Supreme Court Stays Additional Police Sub-Inspector Appointments: Gajanan Bansode vs. State of Maharashtra (2021)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the State Government can appoint additional candidates beyond the notified vacancies for the post of Police Sub-Inspector without consulting the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) and violating the prescribed recruitment rules.

CASE TYPE: Service Law

Case Name: Gajanan Babulal Bansode & Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.

[Judgment Date]: February 5, 2021

Date of the Judgment: February 5, 2021
Citation: Not Available
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, Indu Malhotra, Vineet Saran, JJ.
Can a state government bypass established recruitment procedures and appoint candidates beyond the notified vacancies? This question was at the heart of a recent case before the Supreme Court of India. The Court examined the legality of the Maharashtra government’s decision to appoint 636 additional Police Sub-Inspectors, a move that bypassed the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) and deviated from established recruitment rules. The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices L. Nageswara Rao, Indu Malhotra, and Vineet Saran delivered the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the recruitment process for Police Sub-Inspectors in Maharashtra. The Maharashtra government, through the Home Department, initiated a Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) in 2016 to fill 828 vacancies for the post of Police Sub-Inspector. Of these, 642 were for the open category, and 186 were for various reserved categories. The recruitment process was governed by the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995.

After the MPSC declared the results, the government decided to accommodate an additional 636 candidates who had scored above 230 marks in the LDCE 2016. This decision was made through a Government Resolution (G.R.) dated April 22, 2019. This decision was made without consulting the MPSC. The Directorate General of Police then directed the medical tests and other formalities for the additional candidates to be sent for training at the Maharashtra Police Academy, Nasik.

This move was challenged by in-service candidates who were working as Police Constables, as the additional appointments would affect their promotional prospects. They argued that the government’s decision violated the recruitment rules and distorted the quota for promotions through the Limited Departmental Examination.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The in-service candidates filed Original Applications (O.A.) before the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal challenging the Government Resolution dated 22.04.2019. The Tribunal initially ordered a status quo on 18.10.2019, but later vacated this order on 30.11.2019. The Tribunal’s decision was based on the grounds that some of the applicants had failed the LDCE exam, and that the applicants had not challenged the G.R. The Tribunal also noted that the 636 additional candidates were not made a party in the O.A.

Aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order, the original applicants filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The High Court rejected the Writ Petition and declined to maintain the status quo. However, the High Court directed the State Government to send the additional 636 candidates for training and requested the Tribunal to dispose of the pending O.A. within the same period.

Legal Framework

The selection process was governed by the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995. Rule 3 of the said rules specifies the methods of appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, which includes:

• (a) Promotion based on seniority and fitness.
• (b) Selection through a limited departmental examination.
• (c) Nomination based on a competitive examination.

Rule 4 of the said rules prescribes the ratio for appointment by promotion, selection through limited departmental examination, and nomination as 25:25:50. Rule 5 states that the Government may relax the prescribed ratio with prior consultation with the MPSC if the exigencies of service so require.

Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution of India mandates that the State Public Service Commission be consulted on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and posts.

The relevant rules are extracted hereunder:

