Partly allowed

S. Anilkumaran Nair & 47 Others v. State of Kerala & Others

Kerala HC28 Mar 2008WP(C)/3941/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court upheld a Government Order designating police head constables with 23 years of service as Assistant Sub Inspectors. The court held the designation was a benefit, not a promotion, and did not infringe statutory rules or constitutional rights regarding seniority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed except W.P.(C).Nos.3941, 3980, and 9355 of 2008, which were disposed of with upholding of the Government Order.

S. Anilkumaran Nair & 47 Others Vs State of Kerala… — Service and Employment | Kerala HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT :

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930

¶5

WP(C).No. 3941 of 2008(T) -------------------------------------

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

---------------------

¶8

1. S.ANILKUMARAN NAIR, H.C.1196 THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLA.

¶9

2. T.N.RAVEENDRAN NAIR, H.C.NO.1213 KODUMON POLICE STATION.

¶10

3. K.C.VARGHESE, H.C.1194, DYSP OFFICE THIRUVALLA.

¶11

4. T.J.JOHNSON, H.C.1195, TRAFFIC UNIT THIRUVALLA.

¶12

5. THOMAS K.A., H.C.1187 THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLA.

¶13

6. WILSON V.S., H.C.1202 THIRUVALLA POLICE STATION, THIRUVALLA.

¶14

7. V.C.GOPAKUMAR, H.C.1209, TRAFFIC UNIT THIRUVALLA.

¶15

8. G.RAVEENDRANATH, H.C.1164 PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION.

¶16

9. JOSEPH C.MATHEW, H.C.1207 PATHANAMTHITTA POLICE STATION.

¶17

10. VENUNATHAN M.A., H.C.1186 PANDALAM POLICE STATION.

¶18

11. SASANKAN NAIR, H.C.1184 PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PANDALAM.

¶19

12. SHAHUL HAMEED, H.C.1198 PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PANDALAM.

¶20

13. YOHANNAN K.S., H.C.1189 ARANMULA POLICE STATION, ARANMULA.

¶21

W.P.(C). NO.3941/2008-T:

¶22

14. KRISHNAKUMAR K.M., H.C.1203 ARANMULA POLICE STATION, ARANMULA.

¶23

15. D.SAMUEL, H.C.1206 ARANMULA POLICE STATION, ARANMULA.

¶24

16. RAMACHANDRA PANICKER, H.C.1166

¶25

C.I. OFFICE, KOZHENCHERY.

¶26

17. K.K.MOHANAN, H.C.1182 THANNITHODU POLICE STATION, THANNITHODU.

¶27

18. K.ASHOKAN, H.C.1205 ADOOR POLICE STATION, ADOOR.

¶28

19. SAHAIR KHAN K.U., H.C.1212 MOOZHIYAR POLICE STATION, MOOZHIYAR.

¶29

20. T.S.WILSON KUTTY, H.C.1161 CONTROL ROOM, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶30

21. NINAN VARGHESE, H.C.1170 SPECIAL BRANCH, PATHANAMATHITTA.

¶31

22. VIJAYAMOHANAN, H.C.1204 SPECIAL BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶32

23. VISWANATHAN K., H.C.1169 CRIME DETACHMENT, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶33

24. SETHU K.T., H.C.1167 SPECIAL BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶34

25. SAJEED MOHAMMED,H.C.1201 SPECIAL BRANCH, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶35

26. N. UMAMAHESWARAN,H.C.1218 CONTROL ROOM, PATHANAMHITTA.

¶36

27. N.SIVANKUTTY, H.C.1190, SBCID PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶37

28. SAINULABDEEN, H.C.1179, SBCID PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶38

29. S. JAYAKUMAR, H.C.1222 CHITTAR POLICE STATION, CHITTAR.

¶39

30. G.RAJU, H.C.1181 ADOOR POLICE STATION, ADOOR.

¶40

W.P.(C). NO.3941/2008-T:

