1999 (9) TMI 942 - SC - Indian Laws

Court overturns high court ruling on appointments, orders re-fixing seniority. One appeal dismissed.

The appeals filed by L. Chandrakishore Singh and N. Bijoy Singh were allowed, setting aside the High Court's Full Bench judgment. The appellants' ... - Issues Involved:1. Determination of seniority for Manipur Police Service (MPS) officers.2. Applicability of the judgment in Union of India & Anr. vs. Harish Chander Bhatia & Ors.3. Comparative study of Delhi & Andaman & Nicobar Island Police Service Rules (DANI Rules) and MPS Rules.4. Interpretation of 'substantively borne on the cadre of Inspector of Police' under Rule 5(1)(b) of MPS Rules.5. Validity of continuous officiating service towards seniority.6. Confirmation and regularization of appointments.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Determination of Seniority for MPS Officers:The primary issue was whether police officers with continuous, uninterrupted, meritorious officiating service could count this service towards their seniority. The judgment concluded that the appellants' officiating appointments should be treated as regular appointments, and their seniority should be re-fixed accordingly.2. Applicability of the Judgment in Union of India & Anr. vs. Harish Chander Bhatia & Ors.:The court analyzed the applicability of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Anr. vs. Harish Chander Bhatia & Ors., which dealt with similar issues under the DANI Rules. It was held that the principles laid down in Bhatia's case were applicable to the MPS Rules as both sets of rules were found to be pari materia (similar in substance).3. Comparative Study of DANI Rules and MPS Rules:The judgment involved a comparative study of the DANI Rules and MPS Rules. It was concluded that both sets of rules were framed by the Central Government and were similar in their provisions. The court held that the intention behind both sets of rules was the same, thus the principles governing seniority under the DANI Rules were applicable to the MPS Rules.4. Interpretation of 'Substantively Borne on the Cadre of Inspector of Police' under Rule 5(1)(b) of MPS Rules:The court examined the phrase 'substantively borne on the cadre of Inspector of Police' under Rule 5(1)(b) of the MPS Rules. It was held that this phrase could not be interpreted to mean only those inspectors whose probation had been confirmed. The consistent practice of the State Government to consider only confirmed inspectors for promotion was found to be unjustified.5. Validity of Continuous Officiating Service Towards Seniority:The court held that continuous officiating service should be counted towards seniority. It was noted that appointments made under Rule 24 of the MPS Rules, which were based on merit and suitability, could be considered as regular appointments. The judgment emphasized that long-term officiating appointments should not be treated as temporary and should be given due recognition in seniority calculations.6. Confirmation and Regularization of Appointments:The issue of confirmation and regularization was addressed by examining the appointment orders and the subsequent confirmation of the appellants. The court held that the appellants' appointments should be treated as substantive from the date of their initial officiating appointments. The earlier judgment of the Gauhati High Court, which directed the deletion of the words 'until further orders' from the appointment orders, was upheld.Conclusion:The appeals filed by L. Chandrakishore Singh and N. Bijoy Singh were allowed, and the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court was set aside. The respondents were directed to treat the appellants' officiating appointments as regular appointments and re-fix their seniority accordingly. The appeal filed by Smt. Vandana Karki & Ors. was dismissed. The appellants were awarded costs of Rs. 10,000 each to be paid by the Respondent-State.