1967 (8) TMI 117 - SC - Indian Laws

Police officer denied promotion despite seniority as selection grade posts require merit over seniority ranking

The SC held that a petitioner was not entitled to promotion to Deputy Inspector General of Police (1955) or Inspector General of Police (1966) solely ... Whether the petitioner was entitled, as of right, to be promoted as Deputy Inspector General of Police in 1955 or as Inspector General of Police in 1966 merely on the ground that his name stood first in the Gradation List prepared under Rule 6 of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954? Held that:- As a matter of long administrative practice promotion to selection grade posts in the Indian Police Service has been based on merit and seniority has been taken into consideration only when merit of the candidates is otherwise equal and we are unable to accept the argument of Mr. N. C. Chatterjee that this procedure violates, in any way, the guarantee under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. For the reasons expressed we hold that the petitioner has been unable to make out a case for the grant of a writ under Art. 32 of the Constitution. The petition accordingly fails and is dismissed The core legal questions considered by the Court in this case are:1. Whether the petitioner was entitled, as a matter of right, to promotion to the posts of Deputy Inspector General of Police in 1955 and Inspector General of Police in 1966 solely on the basis of his seniority as reflected in the Gradation List prepared under the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954.2. Whether the State of Rajasthan violated the provisions of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954 and the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by superseding him in promotions to selection grade posts.3. Whether the absence of specific statutory rules governing promotion to selection grade posts precludes the Government from issuing administrative instructions on promotion principles.4. Whether the promotion policy based on merit, with seniority as a secondary criterion, violates the constitutional guarantees of equality and non-arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16.Issue 1: Right to Promotion Based on Seniority in Gradation ListThe relevant legal framework includes the All India Services Act, 1951, empowering the Central Government to frame rules regulating recruitment and conditions of service, and the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954. Rule 6 mandates preparation of an annual Gradation List reflecting seniority, which the petitioner relied upon to claim entitlement to promotion.The Court examined Rules 3, 4, 5, 5-A, 6, and 7 of the Seniority Rules, as well as the Indian Police Service (Pay) Rules, 1954, particularly Rules 3 and 8 and Schedule III, which classify posts into junior scale, senior scale, and selection grade posts carrying pay above the time-scale. The posts of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Additional Inspector General of Police, and Inspector General of Police in Rajasthan were found to be selection grade posts.The Court reasoned that the mere position in the Gradation List does not confer a right to promotion to selection grade posts. Unlike promotions within the junior or senior time-scales, selection grade posts require consideration of merit and experience beyond seniority. The Court emphasized that 'the circumstance that these posts are classed as 'Selection Grade Posts' itself suggests that promotion to these posts is not automatic being made only on the basis of ranking in the Gradation List but the question of merit enters in promotion to selection posts.'The Court rejected the petitioner's argument that the State was bound to promote him based solely on seniority, holding that 'promotion to selection grades or selection posts is to be based primarily on merit and not on seniority alone.' Seniority is relevant only where merit is equal among candidates.Issue 2: Alleged Violation of Rules and Fundamental RightsThe petitioner contended that the State's orders violated Rule 6 of the Seniority Rules and his fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16 by superseding him without due consideration.The State countered that the posts in question are selection posts and that promotions were made based on merit and experience after considering all eligible officers, including the petitioner. The Court noted that there was no specific allegation or evidence that the petitioner's case was not considered at the time of promotions in 1955 and 1966. The State's counter-affidavit asserted that the petitioner's record and merit were taken into account.The Court held that in the absence of any proof to the contrary, it must be presumed that the petitioner's case was duly considered. Consequently, there was no violation of Articles 14 and 16, as the promotions were not arbitrary but based on an objective evaluation of merit and efficiency, consistent with the constitutional guarantee of equality and fairness.Issue 3: Validity of Administrative Instructions in Absence of Specific RulesThe petitioner argued that the Government could not impose restrictions or principles of promotion through administrative instructions in the absence of statutory rules, implying such instructions would be ultra vires.The Court rejected this argument, holding that while administrative instructions cannot amend or supersede statutory rules, they can fill gaps and supplement the rules where the latter are silent, provided they are not inconsistent with existing rules. The Court cited precedents affirming that executive power under Article 162 and legislative powers under Article 309 of the Constitution allow the Government to issue such instructions to regulate service matters.The Court referred to prior judgments clarifying that administrative authorities have the power to make appointments and removals as part of general administrative functions, even in the absence of specific statutory provisions, and that such powers are not curtailed by the absence of formal rules.Issue 4: Merit-Based Promotion and Constitutional GuaranteesThe petitioner contended that introducing merit as a criterion in promotions leads to personal evaluations susceptible to nepotism and favoritism, thereby violating Articles 14 and 16.The Court acknowledged the tension between seniority and merit-based promotion systems but emphasized that seniority alone is an inadequate criterion for selection to higher posts, especially those requiring greater responsibility and competence. The Court quoted Leonard D. White's analysis on promotion systems, highlighting the public interest in securing the best incumbents while maintaining morale and fairness.The Court held that merit-based promotion with seniority as a tiebreaker is a well-established and constitutionally valid principle. It rejected the petitioner's contention that this system is arbitrary or discriminatory, noting that the public interest demands that the most capable officers fill selection grade posts.Significant Holdings'The circumstance that these posts are classed as 'Selection Grade Posts' itself suggests that promotion to these posts is not automatic being made only on the basis of ranking in the Gradation List but the question of merit enters in promotion to selection posts.''Promotion to selection grades or selection posts is to be based primarily on merit and not on seniority alone.''If the State of Rajasthan had considered the case of the petitioner along with the other eligible candidates before appointments to the selection posts there would be no breach of the provisions of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.''While administrative instructions cannot amend or supersede statutory rules, they can fill up the gaps and supplement the rules and issue instructions not inconsistent with the rules already framed.''The principal object of a promotion system is to secure the best possible incumbents for the higher positions, while maintaining the morale of the whole organisation. The main interest to be served is the public interest, not the personal interest of members of the official group concerned.'Final determinations:- The petitioner was not entitled as a matter of right to promotion to the posts of Deputy Inspector General of Police or Inspector General of Police solely on the basis of seniority in the Gradation List.- The State of Rajasthan's decision to promote other officers to selection grade posts based on merit did not violate the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1954, or the petitioner's fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 16.- Administrative instructions regulating promotion principles are valid in the absence of specific statutory rules, provided they are consistent with existing rules.- The promotion policy balancing merit and seniority is constitutionally sound and does not amount to arbitrariness or discrimination.