¶41

31. K.NATARAJAN, H.C.1211 CHITTAR POLICE STATION, CHITTAR.

¶42

32. RAJU M.THOMAS, H.C.1214 RANNY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶43

33. P.T.RAVEENDRAN, H.C.1178 VIGILANCE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶44

34. SAM MATHEW, H.C.1168, VACAB PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶45

35. HASSAN KHAN, H.C.1208, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶46

36. P.K.VIJAYAN, H.C.1174 PAMPA POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶47

37. K.P.SHAJI, H.C.1163, SBCID PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶48

38. MOHAMMED KIDWAL, H.C.1191, SBCID PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶49

39. K.ABDUL AZEEZ, H.C.1162, SBCID PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶50

40. P.RADHAKRISHNA KURUP, H.C.1175, SBCID PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶51

41. V.K.MOHANAN PILLAI, H.C.1192, CI OFFICE VADASSERIKARA.

¶52

42. M.O.SOMAN, H.C.NO.1210, SPECIAL BRANCH PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶53

43. JAOB SAMUEL, H.C.1217, ASP OFFICE, ADOOR

¶54

44. J.BADARKUTTY, H.C.1193 PANDALAM POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶55

45. M.R.MADHUSOODANAN NAIR, H.C.1176 ENATH POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶56

46. NARAYANAN CHETTIYAR, H.C.1197 PULIKKEEZH POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶57

47. M.SOMANATHAN, H.C.1165, SPECIAL BRANCH PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶58

W.P.(C). NO.3941/2008-T:

¶59

48. JOSE THOMAS, H.C.1173 RANNY POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶60

BY ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA, PAI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN, SRI.M.R.ANISON, SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI, SRI.T.R.RAJESH.

¶61

RESPONDENTS:

¶62

------------------------

¶63

1. STATE OF KEALA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM.

¶64

2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, VAZHTHACAUD, TRIVANDRUM.

¶65

3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM RANGE, NANDAVANAM P.O. TRIVANDRUM.

¶66

4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, PATHANAMTHITTA.

¶67

5. M.R. MURALEEDHARAN, HC-1087, MOOZHIYAR POLICE STATION, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.

¶68

BY SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. NANDAKUMAR.

¶69

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/03/2008, ALONG WITH W.P.(C). NO. 38177/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶70

W.P.(C). NO.3941/2008-T:

¶71

APPENDIX

¶72

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:

¶73

EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE CHART SHOWING THE SERVICE PARTICULARS OF ALL THE PETITIONERS.

¶74

EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE SENIORITY LIST ALONG WITH ORDER DTD. 27/03/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.4.

¶75

EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE G.O. (MS) 142/06/HOME DTD. 22/08/2006.

¶76

EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO. 15/2006 DTD. 15/09/2006.

¶77

EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE D.O. LETTER NO. 363/2006 DTD. 23/09/2006.

¶78

EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE D.O. LETTER NO. 142/07 DTD. 04/2007.

¶79

EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DTD. 15/12/2006 IN W.P.(C). NO. 30559/2006.

¶80

EXT.P.8: COPY OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTIVE DTD. 01/02/2007 ISSUED BY THE R.2.

¶81

EXT.P.9: COPY OF THE D.O. NO. 30/08 DTD. 09/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE TRIVANDRUM S.P. (RURAL).

¶82

EXT.P.10: COPY OF THE C.O. NO. 20/08/TC DTD. 04/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, TRIVANDRUM.

¶83

EXT.P.11: COPY OF THE D.O. NO. 1/08 DTD. 01/01/2008 ISSUED BY S.P. KOLLAM.

¶84

EXT.P.12: COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 25/01/2008 ISSUED BY THE R.4.

¶85

RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: NIL.

//TRUE COPY//

prv.

V.GIRI,J.

