Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the reversion of Gurdev Singh, a police officer originally from Patiala, who was promoted to officiate as Superintendent of Police in 1950 in the erstwhile State of PEPSU. After the Indian Police Service Scheme was extended to PEPSU, he was interviewed by the Federal Public Service Commission and his name was placed in List II of the Scheme. He continued as officiating Superintendent of Police without confirmation. On 1 December 1954, he was reverted to his substantive rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police by an order of the Inspector-General of Police, and directed to hand over charge to another Superintendent of Police. Aggrieved, he filed a suit in 1961 seeking a declaration that the reversion order was unconstitutional and void, claiming that inclusion in List II conferred a right to continue for five years, that reversion within that period amounted to punishment under Article 311, and that persons junior to him were allowed to continue as officiating Superintendents, resulting in discrimination. The State of Punjab defended the action, asserting that the reversion was purely administrative due to lack of vacancy, did not affect promotion chances, and did not entail reduction in rank; it also contended that inclusion in List II gave no right to immediate absorption or seniority. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the order was not punitive and no discrimination was proved. The Punjab High Court dismissed the appeal, after allowing the appellant to give oral evidence. On further appeal to the Supreme Court, the Court examined the effect of List II inclusion under the Indian Police Service Scheme. It held that the list merely ensured that officers were watched for five years and might be absorbed into the All India Service after periodical reviews. The direction that officers in List II would continue to hold their present posts meant only that they would not be removed except on justifiable grounds. The Court ruled that the reversion was justified on administrative grounds because a Superintendent of Police returning to the State had to be accommodated and no vacancy existed. Consequently, holding a post in an officiating capacity did not entitle the appellant to continue when senior officers returned, and there was no bar to such reversion by reason of List II inclusion. The discrimination claim failed because the appellant conceded in cross-examination that the persons allowed to continue were senior to him in the civil list. The appeal was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reversion from Officiating Post - Inclusion in List II of Indian Police Service Scheme Does Not Confer Right to Continue for Five Years - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 311 - The appellant, while officiating as Superintendent of Police, was placed in List II under the Indian Police Service Scheme but continued without confirmation. He was reverted to his substantive post of Deputy Superintendent of Police on administrative grounds due to lack of vacancy. The Court held that inclusion in List II merely ensured that officers would be watched for five years and might be absorbed after periodical reviews, and did not give a right to continue in the officiating post; reversion on administrative grounds was not punishment and did not violate Article 311. (Paras 1-7) B) Service Law - Discrimination in Reversion - Juniors Allowed to Continue - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 14 - The appellant alleged discrimination because persons junior to him whose names were not in List II were allowed to continue as officiating Superintendents of Police. The Court found no discrimination proved, noting that in cross-examination appellant admitted that those persons would have been senior to him in the civil list if the Scheme had not been extended to PEPSU. Held that discrimination was not established. (Paras 8-12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether inclusion of appellant's name in List II of Indian Police Service Scheme gave him a right to continue as officiating Superintendent of Police for five years, making reversion within that period punitive and violative of Article 311 of Constitution; and whether reversion was discriminatory as persons junior to him were allowed to continue as officiating Superintendents of Police.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that reversion was justified on administrative grounds and there was no bar to such reversion by reason of inclusion of appellant's name in List II. The list merely ensured that officers would be watched for five years and might be absorbed after periodical reviews. Reversion due to unfitness was mentioned but possibility of reversion when no available post was not ruled out. Officers in List II had no right to be absorbed immediately; direction that they continue to hold present post meant they would not be made to go out except on justifiable grounds. Holding a post in officiating capacity did not entitle appellant to continue when senior officers returned and no room in cadre. Discrimination not established. The appeal was dismissed.
Law Points
- Inclusion of name in List II of Indian Police Service Scheme confers no right to continue as officiating Superintendent of Police for five years
- reversion on administrative grounds due to absence of vacancy is not punishment and does not attract Article 311 of Constitution
- officers in List II are only to be watched for five years and may be absorbed after periodical reviews
- direction that officers placed in List II will continue to hold their present post means they will not be removed except on justifiable grounds
- officiating capacity does not entitle continuation when senior officers return and no room exists in cadre
- discrimination not proved when persons allowed to continue were senior in civil list.
