W.P. (S) Nos. 6350 and 6361 of 2006. Case: 1. Jorong Danial Hirala Guria and Daddanji Sharma 2. Hiralal Guria Vs Union of India (UOI) and Ors.. Jharkhand High Court
| Case Number | W.P. (S) Nos. 6350 and 6361 of 2006 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv., S.N. Pathak and Rakesh, Advs. and For Respondents: Ram Nivas Roy and Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advs. and For State of Bihar: S.P. Roy, Pankaj Kumar and Rajnath Vardhan, Advs. and For State of Jharkhand: R.N. Sahay, Sr. S.C. II and S.K. Sinha, JC to Sr. S.C. II and For Union of India: Prabhash Kumar, Adv. and For U.P... |
| Judges | M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J. and Amareshwar Sahay, J. |
| Issue | Central Adminstrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 - Rule 10; Indian Public Service (Cadre) Rules - Rule 5(2); State Reorganization Act ;Bihar Reorganization Act, 2000 - Sections 71, 72 |
| Citation | 2008 (1) JCR 43 (Jhr) |
| Judgement Date | November 02, 2007 |
| Court | Jharkhand High Court |
Judgment:
M. Karpaga Vinayagam, C.J., (At Ranchi)
-
The petitioners, the Police Officers, having aggrieved over the promotion of their juniors to I.P.S Cadre overlooking their seniority, have filed these two writ petitions praying for quashing of the order dated 19.9.2006 passed in O.A Nos. 560/04 and 146/05 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal).
-
The petitioners, filed O.A Nos. 560/04 and 146/05 before Tribunal for quashing the select list dated 7.7.2004 prepared by the Selection Committee and for quashing the consequent notification dated 16.8.2004, whereby three Officers of the Jharkhand State Police Service, the juniors to the petitioners, were recommended for appointment on promotion to the cadre of Indian Police Service from the State of Jharkhand by-passing their seniority. They also prayed for directing the authorities for constituting a review D.P.C to consider their cases for the purpose of appointment by promotion to IPS cadre and to put their names in the selection list.
-
Both these O. As have been dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that there is no illegality in the selection list dated 7.7.2004 prepared by the Selection Committee as well as in the notification dated 16.8.2004. Aggrieved by that, the petitioners have filed these two separate writ petitions.
-
The short facts are as follows:
The petitioners were selected as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the year 1979. On 15.11.2000, State of Bihar was bifurcated into two States and the new State, namely, State of Jharkhand, was created. The State of Bihar was given the cadre strength of 163 IPS and the State of Jharkhand was given the cadre strength of 87 IPS. Out of 87, 26 were allocated to promotee quota of IPS. Again out of promotion quota of 26, 25 promotee IPS were in position in State of Jharkhand. As on 1.1.2001, one vacancy was available.
One B.P. Sinha, promotee IPS, died on 6.6.2001. Therefore, due to his sad demise, one more vacancy was created. The first vacancy fell on 1.1.2001 by way of cadre transfer. One O.P. Khare from Bihar was appointed in IPS cadre in Jharkhand cadre on 31.10.2001. For the select list of 2003 against the promotion quota of 26, 23 promotee IPS Officers were in position as on 1.1.2003. During the year 2003, three vacancies had become available due to retirement of D.N. Singh, Rakhen Prasad Singh and R.B. Barno. As such, three vacancies were available for preparing the select list of 2003. Totally, four vacancies were determined for preparing the select list of 2001 and 2003 through letter dated 16.9.2003. In the meantime, one Vinoy Kumar Pandey from Bihar was allocated Jharkhand cadre. Then the Selection Committee was constituted under regulation 3 of the I.P.S. (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955. The Selection Committee selected three persons, respondents herein, who were juniors to the petitioners. Thereafter notifications had been issued promoting those respondents. Challenging the same, the petitioners have filed separate O.As, i.e. O.A Nos. 560/04 and 146/05, before the Tribunal.
-
The Tribunal dismissed the aforesaid O.As on the following two grounds:
(A) As laid down in various judgments rendered by the Supreme Court, the assessment of the Selection Committee cannot be interfered with especially when decision for selection has been made on the basis of ranking of the respective Officers referred to in A.C.R. In this case, the assessment has been made by the Selection Committee only on the basis of the said ranking contained in A.C.R. This cannot be said to be biased or suffering from any mala fide.
(B) The petitioners' contention that there were 5 vacancies on the date of Selection Committee meeting and they can also be accommodated along with 3 other juniors in the remaining 2 vacancies as the 2 vacancies, which have been filled up earlier, cannot be said to be in accordance with law, cannot be accepted, in view of the fact that the appointments of those persons in Jharkhand, i.e. O.P. Khare and V.K. Pandey, have never been challenged. Therefore, the issue relating to validity of filling up of those posts, i.e. two of the vacancies caused earlier, cannot be dealt with by the Tribunal, as the Tribunal is not competent to go into the said relief, which was not sought for.
These findings have been challenged in these writ petitions before this Court.
-
The gist of the submissions made by Mr. Y.V. Giri, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, seeking for quashing of the selection list and process and consequent notifications, is as follows:
(I) The Selection Committee meeting dated 7.7.2004 did not consider the various relevant materials which ought to have been considered for proper selection process...
To continue reading
Request your trial