SUSHIL KUMAR versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 279 · Decided: 19-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
279
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 279
279
SUSHIL KUMAR
v.
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 401 of 2022)
JANUARY 19, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI
NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Punjab Police Rules, 1934: rr. 12.10, 13.1, 13.7 – Promotion
to Head Constable – Promotion under the 10% quota of outstanding
performance for inclusion in the B-I List – Recommendation power
of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) – Power of Inspector
General of Police (IG) to review or substitute the recommendations
of Superintendent of Police (SP) – Appellant was appointed as a
Head Constable in the year 1995 – His name was recommended by
the SP under the 10% quota of outstanding performance for
inclusion in the B-I List for promotion to the post of Head Constable
in the year 2004 – However, his name was dropped down by the IG
– Three years later, i.e., in 2007, his name was again forwarded by
the SP and this time it was passed by the IG, by virtue of which he
was granted promotion and was made the Officiating Head
Constable from 2008 – Appellant filed writ petition in 2011 seeking
retrospective promotion with effect from 2004, his grievance was
that he should have been promoted in the year 2004 itself and that
the delay in appointing him in 2008 is illegal and arbitrary – High
Court dismissed the petition on the ground that selection is not a
matter of right – Held: In view of the clear procedure laid down
under Rule 13.7, the claim of the appellant fail as the assumption
that the recommendation of DPC headed by the SP is final and that
the IG has no power to review or substitute the decision is
misconceived – The Rule itself clarifies the position that the
recommendation of the SP is not final until the same is approved by
the IG – Further, the powers of the IG are elucidated clearly in
r.13.7(14) – It is stated that the ‘approval’ is by the Cadre Controlling
Authority of the SP – It is the IG, who shall accord ‘approval’ only
upon scrutiny – This means if the IG is not satisfied, he shall not
accord approval – The scope of the power vested in the IG is also
indicated in the Rule which provides that he can seek clarifications
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
280
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
from the DPC and also refer the list back to the SP for corrections/
omissions if he thinks it is necessary – Thus, the recommendation of
the DPC is not final and does not give any indefinite right to be
appointed as Head Constable – Service law.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In view of the clear procedure laid down under
the Rule 13.7, the contentions of the Appellant must fail as the
assumption that the recommendation of DPC headed by the SP is
final and that the IG has no power to review or substitute the
decision is misconceived. The Rule itself clarifies the position
that the recommendations of the SP are not final until the same is
approved by the IG. Further, the powers of the IG are elucidated
clearly in Rule 13.7(14). It is stated that the ‘approval’ is by the
Cadre Controlling Authority of the SP. It is the IG, who shall
accord ‘approval’ only upon scrutiny. This means if the IG is not
satisfied, he shall not accord approval. The scope of the power
vested in the IG is also indicated in the Rule which provides that
he can seek clarifications from the DPC and also refer the List
back to the SP for corrections/omissions if he thinks it is necessary.
The recommendation of the DPC is not final. It is also evident
that the recommendation of the DPC does not give any indefinite
right to be appointed as Head Constable. [Para 8, 8.1][286-F-H;
287-A-B]
1.2 The third stage of scrutiny before a constable is selected
as a Head Constable. requires the candidate to be sufficiently
high in the State Level Comparative Merit of the candidates to
be selected under the 10% quota. Therefore, it can never be
contended that mere recommendation of the SP at the initial stage
is sufficient to claim a right for promotion. The further contention
of the Appellant is that the power of the IG is “not discretionary
but mandatory” is also incorrect as Sub-rule 14 of Rule 13.7 clearly
empowers the IG to exercise the power of scrutiny and grant
approval. This power would also extend to not granting an
approval if the IG is not satisfied. Therefore, the power is not be
rested solely on the basis of the word “through” in Rule 13.7(9).
[Para 8.2][287-B-D]
1.3 As far as the contention of Appellant that the subsequent
recommendation was also on the very same out

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