Supreme Court of India
LT. CDR. M. RAMESHversusUNION OF INDIA & ORS.
- Citation
- 2018 INSC 357
- Decided
- 17 April 2018
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- MADAN B LOKUR
Holding
The decision to scrap the Limited Competitive Examination for IPS recruitment is legal, valid, and not arbitrary, and the petitioners have no enforceable right to the result or appointment.
Summary
The Union introduced a Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) in 2012 to recruit officers to the Indian Police Service (IPS) but never declared the results. In 2018 the Union decided to scrap the LCE, prompting candidates who had appeared for the exam to seek declaration of results and appointment. The Supreme Court held that the candidates had no vested right to the result or appointment and that the decision to abandon the LCE was taken in the larger public interest, not arbitrary, discriminatory or capricious. The Court rejected the applicability of promissory estoppel and found that the principle of legitimate expectation could not override the government's power to change recruitment policy for valid reasons. Consequently, all transferred cases were declared infructuous and disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioners have any vested right to claim declaration of results or appointment under the LCE.
- Whether the Union's decision to scrap the LCE is arbitrary, discriminatory, or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
- Whether the principles of legitimate expectation or promissory estoppel are applicable to the petitioners.
- Whether the decision to cancel the LCE is justified on grounds of public interest.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 139A(1), s. Article 14, s. Article 16
- Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 (as amended 2011)s. Rule 8
- Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988s. Rule 3
Subjects
Limited Competitive ExaminationIPS recruitmentvested rightlegitimate expectationArticle 14arbitrary decisionpublic interestseniorityrecruitment rulespromissory estoppel
Judgment
[2018] 6 S.C.R. 763 763
LT. CDR. M. RAMESH A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Transferred Case (Civil) No.11 of 2017
WITH B
I.A. No.132315/2017 – Clarification/Direction)
APRIL 17, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR, KURIAN JOSEPH AND
DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
C
Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 and Amended
Rules, 2011– r.8 as amended – Union of India introduced Limited
Competitive Examination (LCE) to make appointments to the Indian
Police Service (IPS) – Examination took place from 20.05.2012 to
22.05.2012, however, results of the same were not declared –
Thereafter, Union of India took the decision in 2018 to scrap the D
LCE held in the year 2012 – Whether the decision of Union of
India to cancel the selection process is legal or not – Held: Legal
and valid – Decision to scrap the LCE was taken in larger public
interest and it cannot be termed to be arbitrary, discriminatory or
capricious – The result of the said examination was expected to be E
declared in the year 2013 and the officers would have been sent
for training in the same year – The officers, who may have been
selected in the year 2013 at the upper age limit of 35 years or 36
years would be 5 years older in year 2018 and their induction or
recruitment in the IPS would have been delayed by more than 5
years – Government had fixed the upper age limit of 35 years and F
with delay of more than 5 years the purpose for upper age limit,
whatever it would have been, was defeated – If Union of India had
made appointments, it would have led to a plethora of litigation
where the persons recruited to the IPS between 2013 and 2018
would have claimed seniority over the persons, who appeared in G
the LCE – Litigation by officers against each other would have
achieved no higher purpose – LCE was introduced keeping in view
the shortage of police officials in the IPS and to fill up the
vacancies, however, the percentage of vacancies in last 5 years
had fallen considerably, therefore, the decision of the Government
to scrap LCE cannot be termed irrational – The induction through H
763
764 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.
A LCE was mainly limited to persons belonging to the State Police
Services and Central Police Organization – The gain, in the IPS,
would have been set off by a consequent shortage in the State
Police Services and the Central Police Organization – The decision
to scrap the LCE is not mala fide and is a reasonable one in the
facts and circumstances of the case – Indian Police Service
B
(Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 – r.3 – Service Law.
