No illegality or arbitrariness in the process of selection for promotion – SC
D.D: – JANUARY 19, 2022
Supreme Court held that the recommendations of the SP for promotion are not final until the same is approved by the IG. IG can seek clarifications from the DPC and can refer the List back to the SP for corrections/omissions if he thinks it is necessary.
Facts – Appellant appointed as a Constable in 1995 – Superintendent of Police endorsed his candidacy for his heroic deeds for promotion under the 10% quota to the post of Head Constable in the year 21.01.2004 – IG dropped down his name – in 2007 his name again forwarded by SP and passed by the IG – promoted to Head Constable from 26.10.2008 – Appellant filed a writ petition in 2011 seeking retrospective promotion with effect from 21.01.2004 – High Court Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that selection is not a matter of right – appeal also dismissed by the Division Bench – preferred appeal to Supreme Court.
Argued by the appellant IG has no power to interfere with the recommendation of the SP. He further alleges that when the SP has forwarded the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter ‘DPC’), the IG does not act as the appellate authority and cannot substitute his decision to that of the DPC.It is also contended that the IG has no power to adjudge the comparative merit in list B-I prepared by the DPC.
He alleges that he is far more meritorious than the ones who have been recommended by the SP and approved by the IG in 2004. He has therefore prayed for retrospective promotion from the year 2004.
State/Respondent contended that the names recommended by the SP to the CDPC are only provisional and subject to ratification by the IG, and mere forwarding of the name of the Appellant by the SP will not create any right of promotion in his favour.
And submitted that the word “through” in Rule 13.7(9) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 calls for application of mind by the IG and not mere forwarding of the recommendations as sent by the concerned unit head and alleged that the seven constables appointed were more qualified than the Appellant.
Supreme court examined that the Chapter 13 of the Punjab Police Rules that there shall be a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) in every district/unit comprising of the SP/ Commandant and two Deputy Superintendent of Police, headed by the SP.
The List prepared by the DPC, headed by the SP will be forwarded to the Inspector General of Police/ Deputy Inspector General of Police (hereinafter IG/DIG) who is the Cadre Controlling Officer of the SP/Commandant.
(i) The IG/DIG will undertake and examine its correctness.
(ii) The IG/DIG will be competent to seek clarifications from the DPC if he considers it to be necessary.
(iii) He is also competent to refer the list back to the SP for correction of any error or omission.
(iv) The IG/DIG shall thereafter accord his approval.
(v) It is specifically provided that the List shall not be final until the same is approved by the IG/DIG.
IG/DIG shall send its recommendations on behalf of each unit to the CDPC. The CDPC is appointed by the Director General of Police.
Finally, the 10% quota is allocated out of a State Level Comparative Merit List prepared on the basis of the list sent from each unit by the IG.
Supreme Court held that the recommendations of the SP are not final until the same is approved by the IG. IG can seek clarifications from the DPC and can refer the List back to the SP for corrections/omissions if he thinks it is necessary. DPC does not give any indefinite right to be appointed as Head Constable. There is a three-stage scrutiny before a constable is selected as a Head Constable. It can never be contended that mere recommendation of the SP at the initial stage is sufficient to claim a right for promotion. No illegality or arbitrariness in the process of selection. Appeal Dismissed.
SUSHIL KUMAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
