2015 (5) TMI 1148 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Promotion Process Ruling in Uttar Pradesh

HC Pradeep Kumar Rai and Ors. Versus Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Ors.

HC Pradeep Kumar Rai and Ors. Versus Dinesh Kumar Pandey and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the promotion process from Constables and Head Constables to Sub-Inspectors in Uttar Pradesh.2. Compliance with Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations and Government Orders.3. Validity of the interview process and marking system.4. Application of the sealed cover procedure.5. Participation and subsequent challenge by candidates in the selection process.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the Promotion Process:The judgment addresses a common controversy regarding the promotion of Constables and Head Constables to Sub-Inspectors in Uttar Pradesh, initiated in 1999. The process involved multiple government orders, with the key orders issued on 23.01.1999, 03.02.1999, and 27.02.1999, which outlined the selection and promotion procedures, including written exams, physical tests, and interviews. The initial number of vacancies was 2956, with 1478 allocated to promotees, later adjusted to 1564 and finally 1176 due to various administrative decisions.2. Compliance with Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations and Government Orders:The judgment examines Regulation 445 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations (amended up to 1977) and subsequent government orders. Regulation 445 provided a detailed promotion procedure, including a rule that the number of candidates called for interviews should be four times the vacancies. However, the Government Order dated 27.02.1999 superseded earlier orders and set new criteria, including calling all candidates who scored 40% in each subject and 50% aggregate in the main written exam for interviews. The court found that the Government Orders, being more recent, prevailed over the older regulations.3. Validity of the Interview Process and Marking System:The interview process was challenged on several grounds, including the number of candidates called for interviews and the method of marking. The Division Bench found that the 27.02.1999 order, which allowed all candidates meeting certain criteria to be interviewed, superseded the older regulation limiting the number of interviewees. The court also noted that the method of marking (whether separate or consolidated) was at the discretion of the examining body and not a matter for judicial interference unless there was evidence of oblique motives.4. Application of the Sealed Cover Procedure:The sealed cover procedure, which protects candidates with pending disciplinary or criminal proceedings, was not followed as per the older order dated 23.01.1999. However, the 27.02.1999 order, which superseded the former, did not require this procedure. The court found no evidence that the absence of the sealed cover procedure prejudiced any candidates.5. Participation and Subsequent Challenge by Candidates:The court emphasized that candidates who participated in the interview process without raising objections could not challenge the process after being unsuccessful. The appellants waited until the results were declared before filing their challenge, which the court deemed inappropriate. The principle of not allowing candidates to 'approbate and reprobate' was upheld, meaning they could not accept the process by participating and then reject it upon unfavorable outcomes.Conclusion:The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's findings, emphasizing that the Government Orders of 1999 were the prevailing rules for the promotion process. The court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions, finding no oblique motives or miscarriage of justice in the selection process. The judgment reinforced the principle that judicial interference is warranted only in cases of clear injustice or malfeasance.