Service Law – Union of India introduced the Limited
Competitive Examination (LCE) keeping in view the shortage of
police officials in the IPS – Examination took place from 20.05.2012
to 22.05.2012, however, it was subsequently scrapped – Whether
C the petitioners have any vested right to claim declaration of results
and appointment pursuant to selection – Held: It is well settled that
merely because a person has been selected, does not give that
person an indefeasible right of claiming appointment – In the
instant case, results have not been declared and even the selection
D process was not complete – Petitioners had no enforceable right to
claim that the result should be declared or that they should be
appointed if found meritorious.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present cases, results of Limited
Competitive Examination (LCE) have not been declared and even
E
the selection process is not complete. As such, there is no
manner of doubt that the petitioners have no enforceable right to
claim that the result should be declared or that they should be
appointed if found meritorious. The law is well settled that even
though the candidates may not have a vested right of
F appointment and the State is not under any duty or obligation to
fill up the vacancies, the State has to act fairly and it cannot act in
an arbitrary manner. The decision, not to fill up the vacancies
pursuant to the selection process, must be taken bona fide and
for justifiable and appropriate reasons. [Paras 15, 16] [772-G-H;
773-A-B]
G
2. In the instant case, there is no manner of doubt that it
was expected that the result of LCE would be declared in the
year 2013 and the officers would be sent for training in the same
year. The officers, who may have been selected in the year 2013
at the upper age limit of 35 years or 36 years would now be 5
H years older. No doubt, they are members of the State Police
LT. CDR. M. RAMESH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 765
Service or the Central Police Organisation, but their induction A
or recruitment in the IPS is delayed by more than 5 years. When
the Government laid down a policy that upper age limit was 35
years, it must have had some reason for fixing the upper age
limit. That purpose is now defeated. [Paras 20, 21] [774-D, F-G]
3. If the Union is compelled to make the appointments, B
this will lead to a plethora of litigation where the persons
recruited to the IPS between 2013 and 2018 will claim seniority
over the persons, who appear in the LCE. Such litigation would
not be in public good and will achieve no higher purpose. In fact,
such litigation may also affect the morale of the officers in the
IPS. [Para 22] [774-H; 775-G-H] C
4. The Union has also taken up a plea that though the fall in
vacancies when taken numerically, may not be much but when
taken on the percentage basis, there is a fairly large fall in the
vacancies. Furthermore, the induction through LCE is mainly
limited to persons belonging to the State Police Services and the D
Central Police Organisation. Any such induction would lead to a
consequential shortage in these organisations. The gain, if any,
in the IPS, would be set off by a consequent shortage in the State
Police Services and the Central Police Organisation.[Para 23]
[775-B-C, D-E]
E
5. The decision to scrap the LCE recruitment has been
taken in the larger public interest. It is not actuated by
extraneous reasons. The decision cannot be termed to be
arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious or malafide and is a
reasonable one in the facts and circumstances of the case.
[Paras 24, 25] [775-E-G] F
Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana (1993) 2 Suppl.
SCC 600 : [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 816 ; Vijay Kumar
Mishra v. High Court of Judicature at Patna (2016) 9
SCC 313 : [2016] 3 SCR 806 ; Shankarsan Dash v.
Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 : [1991] 2 SCR 567 G
– referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 816 referred to Para 14
[2016] 3 SCR 806 referred to Para 14
[1991] 2 SCR 567 referred to Para 16 H
766 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.
A CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transferred Case (Civil)
No. 11 of 2017
Under Article 139A (1) of the Constitution of India
WITH
B T. C. (C) Nos. 12, 13, 16-20, 46, 268, 48, 50 and 49 of 2017
T. C. (C) No. 23 of 2017 with I. A. No. 108931 of 2017-
Intervention Application.
R. Venkatramani, Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advs., Anitha Shenoy,
Ms. Srishti Agnihotri, Pravin Vignesh, Ms. Remya Raj, Sudarshan Rajan,
C Amandeep Joshi, Ms. Jayashree Narasimhan, Himanshu Gautam,
Mahesh Kumar, Padmna Kumar S., Ms. Usha Nandini V., Advs. for the
Petitioner.
Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, Dushyant Dave, Sr. Advs.,
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, T. A. Khan, Ms. Rashmi Malhotra, B. V.
D Balramdas, Om Prakash Shukla, Yajur Sharma, Ms. Disha Vaish,
Ms. Sushma Suri, Naresh Kaushik Vardhman Kaushik, Akash Mahapatra,
Omung Raj Gupta, Manoj Joshi, Nishant Gautam, Karn Deo Baghel,
Devik Singh, Mrs. Lalita Kaushik, Shree Prakash Sinha, Rakesh Mishra,
Ms. Mohua Sinha, Nawalendra Kumar, Hrishikesh Baruah, Advs. for
the Respondents.