W.P ( C) Nos. 30559, 28096, 26164 of 2006, 30646 and 38177 of 2007, 1037, 3941,3980, 4944, 10185, 9355 of 2008 & Cont.Case 386 of 2008

¶90

Dated this the 7^th March, 2008

¶91

An order issued by the Government as G.O (MS) No.142/06/Home dated 22.8.2006 and consequential direction issued by the Director General of Police are the subject matter of challenge in these writ petitions except W.P. (C ) Nos.3941, 3980 and 9355 of 2008, wherein, petitioners have sought for an implementation of the said Government Order. In the other writ petitions, petitioners impugn the order either in whole or in part. There is a frontal challenge to the order as such in W.P. (C) No.38177 of 2007 and therefore I propose to refer to the facts in the said writ petition in the first instance.

¶92

As stated above, petitioners have really sought for implementation of the Government Order in W.P ( C ) No.3941 of 2008 and two other writ petitions. Though there is no contention that there is reluctance on the part

¶93

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 2

¶94

of the Government to implement the order issued by the Government, apparently, writ petitions came to be instituted in circumstances where the implementation of the order was kept in abeyance pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.30559 of 2006 and 26164 of 2006. In effect, the fate of W.P. © No.38177 of 2007 and other writ petitions, which impugn the Government order, should govern the fate of the aforementioned three writ petitions.

¶95

Petitioners in W.P(C) No.38177 of 2007 are Head Constables working in Kannur. They entered service as Police Constables in Armed Reserve on 24.7.1984. First petitioner was shifted to the local wing as Police Constable on 13.6.1988 and the 2^nd petitioner was shifted to the local wing as Police Constable on 11.6.1988. Petitioners were promoted as Head Constables on 13.8.2005 and 6.9.2005 respectively. Exhibit P1 is the provisional seniority list of Police Constables (Local) eligible for promotion as Head Constables as on 21.5.2000. Respondents 4 and 5 are

¶96

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases

¶97

¶98

placed far below the petitioners in Exhibit P1. They are juniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Head Constables. The promotion post to that of Head Constable is Assistant Sub Inspector. Promotions are effected to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector on the basis of seniority in the cadre of Head Constable. If it is so effected, petitioners would naturally be promoted ahead of respondents 3 and 4.

¶99

While so, Government issued G.O(MS) 142/2006/Home dated 22.8.2006 - Exhibit P2 order. The justification for the order as such is expressed in the first two paragraphs thereof, which read as follows:

¶100

“In order to bolster the sagging morale of Police Personnel who have not benefitted by promotions for long periods, the Director General of police has put forth proposal before Government for consideration wherein it has been suggested to designate the Police Constables who have put in a total service of 15 years as Head Constable and the Head Constables who have a total service of 23 years as ASIs without incurring any additional expenditure on such change over.

¶101

Government have broadly examined the proposal and are pleased to accord sanction to designate the Police Constables (15 years service) as Head Constables and Head Constables (23 years service) as Assistant

¶102

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases

¶103

¶104

Sub Inspectors on the following terms and conditions.

¶105

The terms and conditions relating to

¶106

designating a Police Constable as Assistant Sub Inspector is contained in the said order and it would be advantageous to extract in entirety the order, which reads as follows:

¶107

B ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR (GRADE)

¶108

I. For designating a Police Head Constable who has put in 23 years of service in any District police General Executive Branch (Local Police) as Assistant Sub Inspector (Grade) the following conditions will apply.

¶109

(i) that he must have completed a total of 23 years of service on the 1^st January of the Calendar year, excluding the training period;

¶110

(ii) that he must be drawing pay on a pay scale equal to or higher than that of an Assistant Sub Inspector;

¶111

(iii) a Head Constable who has been designated as Assistant Sub Inspector (Grade) will be promoted to the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector as and when his turn comes in the regular line of promotion unless he is found ineligible.

¶112

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases

¶113

¶114

II. Assistant Sub Inspector (Grade) will be the personal rank of the persons so designated.

¶115

III. (i) the person so designated will be eligible to wear the uniform of Assistant Sub Inspector;

¶116

(ii) he will not be eligible for higher pay and allowances other than what he would have received had he not been designated as Assistant Sub Inspector

¶117

(iii) he will be accommodated among the available sanctioned post in the rank of Head Constable;

¶118

(iv) he will be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of a regular Assistant Sub Inspector additionally, in such a manner and to such an extent as the Director General of Police may deem appropriate;

¶119

(v) he will not be eligible to claim seniority in the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector on the basis of this designation.

