Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the reorganisation of states following the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, which transferred certain areas from the former Hyderabad State to the new State of Mysore. All petitioners were appointed Sub-Inspectors in the former Hyderabad State under Section 6 of the Hyderabad District Police Act (No. X of 1329 Fasli). Under Rule 399 of the Hyderabad District Police Manual, posts of Circle Inspectors were to be filled by promotion from the rank of Sub-Inspectors. An eligibility list of Sub-Inspectors fit for promotion was prepared, and the petitioners' names were included in the list published in October 1956, before the States Reorganisation Act came into force on November 1, 1956. After the reorganisation, the petitioners were transferred to the new State of Mysore and were promoted as Circle Inspectors on various dates after November 1, 1956, from the eligibility list received from the former Hyderabad State. These promotions were made on an ad hoc basis, described as 'out of seniority', pending integration of services from different states. The petitioners continued to act as Circle Inspectors for varying periods until confirmed Circle Inspectors who had been on leave or deputation outside the state returned, leading to orders dated September 6, 1962 reverting the petitioners to their substantive posts as Sub-Inspectors. The petitioners filed writ petitions in the Mysore High Court challenging the reversion orders, claiming that inclusion in the eligibility list gave them a right to promotion, that temporary promotion conferred a right not to be reverted, that they had worked for more than two years and thus became automatically confirmed under Rule 486, and that reversion amounted to reduction in rank under Rule 2(c) of the Mysore Seniority Rules, 1957. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions, and the petitioners appealed by special leave to the Supreme Court, also filing writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court held that inclusion in the eligibility list did not give an indefeasible right to promotion; the list merely made the officers eligible. Temporary or officiating promotion did not create a right to continue indefinitely, and officers could be reverted when senior confirmed officers returned due to exigencies of service. Rule 486 did not contemplate automatic confirmation; the provision that promoted officers would be confirmed at the end of the probationary period was qualified by the words 'if they have given satisfaction', requiring a positive order of confirmation by the competent authority. Reversion of unconfirmed officiating Circle Inspectors to their substantive posts did not amount to reduction in rank because they had no right to the higher post and the reversion was not a punishment but an administrative exigency. The court further held that the seniority rules, including Rule 2(c), could not be relied upon because promotions after reorganisation were made ad hoc without regard to inter se seniority of officers from different states, and the reversion was not discriminatory as it followed the provisional integrated seniority list. Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Promotion - Eligibility List - Hyderabad District Police Manual, Rules 399, 403, 486 - The petitioners' inclusion in the eligibility list did not confer an indefeasible right to promotion as Circle Inspector; the list only made them eligible for consideration when vacancies arose. Held that mere inclusion in the eligibility list does not create a vested right to promotion. B) Service Law - Reversion - Temporary or Officiating Promotion - States Reorganisation Act, 1956, Sections 115, 116; Hyderabad District Police Manual - Promotions made on an ad hoc basis 'out of seniority' pending integration of services did not create a right to continue indefinitely. Held that officiating Circle Inspectors could be reverted when confirmed senior Circle Inspectors returned from deputation or leave due to exigencies of service. C) Service Law - Confirmation - Rule 486 Hyderabad District Police Manual - The rule requiring confirmation at the end of probationary period was qualified by the words 'if they have given satisfaction'; there was no automatic confirmation after two years. Held that confirmation required a positive order by the competent authority based on satisfactory work. D) Service Law - Reduction in Rank - Rule 2(c) Mysore Seniority Rules, 1957 - Reversion of unconfirmed officiating Circle Inspectors to their substantive post of Sub-Inspector did not amount to reduction in rank because they had no right to the higher post and the reversion was not a punishment but due to administrative exigencies. Held that the seniority rule could not be applied to ad hoc promotions made without regard to inter se seniority of officers from different states. E) Constitutional Law - Right to Equality - Article 32 Constitution of India - The reversion of the petitioners was not an act of discrimination because it was done in accordance with the provisional integrated seniority list after an earlier High Court direction. Held that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief claimed and the appeals and writ petitions were dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether inclusion of Sub-Inspectors' names in the eligibility list for promotion as Circle Inspectors conferred an indefeasible right to promotion; whether temporary or officiating promotion conferred a right not to be reverted; whether Rule 486 of the Hyderabad District Police Manual provided for automatic confirmation after two years; whether reversion of officiating Circle Inspectors amounted to reduction in rank under Rule 2(c) of the Mysore Seniority Rules, 1957; whether reversion of the petitioners was discriminatory and violative of Article 32 of the Constitution
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions, holding that inclusion in the eligibility list conferred no indefeasible right to promotion; temporary promotion conferred no right to continue indefinitely; Rule 486 did not provide automatic confirmation; reversion due to administrative exigencies did not amount to reduction in rank; and the reversion was not discriminatory.
Law Points
- Inclusion in eligibility list does not create an indefeasible right to promotion
- temporary or officiating promotion does not confer a right not to be reverted
- Rule 486 of Hyderabad District Police Manual does not contemplate automatic confirmation after probationary period
- reversion for administrative exigencies does not amount to reduction in rank
- seniority rules cannot be applied to ad hoc promotions made without regard to inter se seniority of officers from different states