E
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DEEPAK GUPTA J. 1. By this judgment we shall decide
whether the decision taken by the Union of India not to make
appointments to the Indian Police Service (for short ‘the IPS’) pursuant
F to the Limited Competitive Examination (for short ‘the LCE’) which
took place from 20.05.2012 to 22.05.2012, is legal and valid.
2. The facts in brief are that keeping in view the shortage of
police officials in the Indian Police Service, the Ministry of Home Affairs,
Union of India set up a Committee headed by Shri Kamal Kumar, I.P.S.
G (Retd.) to make suggestions on various aspects including filling up the
vacancies. The Committee, in its report, recommended that in addition
to the normal modes of recruitment i.e. direct recruitment to the IPS
through the annual Civil Services Examination and promotion from the
State Police Services, a third method of Limited Competitive Examination
H
LT. CDR. M. RAMESH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 767
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
should be introduced. The directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of A
Police in the State Police Service and their equivalents in the Central
Police Services with a minimum of 5 years of service were eligible for
this exam subject to a maximum age limit of 45 years. It was also
recommended that not more than 65 officers should be recruited in a
given year through the LCE and the recruitment through this channel
B
may have to be staggered over a period of 7 years. The Government
partially accepted the report and by amendment in sub-rule (1) of Rule 4
of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 introduced a
method of recruitment through LCE. Officers of the State Police Service,
Central Police Organisation and Army officers fulfilling the eligibility
conditions were entitled to appear in the LCE. It would be pertinent to C
mention that the LCE was placed at point (b) below (a) direct recruit
through competitive examination and above (c) promotion of the members
of the State Police Services. Rule 8, as amended, provided that the
LCE would be held at such intervals as the Central Government, may in
consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (for short ‘the
D
UPSC’) from time to time, determine. At this stage, it would be pertinent
to mention that in terms of the IPS rules, the seniority of IPS officers is
determined as per the year of allotment and Rule 3 of the Indian Police
Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 provides that the year of
allotment of a direct recruit shall be the year following the year in which
the competitive examination was held. It is not disputed that for the E
purposes of assigning the year of allotment the persons selected through
the LCE would be covered by the same rule like the direct recruit.
Consequently, amongst the officers having the same year appointment,
the inter se seniority would be determined as follows:
1. Direct recruits F
2. LCE appointees
3. Promoted State Police Service officers
3. The relevant portion of Indian Police Service (Recruitment)
Amended Rules, 2011 reads as follows:- G
“1. xxx xxx xxx
2.In the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 (herein-
after referred to as the principal rules), in rule 4 in sub-rule(1), for
clause (b), the following clauses shall be substituted, namely:-
H
768 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.
A “(b) by limited competitive examination;
(c) by promotion of members of a State Police
Service.”
xxx xxx xxx
B 3. In the Principal rules, after rule 7, the following rule shall be
inserted, namely:-
“8. Recruitment by limited competitive examination –
(1) The limited competitive examination for recruitment to the
service shall be held at such intervals as the Central Government
C may, in consultation with the Commission, from time to time
determine.
(2) The examination shall be conducted by the Commission in
accordance with such regulations as the Central Government may
from time to time make in consultation with the Commission and
D the State Government.
(3) xxx xxx xxx”
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid amendment to the Rules, the UPSC
published an advertisement on 10.03.2012 inviting applications for filling
up posts in the IPS through LCE as per the amended rules. Thereafter,
E written tests and interviews were conducted but till date the results of
the same have not been declared.
5. The amendments to the rules were challenged in a number of
petitions. One petition was filed in the Delhi High Court being WP (C)
No. 1610 of 2012 titled Zakat Foundation of India v. Union of India &
F Ors. This petition appears to have been filed in the public interest and
the contention of the petitioner was that the provisions providing for the
LCE were arbitrary and unconstitutional and the Government should
increase the intake of the IPS through normal direct recruitment through
the UPSC. This petition was rejected mainly on the ground that
introduction of a new method of recruitment through the LCE was a
G policy decision in which the Court could not interfere. It had been
argued before the Delhi High Court that many State Governments had
not been consulted; that the UPSC and other bodies had expressed their
reservations and therefore, the amendment was illegal. The Delhi High
Court observed that it cannot comment whether the system introduced
H
LT. CDR. M. RAMESH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 769
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
by this amendment is the best or there could be better alternatives. It A
noted that the UPSC had initially opposed the amendment. It had also
noted the reservation of the Central Police Organisation and the States
that this would result in shortage of police officers, and Paramilitary
Forces in the State. However, the Court held that it cannot nullify or
invalidate the decision of the Government only on the ground that it was
B
not a very wise decision and there were better alternatives.