¶120

The Director General of Police will take immediate action to implement the scheme.”

¶121

The Director General of Police issued

¶122

instructions to the subordinates in consonance with Exhibit P2 and the same has been marked as Exhibit P3. Designations have been effected pursuant to Exhibits P2

¶123

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 6

¶124

and P3 and therefore persons who have completed 23 years' of service as Head Constable have been designated as ASI in terms of Exhibit P2 order. In the course of such designation Government have not adhered to the inter se seniority of Head Constables in the General Executive Branch (Local Police). This has been challenged in these writ petitions.

¶125

Petitioners contend that though the

¶126

nomenclature given to the benefit conferred under Exhibit P2 is that of a designation, essentially it has all the attributes of a promotion. Promotion post to that of Head Constable is Assistant Sub Inspector and in designating a Head Constable as Assistant Sub Inspector, what is being done is to really promote him as an Assistant Sub Inspector. Promotion to Assistant Sub Inspector is regulated by statutory provisions. Admittedly, promotion is to be effected on the strength of the seniority in the cadre of Head Constable. This is being bypassed, in stipulating that, the length of service as such should essentially be taken as a criteria

¶127

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 7

¶128

for determining the eligibility for designation as Head Constables de hors their seniority in the cadre of Head Constable. In effect, therefore, persons like the petitioners, would be required to treat those persons, who are their juniors in the cadre of Head Constable, as Superior Officers. Designation is not merely a cosmetic title. Designated ASI is entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of a regular ASI. In circumstances where the designation has all the attributes of promotion, it should be treated as a promotion as such and consequently whatever be the nomenclature, the benefit in the nature of Exhibit P2, if at all granted, must have been done by adhering to the statutory rules as such. Government has acted illegally in overlooking the statutory provisions governing regular promotion to the post of ASI. The order is unconstitutional because, it behooves the Government and the Department to overlook the seniority in the cadre in question, and confer a benefit on the juniors in the cadre. This is violative of Article 16 of the Constitution. The

¶129

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 8

¶130

stipulation in Exhibit P2, which contemplates the entrustment of a designated ASI with the duties and responsibilities of a regular ASI, is inconsistent with the general discipline that has to be maintained in the Police Force.

¶131

Government has filed a counter affidavit and it is their contention that the benefit contemplated under Exhibit P2 is not a cadre promotion as such. It is a benefit sought to be granted to the persons who have completed 23 years of service in the force as such. Moreover, the beneficiaries must have been drawing pay on a pay scale equal to or higher than that of an ASI. This would obviously happen, only if he is otherwise qualified and eligible to be promoted as an ASI. The designation contemplated under Exhibit P2 is lacking in the significant attributes of promotion. A designate does not commence his probation in the cadre of ASI, merely by reason of the designation. He will not be eligible to claim seniority in the cadre of ASI on the basis of the designation. He will not be eligible for higher pay

¶132

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 9

¶133

and allowances, otherwise attributable to the post of ASI. He will continue to be accommodated among the available sanctioned posts in the rank of Head Constable. He will be a Head Constable, as such, in rank and he will draw the pay in the pay scale applicable to Head Constables. Since none of the material attributes of a promotion are present in the instant case, statutory rules governing promotion are not, in any manner, contravened by Exhibit P2.

