LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Indian Police Service (IPS) officers should be allowed to intervene in cases concerning the filling of senior administrative posts in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF).
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Sanjay Prakash & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.
Judgment Date: 28 June 2021
Date of the Judgment: 28th June, 2021
Citation: Not Available
Judges: Justice Aniruddha Bose
Can officers from the Indian Police Service (IPS) intervene in cases that might affect their deputation opportunities in Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF)? This was the question before the Supreme Court. The court considered applications by IPS officers seeking to be included in ongoing proceedings concerning the recruitment rules of various CAPFs. The judgment was delivered by a single judge bench of Justice Aniruddha Bose.
Case Background
The case originated from a judgment by the Delhi High Court concerning five writ petitions filed by Group A officers of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Border Security Force (BSF), and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB). These officers challenged the existing recruitment rules that allow a certain percentage of senior administrative posts to be filled by deputation, primarily by IPS officers. They sought to amend these rules to ensure all posts up to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level are filled by promotion only from within the respective forces. The IPS officers, fearing that their deputation opportunities would be reduced, sought to intervene in the proceedings before the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2016 | Cadre Review (CR) of CAPFs conducted. |
| 20th November, 2009, 15th December, 2009, 24th March 2009, 24th April 2009 and 8th May, 2018 | Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) issued Office Memorandums (OMs) regarding cadre review and promotion policies. |
| 2019 | Group A officers of CAPFs filed writ petitions in Delhi High Court. |
| 27 July 2020 | Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petitions, directing the Ministry of Home Affairs to review recruitment rules. |
| 2020 | CAPF officers filed Special Leave Petitions in the Supreme Court. |
| 2021 | IPS officers filed applications to intervene in the Supreme Court proceedings. |
| 28 June 2021 | Supreme Court allows IPS officers to intervene in the case. |
Course of Proceedings
The Delhi High Court disposed of the writ petitions by directing the Ministry of Home Affairs to review the recruitment rules of each CAPF, considering representations from the CAPF members and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines. The High Court also directed the DoPT to ensure timely commencement of the Cadre Review exercise due in 2021. The CAPF officers then filed Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) in the Supreme Court, challenging the High Court’s decision. Subsequently, IPS officers filed applications to be included as parties in the Supreme Court proceedings, fearing that their deputation opportunities would be curtailed if the CAPF officers’ plea was accepted.
Legal Framework
The legal framework for this case includes:
- ✓ Article 312 of the Constitution of India: This article deals with the All-India Services, which includes the Indian Police Service (IPS).
- ✓ IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954: These rules govern the cadre management of IPS officers, including provisions for central deputation. As per these rules, every state has a central deputation reserve not exceeding 40% of the total senior duty posts.
- ✓ Various Recruitment Rules of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) which provide for deputation to senior administrative posts. For example:
- ✓ Central Industrial Security Force (Group ‘A’ Executive Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 2002
- ✓ Rule 13 of the SSB Rules, 2009
- ✓ Central Reserve Police Border Force Group “A” General Duty Officers Recruitment Rules
- ✓ Section 12 of ITBP Act, 1992
- ✓ Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978
Arguments
Arguments of the CAPF Officers:
- ✓ The existing Recruitment Rules allow for a certain percentage of senior administrative posts to be filled by deputation, which primarily benefits IPS officers.
- ✓ They argued that all posts up to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) level should be filled by promotion only from within the respective forces.
- ✓ They relied on the judgment in Union of India vs Harananda [(2019) 14 SCC 126], where it was held that the Railway Protection Force was to be constituted as Organised Group A Civil Service, to argue that CAPFs should also be treated as such.
- ✓ They contended that the deputation of IPS officers clogs the promotional avenues of in-service officers of the CAPFs.
Arguments of the IPS Officers:
- ✓ The Indian Police Service is an All-India Service under Article 312 of the Constitution of India, and deputation is an integral part of the constitutional scheme.
- ✓ They argued that the individual service rules of each of the five forces provide for deputation in senior posts, and their right to get impleaded flows from such provisions.
- ✓ They contended that the petitioners’ aim is to eliminate deputation in the CAPFs by IPS officers altogether, which would impact their career prospects.
