The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday quashed the seniority list prepared on November 22, 2019 for promotion of Inspectors of Uttar Pradesh Police to the post of DSP.
A single-judeg bench of Justice Dinesh Kumar Singh passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Vijay Singh. The petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by the petitioner, who is working as Inspector (Armed Police/Platoon Commander), 27th Battalion, PAC, Sitapur.
The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Platoon Commander, PAC/Sub-Inspector on November 11, 1986; he was promoted to the post of Inspector (Armed Police/Company Commander) on February 24, 2014 on the basis of seniority against vacancies of 2010.
The case of the petitioner is that Rampal Singh /respondent no. 7, who was appointed four years after the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) was, however, promoted to the post of Inspector on July 12, 2013.
It is stated that promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police is to be made from the post of Inspectors, working in Civil Police as well as in PAC. For the purpose of promotion to the post of Dy. S.P., a joint provisional seniority list of the Inspectors, PAC and Inspectors Civil Police was prepared in the month of July, 2019.
The petitioner represented against the said joint seniority list. However, the representation of the petitioner was rejected in view of seniority list published on November 22, 2019 wherein the petitioner had been shown junior to Rampal Singh.
The petitioner thereafter represented to the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh against the said seniority list. The Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh constituted a Two Members Committee. The two Members Committed submitted its report dated October 04, 2019, stating therein that the joint seniority list is to be prepared in accordance with Rule-7 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Seniority Rules, 1991.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that despite the said report submitted by the Two Members Committee constituted by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh, a fresh joint seniority list, as per Rule-7 of the Rules, 1991, has not been prepared and, respondents have been promoted on the post of Dy.S.P., who were admittedly juniors to the petitioner inasmuch as they were appointed much later than the petitioner on the post of Sub-Inspector.
Sanjay Srivastava, Standing Counsel, submitted that the cadre of Sub-Interceptor, PAC is different from the cadre of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police. Even the appointing Authorities of SubInspector, PAC and Sub-Inspector, Civil Police are different.
Standing Counsel further submitted that admittedly the petitioner was promoted to the post of Inspector on February 24, 2014, whereas respondents were promoted to the post of Inspectors, Civil Police on July 12, 2013.
Standing Counsel also submitted that since the petitioner is junior in the feeder cadre of Dy. S.P. to respondents and, accordingly he has been placed in the joint seniority list and, there is no illegality in the joint seniority list.
The Court noted that,
The basis of the joint seniority list is the Government Order dated July 24, 2003. However, as per the report submitted by the Two Members Committee dated October 04, 2019 the said Government Order does not exist in view of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Services Rules, 2015 and the Uttar Pradesh Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015.
In the report itself, it has been stated that the joint seniority list of the Inspectors, PAC as well as Inspectors, Civil Police would be prepared in accordance with Rule-7 of the Rules, 1991.
Admittedly, the seniority list has not been prepared in accordance with Rule-7 of the Rules, 1991, but it has been prepared in accordance with the Government Order dated July 24, 2003. The Committee already recommended that the joint seniority list would be prepared in accordance with Rule-7 of the Rules, 1991.
In view of aforesaid, the impugned seniority list is quashed by the High Court.
“The respondents are directed to prepare a fresh joint seniority list of the Inspectors, PAC as well as Inspector, Civil Police in accordance with Rule-7 of the Rules, 1991 and then take a call for promotion to the post of Dy.S.P. However, in the meantime, the respondents shall not be reverted till the said exercise is completed, but if, as a result of preparation of fresh joint seniority list in accordance with Rule-7 of the Rules, 1991, the petitioner is found to be senior to respondents, he should be given promotion from the date respondents have been promoted. The said exercise of preparation of joint seniority list be completed within a period of one month from today and then the promotion order, if it is required in respect of the petitioner, should be issued,” the Court ordered.