6. It would also be pertinent to mention that the amended rules
were challenged before this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 326 of
2012 but the same was dismissed by this Court on 27.08.2012 on the
ground that the petitioners could not show how they were adversely
affected by the amendment to the rules. C
7. Some police officers of the Assam Police Service filed Original
Application being O.A.No.112 of 2012 in the Central Administrative
Tribunal (for short ‘the CAT’), Guwahati Bench challenging the
amendment introducing the LCE mainly on the grounds that no
consultations had been held with the States; that the amendment was D
arbitrary and unreasonable and the main challenge was with regard to
the maximum age being fixed at 35 years whereas the recommendation
of the Kamal Kumar Committee was 45 years. The CAT vide its order
dated 14.09.2012 quashed the amended Rules of 2011 as being illegal,
having been made without consulting the State Governments E
representing the Assam-Meghalaya Joint Cadre Authority and also on
the ground that the promotional avenues of the State police officers
stood abridged by the amended rules and therefore, the rules were
violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. This decision
of the CAT was challenged by the Union of India before the Gauhati
High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4880 of 2012. Some persons, who F
had appeared in the LCE also filed a writ petition being Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 5337 of 2012 challenging the judgment of the CAT. The
Gauhati High Court allowed the writ petitions and set aside the order of
the CAT and held the amended rules to be valid.
8. It would be pertinent to mention that neither the judgment of G
the Delhi High Court in Zakat Foundation nor the judgment of the Gauhati
High Court has been challenged and has thus attained finality.
However, the matter does not end here. Various petitions were filed in
different High Courts. It would also not be out of place to mention that
H
770 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.
A certain members of the armed forces engaged on Short Service
Commission were not given permission to appear in the examination or
interview on the ground that they could not leave the armed forces
before completing their tenure of service. They also filed writ petitions
praying that they should be permitted to appear in the examination and
interview. Therefore, the Union of India filed Transfer Petition (Civil)
B
Nos. 272-287 of 2015 and Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1555 of 2017
praying for transfer of 17 cases pending in different High Courts in the
country. Notice was issued for transfer of 17 cases and proceedings
before the High Courts were stayed. However, 3 cases were not sent
by the High Courts on the ground that either they have been already
C disposed of or they had no concern with this litigation. Therefore, 14
transfer petitions have been listed before this Court for hearing. It may
be mentioned that as far as Transferred Case (Civil) No. 50 of 2017 is
concerned, the matter has already been disposed of by the Delhi High
Court and, therefore, it has become infructuous.
D 9. Before this Court, it took a long time to serve the respondents
and on 12.12.2017, when the matter was taken up for hearing the
following order was passed:
“Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor General, seeks
some more time for the Ministry of Home Affairs to take a final
E call on the stand to be taken on the issues raised in these cases.
We direct the Ministry of Home Affairs to finalize its stand
positively within two weeks from today.
Post these cases on 08.01.2018.
F We make it clear that depending on the decision taken by the
Ministry of Home Affairs it will be open to the U.P.S.C. to proceed with
the process, making it subject to the result of these Transferred Cases.”
10. On 08.01.2018, the Union of India sought time to file an
affidavit. By this affidavit, filed on 12.01.2018 and affirmed by Shri S.K.
Rastogi, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, the Court was
G
informed that after considering all aspects referred to in the affidavit,
the Union of India had taken a decision to scrap the LCE held in the
year 2012. The candidates who had appeared in the LCE have opposed
this decision of the Union of India and at this stage, we have heard
arguments only on the issue whether the decision of the Central
H Government to cancel the selection process is legal or not.