- ✓ They relied on Prabodh Verma And Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.[1984 (4) SCC 251], to support their claim that they are necessary parties to the case.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions of CAPF Officers | Sub-Submissions of IPS Officers |
|---|---|---|
| Challenge to Deputation |
|
|
| Legal Basis |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was whether the IPS officers should be allowed to intervene in the proceedings concerning the recruitment rules of the CAPFs. The court had to determine if the IPS officers were necessary or proper parties to the case, given their potential interest in the outcome.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether IPS officers should be allowed to intervene in the proceedings. | The Court allowed the intervention, stating that the IPS officers had demonstrated sufficient interest in the outcome of the case, as their deputation opportunities could be affected. The court noted that the IPS officers were volunteering their participation to highlight their grievances. |
| Whether the IPS officers are necessary or proper parties. | The Court found that the IPS officers were proper parties, especially Jitender Rana, who was already on deputation in a CAPF. The court reasoned that their deputation rights were integrally linked to the service rules of the respective Forces. |
Authorities
The court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | Legal Point | How it was considered |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prabodh Verma And Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.[1984 (4) SCC 251] | Supreme Court of India | Non-joinder of necessary parties | The court relied on this case to emphasize the importance of including parties who would be vitally affected by the judgment. |
| A. Janardhana vs Union of India [1983 (3) SCC 601] | Supreme Court of India | Non-joinder of necessary parties | The court distinguished this case, noting that the applicants were volunteering their participation, unlike the situation in A. Janardhana. |
| Mukul Kumar Tyagi vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others [2020 (4) SCC 86] | Supreme Court of India | Non-joinder of necessary parties | The Court used this case to highlight that when a large number of people are affected by an arbitrary or illegal process, it is not necessary to implead each and every person. |
| Union of India vs Harananda [(2019) 14 SCC 126] | Supreme Court of India | Organised Group A Civil Service | The court noted that the petitioners had relied on this judgment to argue that CAPFs should also be treated as an Organised Group A Civil Service. |
| Article 312 of the Constitution of India | Constitution of India | All-India Services | The court recognized that the IPS is an All-India Service under this article, and deputation is an integral part of the constitutional scheme. |
| IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954 | Government of India | Cadre Management of IPS officers | The court acknowledged that these rules provide for central deputation of IPS officers. |
| Central Industrial Security Force (Group ‘A’ Executive Cadre) Recruitment Rules, 2002 | Government of India | Recruitment Rules of CAPF | The court recognized that these rules provide for recruitment by deputation to the senior administrative posts of the CAPFs. |
| Rule 13 of the SSB Rules, 2009 | Government of India | Recruitment Rules of CAPF | The court recognized that these rules provide for recruitment by deputation to the senior administrative posts of the CAPFs. |
| Central Reserve Police Border Force Group “A” General Duty Officers Recruitment Rules | Government of India | Recruitment Rules of CAPF | The court recognized that these rules provide for recruitment by deputation to the senior administrative posts of the CAPFs. |
| Section 12 of ITBP Act, 1992 | Government of India | Recruitment Rules of CAPF | The court recognized that these rules provide for recruitment by deputation to the senior administrative posts of the CAPFs. |
| Border Security Force (Seniority, Promotion and Superannuation of Officers) Rules, 1978 | Government of India | Recruitment Rules of CAPF | The court recognized that these rules provide for recruitment by deputation to the senior administrative posts of the CAPFs. |
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the applications for impleadment and intervention filed by the IPS officers. The court reasoned that the IPS officers had a direct and subsisting interest in the subject controversy, as the outcome of the case could affect their deputation opportunities. The court specifically directed that Jitender Rana, an IPS officer on deputation in a CAPF, be impleaded as a respondent. The court also allowed the other IPS officers to intervene in the proceedings, recognizing their sufficient interest in the case. The court did not allow the Indian Police Service Central Association to be impleaded at this stage, but granted them leave to apply for impleadment before the appropriate bench.
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| CAPF officers’ plea to fill all senior posts by promotion | The Court did not rule on the merits of this submission but allowed the IPS officers to be heard on this matter. |
| IPS officers’ claim to deputation rights | The Court acknowledged the IPS officers’ claim to deputation rights under Article 312 of the Constitution and the IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954. |
| IPS officers’ plea for impleadment | The Court allowed the impleadment of Jitender Rana and granted permission for intervention to other IPS officers. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- ✓ Prabodh Verma And Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.[1984 (4) SCC 251]*: The court relied on this case to support the view that parties who would be vitally affected by the judgment should be included in the proceedings.
- ✓ A. Janardhana vs Union of India [1983 (3) SCC 601]*: The court distinguished this case, noting that the IPS officers were volunteering their participation, unlike the situation in A. Janardhana.
- ✓ Mukul Kumar Tyagi vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others [2020 (4) SCC 86]*: The court used this case to highlight that when a large number of people are affected by an arbitrary or illegal process, it is not necessary to implead each and every person.