¶134

It is further contended that there is a good reason for Government in issuing an order in the nature of Exhibit P2. It took into account the bleak prospects of a large number of Head Constables, in the matter of regular cadre promotion as ASI. It took into account the fact that persons with 23 years of service have little prospects of further cadre promotion and ultimately they may lose out in favour of persons, who have less number of total years of service, but otherwise are their seniors in the cadre of Head Constables. The latter may have prospects of a cadre promotion on the strength of the

¶135

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 10

¶136

prospects of further service. Taking note of these aspects, Government took a decision to grant a designation to all Head Constables who are otherwise qualified and eligible to be promoted as Assistant Sub Inspectors, but who do not have the prospects of promotion due to dearth of vacancies. The decision was taken at the highest level of the Government. It is intended to lend succour to a large number of persons who have otherwise served the Force and have little else to look forward to. It does not entail any financial commitment on the part of the Government. It does not affect the promotion prospects of any other eligible person. In granting designation, no further artificial classification is resorted to. There is uniformity in the adoption of designation. There is no error of jurisdiction. There is no contravention of statutory provisions and therefore this Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution, it is contended.

¶137

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 11

¶138

Similar submissions have been made by the petitioners in W.P. (C ) Nos.3941 of 2008, 3980 of 2008 and 9355 of 2008.

¶139

I heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.K.Ramakumar, Smt.V.P.Seemanthini, learned counsel Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, Sri.Aravindakshan Pillai, Sri.Pirappancode V.S.Sudheer, Sri.M.K.Pradeep Kumar and Sri.Rasheed on behalf the petitioners in various writ petitions and Sri.Nandakumar, learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the Government.

¶140

The principal question that arises for consideration is what is the nature of the benefit that is conferred under Exhibit P2 Government Order. Is it in the nature of a promotion or is it in the nature of a benefit? Is it an extra legal benefit or is it merely lending succour to a large number of persons who otherwise enjoy bleak prospects in the matter of regular cadre promotion. Does, the order enable the Government to overlook statutory provisions. Will the implementation of the order which merely has some attributes of a

¶141

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 12

¶142

promotion, but lacking in its material aspects result in infraction of statutory provisions. Does the conferment of the benefit result in violation of any constitutional provisions?

¶143

The benefit granted under Exhibit P2 is what is described therein. It entitles the Police Constables, who have put in 23 years of service, to be designated as Assistant Sub Inspectors. What does the designate derive on such designation. He will be eligible to wear the uniform in the cadre of ASI and he will be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of a regular ASI. These two are the attributes which are projected by the learned counsel for the petitioners in those writ petitions which challenge the order. How significant are these two aspects. I take note of the fact that the order also makes it clear that the designate will not be eligible for higher pay and allowances in excess of what he would have received, had he not been designated as ASI. Leaving a part, certain incumbents drawing higher salary by virtue of grant of time Bound Higher Grade,

¶144

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 13

¶145

notwithstanding the fact that he is occupying the post in a lower time scale of pay, higher time scale of pay is one of the attributes of promotion as such. It will be difficult to conceive a situation where consequent upon promotion, the promotee is fitted in a lower time scale of pay. I bear in mind cases where the promotee may not really derive or draw any additional wages by virtue of the promotion. That is mainly on account of the fact that the incumbent would have been already granted a time bound higher scale in the lower time scale. But obviously Higher Time Scale is one of the attributes of promotion and that is specifically excluded as a characteristic of the designation granted under Exhibit P2.

¶146

Secondly, the designate is not eligible to claim seniority in the cadre of ASI on the basis of the designation. In other words he does not commence his service as an ASI, by virtue of the designation. He does not commence his probation in the category of ASI by virtue of the designation. He continues to be

¶147

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 14

¶148

accommodated in the cadre of Head Constable. In my view, this is also one of the aspects that is inconsistent with normal case of a promotion. Insofar as the designation granted under Exhibit P2 is concerned, I, therefore, find it difficult to accept the contention of the petitioners, who challenge Exhibit P2 order, that the designation granted under Exhibit P2 has all the attributes of promotion and should therefore be treated as a promotion itself.