LT. CDR. M. RAMESH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 771
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
11. In support of its decision to scrap the LCE, the Union of India A
has submitted that the main purpose of holding the LCE was to fill up a
large number of vacancies. According to the stand of the Union of
India, when the Kamal Kumar Committee was set up, about 30% posts
in the IPS were vacant. The year-wise tabulation of the same is as
under:
B
Year Authorised In Vacancy %
Strength position
01.01.2012 3277 2536 741 22.61
01.01.2013 3277 2574 703 21.45
01.01.2014 3275 2617 658 20.09
01.01.2015 3293 2685 608 18.46 C
01.01.2016 3327 2744 583 17.52
01.01.2017 3356 2802 554 16.50
01.01.2018 3423 2887* 536* 15.65
*Approx D
12. It has been argued by Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned
senior counsel appearing for the Union of India that the percentage of
vacancies has gone down. It has also been contended that the
candidates who underwent the examination in the year 2012 would be
placed immediately below the direct recruit IPS officers of the same E
year and that subsequent recruitments have been done both by direct
recruitment and by promotion and this may result in a lot of litigation
with regard to seniority. It is also contended that it was contemplated
that the officers recruited through the process of the LCE would be
about 35 years of age but now with the passage of time even if the result
is declared, many of them may be more than 40 years of age which will F
hamper their functioning in the Indian Police Service. The main
contention of the Union of India is that the petitioners have no legal right
to be appointed and mere selection does not give them such a right.
13. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel, appearing for the
G
persons who have appeared in the LCE, contended that even if there is
no vested legal right, the said applicants have a legitimate expectation to
be appointed. He concedes that in certain circumstances the
Government can cancel a selection process but this cancellation can
only be done when there is an overriding public interest. His submission
H
772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.
A is that the affidavit in question does not show any such overriding
interest. Mr. R. Venkatramani, learned senior counsel appearing for
some of the LCE candidates submitted that the Government must be
fair and just and the affidavit fails to disclose what is the public interest
or the higher purpose served by scrapping the examination. He further
submits that the reasons given by the Government in its affidavit do not
B
satisfy the test of overriding public interest or higher purpose and, as
such, the decision of the Government to scrap the examination should
not be accepted by this Court and the UPSC should be directed to
declare the result and the Union of India be directed to make
appointments pursuant to the result.
C
14. The first issue that arises is whether the petitioners have any
vested right to claim that the result must be declared and if the
petitioners are selected, they should be appointed. This Court in Jai
Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana1 held that merely because the
Government had sent a requisition to the UPSC to select the candidates
D for appointments, did not create any vested right in the candidate called
for the interview to be appointed. It was also held that the authority
which has the power to specify the method of recruitment must be
deemed to have the power to revise and substitute the same. The Court,
however, also laid down that at best the Government may be required to
E justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. This
view has been followed in a large number of cases. In Vijay Kumar
Mishra v. High Court of Judicature at Patna2, this Court held that
there is a distinction between selection and appointment. It was held
that a person, who is successful in the selection process, does not
acquire any right to be appointed automatically. Such a person has no
F indefeasible right of appointment.
15. It is, thus, well settled that merely because a person has been
selected, does not give that person an indefeasible right of claiming
appointment. As far as the present cases are concerned, results have
not been declared and even the selection process is not complete. As
G
such, there is no manner of doubt that the petitioners have no
enforceable right to claim that the result should be declared or that they
should be appointed if found meritorious.
1
1993 Supp.(2) SCC 600
2
(2016) 9 SCC 313
H
LT. CDR. M. RAMESH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 773
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
16. Having held so, we must also note that the law is well settled A
that even though the candidates may not have a vested right of
appointment and the State is not under any duty or obligation to fill up the
vacancies, the State has to act fairly and it cannot act in an arbitrary
manner. The decision, not to fill up the vacancies pursuant to the
selection process, must be taken bona fide and for justifiable and
B
appropriate reasons. In this regard, we may make reference to the case
of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India3.
17. On behalf of the candidates, who have appeared in the
examination, a feeble attempt was made to invoke the principle of
promissory estoppel. In our view, the said principle is not at all
applicable to the present case. It is well settled law that the principle of C
promissory estoppel can only be invoked by a person who has changed
his position to his detriment on the basis of the promise held out to him.
This is not the position in the present cases. All the candidates are
serving in the State Police or the Central Police Organisation or in the
Army. Their position has not been adversely affected by the selection D
process and therefore, the principle of promissory estoppel is not
applicable.
18. The main attack against the decision of the Government is on
the ground that the candidates had a legitimate expectation that
pursuant to the written test and interview, their result would be declared E
and if found successful, they would be appointed. It is a well settled law
that even if there is no vested right, the principle of legitimate
expectation can be invoked. Legitimate expectation arises when the
citizens expect that they will be benefitted under some policy or
decision, announced by the State. At the same time, the law is well
settled that the Legislature and the Executive can change any policy for F
good reasons. These good reasons must be such which are not
arbitrary, which are not mala fide and the decision has been taken in the
public interest. If the decision to change the policy is arbitrary or
capricious then it may be struck down.