- ✓ Union of India vs Harananda [(2019) 14 SCC 126]*: The court noted that the petitioners had relied on this judgment to argue that CAPFs should also be treated as an Organised Group A Civil Service.
- ✓ Article 312 of the Constitution of India: The court recognized the constitutional basis of the IPS and its deputation provisions.
- ✓ IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954: The court acknowledged that these rules provide for central deputation of IPS officers.
- ✓ Recruitment Rules of the CAPFs: The court recognized that these rules provide for recruitment by deputation to the senior administrative posts of the CAPFs.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that all parties with a direct interest in the outcome of the case were given an opportunity to be heard. The court emphasized that the IPS officers had a legitimate concern that their deputation opportunities could be affected if the CAPF officers’ plea was accepted. The court also considered the fact that deputation of IPS officers is integrally linked to the service rules of the respective CAPFs and the IPS Cadre Rules, 1954, which provide for central deputation. The court’s approach was to ensure fairness and inclusivity in the proceedings, rather than making a determination on the merits of the case.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fairness and Inclusivity | 40% |
| Protection of Deputation Rights | 30% |
| Procedural Correctness | 20% |
| Constitutional and Legal Basis | 10% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning was based on the principle of natural justice, ensuring that all affected parties have a right to be heard. The court recognized that the IPS officers’ career prospects and deputation opportunities were directly linked to the outcome of the case, thus necessitating their inclusion in the proceedings.
“In the event the petitions for Special Leave to Appeal are allowed and the plea of the petitioners for excluding deputationists from the senior administrative posts of the respective CAPFs eventually come to be accepted, it would obviously have an impact on the upper reaches of the service avenues of the IPS officers.”
“The applicants’ claim for entry to these proceedings is founded on their possibility of being engaged on deputation to the senior administrative posts of CAPFs being adversely affected.”
“In the given facts in my opinion, Jitender Rana, first applicant in Interlocutory Application Nos. 7477 and 11026 of 2021 ought to be impleaded in the respective petitions for Special Leave to Appeal in connection with which these applications have been taken out. He is an IPS Officer on deputation in a CAPF and has direct and subsisting interest in the subject controversy.”
Key Takeaways
- ✓ IPS officers have the right to intervene in cases that could affect their deputation opportunities in CAPFs.
- ✓ The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of including all necessary and proper parties in legal proceedings.
- ✓ The judgment highlights the significance of deputation as an integral part of the IPS cadre management.
- ✓ The case underscores the need to balance the promotional avenues of in-service officers with the deputation rights of IPS officers.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that Jitender Rana be impleaded as a respondent in Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12466 of 2020 and Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12570 of 2020. The court also allowed the other IPS officers to intervene in the proceedings. The Indian Police Service Central Association was granted leave to apply for impleadment before the appropriate bench.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that IPS officers have a right to be heard in cases that may affect their deputation opportunities. This clarifies that in cases concerning service rules and cadre management, all parties with a direct interest, including those on deputation, should be given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. This decision does not change the law but reinforces the principles of natural justice and the need for inclusive legal proceedings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision to allow IPS officers to intervene in the CAPF deputation case underscores the importance of ensuring that all parties with a direct interest in a legal dispute have an opportunity to be heard. The court recognized that the IPS officers had a legitimate concern that their deputation opportunities could be affected if the CAPF officers’ plea was accepted. This judgment emphasizes the need for inclusive legal proceedings and the protection of the rights of all affected parties.
Category
Parent Category: Service Law
Child Categories:
- Deputation
- Indian Police Service
- Central Armed Police Forces
- Recruitment Rules
- Article 312, Constitution of India
Parent Category: Constitution of India
Child Categories:
- Article 312, Constitution of India
FAQ
Q: What was the main issue in this case?
A: The main issue was whether IPS officers should be allowed to intervene in cases concerning the recruitment rules of Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF), which could affect their deputation opportunities.
Q: Why did the IPS officers want to intervene?
A: They feared that if the CAPF officers’ plea to fill all senior posts by promotion was accepted, their deputation opportunities would be reduced.
Q: What did the Supreme Court decide?
A: The Supreme Court allowed the IPS officers to intervene, recognizing their direct interest in the outcome of the case.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: It emphasizes the importance of including all necessary and proper parties in legal proceedings, ensuring that all affected parties have an opportunity to be heard.
Q: What are the implications for IPS officers?
A: This judgment ensures that their deputation rights are protected and that they can participate in cases that may affect their career prospects.