¶149

Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C )No.38177 of 2007 submits that there is a serious attempt on the part of the Government to grant benefit to certain class of persons by-passing as such, what he describes as the “statutory scheme and statutory policy” discernible from the provisions of the Special Rules as also the General Rules. Seniority in the cadre of Head Constables, he submits, is admittedly the basis for promotion to the post of ASI. The policy of the Government in deciding to treat cadre seniority as a basis for promotion to the post of ASI is reflected in the

¶150

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 15

¶151

statutory provisions. Though the nomenclature given to the benefit under Exhibit P2 is designation, in effect, the beneficiaries really exercise the powers attached to the promotion post. If that be so, even if the Government wanted to grant the benefit to a large number of persons, Government was not entitled to do so, by passing the statutory scheme as such. Exhibit P2 order according to him, can only be an executive order and it militates against the statutory rules. If so, even without anything more, it is amenable to judicial review by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. He refers to the judgment in State of Karnataka Vs. KGSD {2006 (1) SCC 567}, Dayanandalal Vs. State of Kerala, {1996 (9) SCC 728}, Shish Ram Vs. State of H.P. {1996 (10) SCC 166} , J & K Public Service Commission Vs. Narinder Mohan (Dr.) {(1994) (2) SCC 630} in this regard.

¶152

If the benefit sought to be granted under Exhibit P2 is a promotion the argument would have been impeccable. As indicated above, the benefit

¶153

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 16

¶154

granted under Exhibit P2, which is described as a designation as an ASI lacks the principal attributes of promotion. No doubt, it is a new found creation of the Government. But for the same reason, where the area is not traversed by statutory rules, it is always open to the Government to lay down the guidelines by reason of executive orders. The position is too well settled to warrant a reference to any specific decision. In other words executive instructions may supplement but not supplant statutory rules. The very attribute projected by the petitioners as regards Exhibit P2, that it does not confirm to statutory rules as such, in a sense, is its redeeming feature. Conferment of designation as ASI is not governed by statutory rules and therefore the prescription of guidelines in the matter of such conferment by itself does not come into conflict with any statutory scheme. If that be so, Exhibit P2, by itself , does not involve any statutory infraction.

¶155

Sri.Kaleeswaram Raj then contends that

¶156

whatever be the justification offered by the Government

¶157

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 17

¶158

in support of the order, the benefit could not have been granted otherwise than by tinkering with the statutory rules. He refers to the fact that designate under Exhibit P2 is entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of an ASI. He refers to the definition of “appointed to a service” under Rule 2 (I) of Part I of KS & SSR. I am unable to accept this submission. A designate under Exhibit P2 is not entitled to consider himself as a probationer in the cadre of ASI. A designate under Exhibit P2 is not entitled to draw the salary of an ASI. By virtue of the designation he does not acquire the eligibility to be treated as an ASI as such. His designation as an ASI leaves no impact on his promotion prospects to the post of ASI as such. Higher wages are not drawn by reason of the designation granted under Exhibit P2. Accordingly he continues to be accommodated as Head Constable. In that view of the matter, notwithstanding the two aspects which are highlighted above, I find difficult to accept the contention that the designation granted under Exhibit P2

¶159

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 18

¶160

has all the attributes of promotion. Consequently, the possibility of a conflict with the statutory scheme as such really does not arise in the context of the enforcement of Exhibit P2.

¶161

Sri.Ramakumar,Smt.V.P.Seemanthini, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, who seek an implementation of Exhibit P2 order, submit that the justification offered by the Government in support of Exhibit P2 is a matter which merits serious attention of this Court. Sri.Nandakumar. Senior Government Pleader also submits that there was a good reason which persuaded the Government to issue Exhibit P2. He refers to such reasons as given in the counter affidavit filed by the Government. Government found that several persons in the General Executive Branch, discharging duties as Constables and Head Constables have bleak promotion prospects. This affects the morale of the Force. Increasing the cadre strength was ruled out for several reasons, financial constraints being prominent among them. In such circumstances,

¶162

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 19

¶163

Government decided that the benefit, which does not have the attributes of promotion as such, but which, at the same time, would act as a morale booster for large number of Constables and Head Constables, could be granted. Exhibit P2 is the outcome of the decision. It reflects the policy of the Government. It reflects the larger interest of the Force as such. It is not a mala fide action.

