. Rao, S.K. Pandey, S.K. Singh, Gopal Prasad 
B 
for the Appellants. 
A. Sharma, ASG., V.A. Mohta, Mahabir Singh, Nitin S. 
Tambwekar B.S. Sai, K. Rajeev, Sushma Suri, Binu Tamta, 
Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, Nikhil Jain and Ajay Pal for the c 
Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge iri these appeals is to the order passed by a D 
-t 
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court allowing the writ 
... 
petitions filed by Gulabrao Dharmu Pol, respon
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.