19. Applying the aforesaid principle, we may test whether the G
action of the Government in deciding to scrap the recruitment process
by the LCE is an arbitrary decision or not. The reasons given by the
Government in support of its decision are as follows:
3
(1991) 3 SCC 471
H
774 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 6 S.C.R.
A 1. percentage of vacancies has gone down;
2. the selection process has been delayed by many years which
will mean that the persons selected will be at least 5 years
older than as expected;
3. that many petitions are still pending and the matter has not
B been finally decided, which could lead to further delay; and
4. it is apprehended that there would be a surfeit of litigation
between candidates, if any, appointed through LCE and those
who are recruited by direct recruitment or promotion during
the years 2012 to 2018.
C
20. Both Mr. Dave and Mr. Venkatramani have attacked each
ground invoked by the Union individually but we are of the view that it is
the combined effect of all the grounds which will have to be taken into
consideration. There is no manner of doubt that it was expected that the
result would be declared in the year 2013 and the officers would be sent
D for training in the same year. We are in the year 2018 and some of the
matters which have been transferred to this Court are still to be heard.
It was urged that the dispute stands decided by the Gauhati High Court
and the Delhi High Court. It may be true that these two Courts have
upheld the validity of the rules and the Union of India did not challenge
E the decisions in these two cases, but we cannot lose sight of the fact that
there are various other petitions pending and neither this Court nor the
other High Courts are bound by the decision rendered by the Gauhati
High Court or the Delhi High Court. These cases will have to be
decided, if we are not to accept the stand of the Central Government.
This could delay the matter even further.
F
21. The officers, who may have been selected in the year 2013 at
the upper age limit of 35 years or 36 years would now be 5 years older.
No doubt, they are members of the State Police Service or the Central
Police Organisation, but their induction or recruitment in the IPS is
delayed by more than 5 years. When the Government laid down a
G policy that upper age limit was 35 years, it must have had some reason
for fixing the upper age limit. That purpose is now defeated.
22. We cannot be oblivious to the fact that if the Union is
compelled to make the appointments, this will lead to a plethora of
litigation where the persons recruited to the IPS between 2013 and 2018
H
LT. CDR. M. RAMESH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 775
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
will claim seniority over the persons, who appear in the LCE. We are A
not going into the merits of the issue but, we can easily visualise the
huge amount of litigation which will in all probability ensue, where
members of the IPS would be litigating against each other. Such
litigation would not be in public good and will achieve no higher purpose.
In fact, such litigation may also affect the morale of the officers in the
B
IPS.
23. The Union has also taken up a plea that though the fall in
vacancies, when taken numerically, may not be much but when taken on
percentage basis, there is a fairly large fall in the vacancies. At the time
when the Kamal Kumar Committee was set up and till its report, 30% of
the posts in the IPS were lying vacant. When the rules were introduced, C
22.61% posts were vacant. As on 01.01.2018, 15.65% posts are vacant
and, therefore, definitely there is a fall in the percentage of vacancies.
It was urged that even now there are large number of vacancies and,
therefore, the decision of the Government is irrational. We cannot
accept this submission. One cannot lose sight of the fact that the D
induction through LCE is mainly limited to persons belonging to the State
Police Services and the Central Police Organisation. Any such induction
would lead to a consequential shortage in these organisations. The gain,
if any, in the IPS, would be set off by a consequent shortage in the State
Police Services and the Central Police Organisation.
E
24. When we examine the decision taken by the Central
Government in a holistic manner, we have no doubt that the decision to
scrap the LCE recruitment has been taken in the larger public interest.
The decision is definitely not mala fide. It is not actuated by extraneous
reasons. It cannot be said that the decision is arbitrary.
F
25. In view of the foregoing reasons, the decision of the
Government to scrap the process of recruitment to the IPS through the
LCE cannot be termed to be arbitrary, discriminatory or capricious. The
decision is a reasonable one in the facts and circumstances of the case.
26. In view of the above, all the transferred cases have been G
rendered infructuous and are disposed of accordingly. Applications for
clarification/direction as well as intervention are rejected. Pending
application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
Ankit Gyan Matters disposed of.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Limited Competitive Examination"Sign in to search