¶164

I find force in the submission. What precisely is the motivating factor which must have persuaded the Government to issue Exhibit P2. On going through Exhibits P2 and P3, counter affidavit as also the averments in W.P. (C ) 3941 of 2008, it seems to be fairly clear to me, that the Government seems to have been motivated a desire to grant a benefit to large number of persons who otherwise have bleak promotion prospects ahead of them. In doing so, Government was perfectly aware of all the constraints within which it could operate in issuing any executive order. It was also aware of the necessity to refrain from contravening

¶165

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 20

¶166

any statutory provision in this regard. It was also aware of the fact that right to be considered for regular promotion enjoyed by the members of the force should not be detrimentally affected by reason of Exhibit P2 order. Following safeguards built in by the Government as part of Exhibit P2, in my view, goes a long way in demonstrating an application of mind on the part of the Government while issuing Exhibit P2:- (1) the benefit sought to be granted under Exhibit P2 accrues to all the Head Constables who complete 23 years of service as such (2) there is no classification among the persons who complete 23 years of service (3) Regular promotion prospects of the persons in service including the beneficiaries under Exhibit P2 is left unaffected by the order (4) the eligibility of a person to be then considered for regular promotion as ASI will not in any manner be diluted either by reason of he being a beneficiary of Exhibit P2 or by he falling short thereof. I also take note of the fact that the beneficiaries of this Court's order and those among the Head Constables who are

¶167

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 21

¶168

yet to acquire 23 years of service have, all along been being serving as Head Constables, till a given point of time. The grant of designation under Exhibit P2 to a particular person or group of persons who complete 23 years of service does not result in a situation that a person, who has been, till that time discharging the duties in a promotion post, is called upon to treat his erstwhile junior as a senior in the cadre. In other words, Exhibit P2 will not bring about any detriment to any person who has already been promoted as ASI either on a regular or even on a provisional basis. The designation of a person who was once junior in the cadre of Head Constable leaves no impact on his service conditions either independently or inter se the beneficiaries under Exhibit P2. In my view, the above aspects are relevant in determining whether an order passed by the Government which otherwise does not suffer from any statutory infraction and which will have to be treated as one within the competence of the Government should nevertheless be interfered with by this Court.

¶169

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 22

¶170

If Exhibit P2 order, therefore, reflects what is broadly described as the policy of the Government, and it also purports to confer an even handed benefit to a large number of serving personnel, without indulging in any classification among the beneficiaries and it also does not, on the face of it, affect the promotion prospects of the petitioners, who impugn, the same, what would be the grounds available to this Court to nevertheless interfere with the said order.

¶171

The observations made by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh V. Gauri Shankar Agarwal [ 1972 (4) SCC 257] cited by Sri.Nandakumar would be apposite in this regard:

¶172

“6. The learned single Judge who heard the writ petition did not come to a positive conclusion that the order of the Board of Revenue was vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The only conclusion that he arrived at was that on the material on record it was possible to urge certain questions of law and therefore it would be proper for the Board of Revenue to examine those questions. This is an untenable approach. Unless a High Court is of the opinion that the order assailed suffers from errors of law apparent on the face of the record it has no jurisdiction to quash that

¶173

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases

¶174

¶175

order by having recourse to its certiorari jurisdiction on the ground of error of law. The mere possibility of raising a question of law in a case is no ground for interfering with an order impugned.

¶176

Am I able to find an apparent error of

¶177

jurisdiction in Exhibit P2 to consider it as unconstitutional in the sense that it violates the constitutional protection of any individual who challenges the order? I am not able to do so. May be the wisdom in issuing an order in the nature of Exhibit P2 is open to question. If this court is called upon to consider the grant of a benefit similar to one granted under Exhibit P2 it may not not arrive at the same conclusion. This Court might have imposed more onerous conditions. This Court might have even considered it unwise to issue an order in the nature of Exhibit P2. But that does not empower this Court to interfere with an order in the nature of Exhibit P2. In my view, the following observations of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Vs. State of Haryana

¶178

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 24

¶179

{2008 (2) SCC 161} would be apposite in this context. Paragraph 49 of the said judgment is as follows:

¶180

“Whether we apply the negative test or the positive test, the decision making process should veer round the question in regard to the lack of bona fide or an act of arbitrariness on the part of the State. If lack of bona fide or arbitrariness on the part of the State is proved, whether the right is considered to be a vested or accrued right, or otherwise a negative right, the superior court may exercise its power of judicial review. The judicial intervention would, thus, be possible only when a finding of fact is arrived at in regard to the aforementioned acts of omissions and commission on the part of the State and not otherwise.”

