UNION OF INDIA versus K.H. SRINIVASAN & ORS.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 743 · Decided: 19-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

12008] 13 s:c.R. 743 
UNION OF !NOIA 
A 
V. 
K.H. SRINIVASAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 5745-47 Of 2008) 
SEPTEMBER 19, 2008 
B 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regu-
lations, 1955 - High Court directing appointment of an appli- c 
cant to the /PS against a vacancy, that occurred in 1998, with 
effect from 18-01-2000 - Challenge to - Held: High Court had 
not considered the effect of the amendment to the Regula-
tions in 1997 - Matter remitted to it to consider the matter afresh 
in the light of the amended Regulations. 
D 
The. High Court, by the impugned judgment, directed 
appointment of a applicant to the Indian Police Service 
(IPS) against a vacancy, that occurred in 1998, w.e.f. 18-
01-2000. While passing such directions, the High Court 
placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Syed E 
Khalid's case and Vipinchandra Hirata/ Shah's case .. 
In appeals to this Court, the judgment of the High 
Court is challenged on the ground that it did not keep in 
y 
view the effect of the amendment made to the Indian Po-
lice Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, F 
1955 in 1997 as well as the scope and ambit of Regula-
tion 5. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: The pre and post amendment Regulation 5 G 
of the Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) 
'-1. 
Regulations, 1955 are conceptually different. Since the 
High Court. has not considered the effect of the amend-
ment to the Regulations in 1997 and applicability of the 
743 
H 
744 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 
A 
ratio in Syed Khalid's case and Vipinchandra Hirata/ Shah's 
case thereafter, it would be appropriate to set aside the 
impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the mat-
ter to it to consider the matter afresh in the light of the 
B 
c 
D 
amended Regulations. [Paras 9,10] [749-A-C] 
Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (1993) 
Suppl. 3 SC 575 and Union of India & Ors. v. Vipinchandra 
Hirata/ Shah (1996) 6 SCC 721 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
(1993) Suppl. 3 SC 575 referred to 
(1996) 6 sec 721 
referred to 
Para 6 
Para 6 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5745-47 of 2008 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 3.3.2005 of the 
High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Petition No. 14837 
of 2001 (CAT) (S), 14843 of 2001 and 35109 of 2001 (S-CAT) 
Vikas Singh, ASG, Rekha Pandey and Sushma Suri for 
E the Appellant. 
F 
G 
H 
P.R. Ramasesh, Binu Tamta, S.N. Bhat, Sanjay R. HegdE, 
Amit Kumar Chawla and A. Rohan Singh for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division 
Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing the writ petitions 
by directing as follows: 
'This takes us to the kind of relief that we may grant in 
these writ petitions, having regard to the subsequent 
developments brought to our notice. It is seen that if the 
selection committee were to conduct separate selection 
process by drawing up separate list to l'i:I up 011e vacancy 
y 
UNION OF INDIA v. K.H. SRINIVASAN & ORS. 
745 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 
that occurred in the year 1998, the appellant alone could 
A 
have been selected to l.P.S. inasmuch as the other two 
candidates who could have come under zone of 
consideration were admittedly found to be 'unfit'. Of the 
three selected candidates, Sri S.S. Annegowda, Petitioner 
in Writ Petition No. 14842 of 2001 died during the ·B 
pendency of the writ petition. Since, the two others 
including Sri S.S.Annegowda who would have come under 
zone of consideration with regard to the vacancy that 
occurred during the year 1998 are found to be unfit, they 
would be unfit for consideration even with regard to the c 
two vacancies that arose in the year 1999. In that view of 
the matter, there is no need to disturb the appointment of 
the two writ petitioners to the l.P.S. viz., K.H. Srinivasan 
(Petitioner in W.P.No.14837 of 2001) and, H.N.Siddanna 
" 
(Petitioner in W.P.No.14843 of 2001. 
D 
In the result, we dispose of these writ petition, and, in 
substitution of the impugned order of the Tribunal, we direct 
the official respondents to appoint the applicant B. 
Jkamalanabhan to the IPS against the vacancy that 
occurred in the year 1998 with effect from 18.01.2000, the E 
date of the Notification impugned before the Tribunal with 
all consequential benefits, pecuniary and otherw
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.