¶181

Submission made by the learned senior counsel Sri.Ramakumar, in this behalf, referring to the above judgment of the Supreme Court as also Keshav Chandra Joshi and Others Vs. Union of India and Others { 1992 Suppl.(1), SCC 272} have considerable force.

¶182

Unless this Court is in a position to find that irrational considerations have regulated the decision making process of the Government which led to Exhibit

¶183

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 25

¶184

P2, this Court would be slow to interfere with the order in question. This I say so in conjunction with what I have already held namely that the order does not suffer from any statutory infraction and otherwise the order seems to be within the competence of the Government as such.

¶185

I take note of the fact that essentially the Government has adopted the total length of service of a Police Constable or Head Constable, as the case may be, as the basis for determining the grant of benefit under Exhibit P2. I do not think that it is a totally irrational consideration. No doubt in the matter of regular promotion, as rules now stand, it would not be open to the Government to adopt the length of service as a basis at variance from the cadre seniority which is now adopted as the basis for promotion as such. What is effected under Exhibit P2 is not a regular promotion and consequently the said question does not really arise.

¶186

In the result, I find that the order passed by the Government is within its competence. It does not infringe any statutory provision. It does not suffer from

¶187

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases

¶188

¶189

any unconstitutionality or illegality. Therefore I do not find any grounds to interfere with Exhibit P2.

¶190

But I record herein the submission made by the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri.Nandakumar that only such persons, who are otherwise qualified to be promoted as an Assistant Sub Inspector, shall be granted the designation of an ASI in terms of Exhibit P2. In fact, I also find that this is the purport of the Government Order as such and at any rate, while upholding Exhibit P2 Government Order, I make it clear that only persons, who are otherwise qualified to be promoted as ASI, shall be entitled to be granted the designation as contemplated by Exhibit P2 Government Order.

¶191

I also take note of the fact that this position has been put beyond any doubt by a subsequent Circular issued by the Director General of Police as per Circular No.1/2007.

¶192

For all these reasons, all the writ petitions except W.P (C ) Nos.3941, 3980 and 9355 of 2008 are dismissed subject to the observations made in the

¶193

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 27

¶194

preceding paragraph.

¶195

Contempt of Court Case 386 of 2008 is closed in the light of the disposal of Writ Petition No.38177 of 2007. No further orders are necessary in W.P (C) No.3941, 3980 and 9355 of 2008 in the light of the fact that I have upheld G.O (MS) No.142/06/Home dated 22.8.2006 and Exhibit P3 Circular No.1/2007 issued by the Director General of Police, except to make it clear that it is open to the Government and the Director General of Police to proceed to implement Exhibit P2 Government Order.

¶196

The writ petitions are disposed of as above.

¶197

(V.GIRI, JUDGE)

¶198

¶199

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases

¶200

¶201

K.THANKAPPAN,J

¶202

CRL.A. NO.92 OF 1999

¶203

ORDER

¶204

W.P ( C) No.38177 of 2007 and con. cases 29

¶205

25^th May, 2007

¶206

Common issues are raised for consideration in all these writ petitions. Reference is made to the facts in Writ Petition No.4562/2008 for the sake of convenience.

S. Anilkumaran Nair & 47 Others v. State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Anilkumaran Nair & 47 Others v. State of Kerala & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Salim Babu P.K. Vs Union of India & Others

Nithin B.Lal Vs State of Kerala & Others

The Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs State of Kerala

R.Narendranath Vs Secretary, Travancore Devaswom Board

P.G.Ushadevi Vs the Kerala State Ware Housing Corpn.

Vijayan Vs Director