“Rule 3 : Appointment to the post of Sub -Inspector of Police in the Police Force in the State of Maharashtra shall be made either:
(a)by promotion of a suitable person on the basis of seniority subject to fitness from amongst the persons holding the posts of Havald ar and Assistant Police Sub -Inspector in the Police Force who have completed not less than five years continuous regular service or seven years broken service and who qualify in the departmental examination held by the Director General of Police in accorda nce with the rules laid down in paragraph 5 of the Government Resolution No. PSB. 0390/CR -408/POL -5-A, dated 5th July 1995, 1994
Or
(b) by selection of persons working in the Police Force on the basis of the result of the limited departmental examination h eld by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission for appointment to the post of Sub -Inspector of Police for admission to which a candidate shall –
(i) not be more than 35 years of age :
Provided that, relaxation of age of five years may be granted to candidates of Backward Classes and –
‘Provided also that, the candidates who were eligible to appear for the limited departmental examination after 1st January, 1991, but who were not allowed to appear for the limited departmental examinations held in 1998 and 2002 on account of the age limit, shall be given three chances to appear for next consecutive examinations.
(ii) have completed a minimum regular service as Police Constable with educat ional qualifications as mentioned below
Minimum Regular Service Educational Qualification
(1) 4 years .. Degree in any faculty.
(2) 5 years .. Passed the Higher Secondary School
Certificate examination
(3) 6 years .. Passed the Secondary School
Certificate examination
(c) by nomination on the basis of the result of a competitive examination held by the Commission in accordance with the rules made in this behalf from time to time , and for admi ssion to which a candidate shall :-
(i) not be less than nineteen years of age and not more than (twenty -eight years) of age on the date specified by the Commission
Provided that the maximum age limit may be relaxed upto (thirty -one years) in respect of candidates belonging to the Backward Classes:
Provided that an ex -serviceman who has served continuously in the Armed Forces for a period of not less than 5 years may be allowed to deduct from his age, the period of 2 years over and above the length of his continuous service in the Armed Forces upto the date of release from service.
(ii) Possess a degree or any other qualification declared by the Government to be equivalent thereto;
(iii) Possess the following minimum physical measurements, namely :
For Male
(i) Height ..
1165 Centimetres minimum.
(ii) Chest .. 79 Centimetres and above with
minimum expansion of 5
centimetres.
For Female
Height .. 1157 Centimetres .
Rule 4: Appointment to the post of Police Sub – Inspector by promotion, selection on the basis of limited departmental examination and nomination shall be made in the ratio of 25:25:50.

Rule 5 : Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, if in the opinion of Government, the exigencies of service, ‘so requires, Government may with prior consultation with MPSC make appointment to the post of Police Sub-Inspector in relaxation of the ratio prescribed for appointment by promotion selection on the basis of limit ed departmental examination or nomination.”

Arguments

The appellants (in-service police constables) contended that the Government Resolution dated 22.04.2019 was contrary to the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995. They argued that the appointment of 636 additional candidates would distort the 25% quota for promotions through the Limited Departmental Examination, thereby curtailing their future promotional opportunities and violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The State of Maharashtra argued that the decision to appoint additional candidates was taken due to the exigencies of service, as provided under Rule 5 of the Recruitment Rules. They contended that the government has the power to relax the prescribed ratio in exceptional circumstances.

The MPSC, in its letter dated 11.07.2019, stated that the government’s decision to appoint additional candidates without consulting the MPSC was a serious irregularity and would hamper the functioning of the Commission.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

✓ Whether the State Government could appoint 636 additional candidates to the post of Police Sub-Inspector, beyond the notified vacancies, without consulting the MPSC, and in violation of the prescribed recruitment rules, specifically Rule 4 and Rule 5 of the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

✓ Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution of India: This provision mandates consultation with the State Public Service Commission on matters relating to recruitment.

✓ Rule 3, 4 and 5 of the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995: These rules govern the appointment of Police Sub-Inspectors, including the ratio for promotions and the power to relax the rules in exceptional circumstances.

Judgment

The Court considered the authorities as follows:

✓ Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution of India*: The Court emphasized the importance of consulting the MPSC on matters related to recruitment. The Court noted that the State Government had failed to consult the MPSC before issuing the impugned G.R., which was a serious irregularity.

✓ Rule 5 of the Police Sub-Inspector (Recruitment) Rules, 1995*: The Court clarified that while Rule 5 allows the government to relax the prescribed ratio in exceptional circumstances, this power should be exercised sparingly and only after consulting the MPSC. The Court noted that the government would have to justify the “exigencies of service” before the Tribunal.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and stayed the Government Resolution No. Police-1818/ File 355/Pol 5A dated 22.04.2019. The Court set aside the order of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal dated 30.11.2019, which had vacated the interim order of status quo, and the order of the Bombay High Court dated 06.03.2020.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to uphold the established recruitment procedures and the constitutional mandate for consulting the Public Service Commission. The Court emphasized that the government cannot bypass these procedures without demonstrating extraordinary circumstances. The Court also noted that the appointment of additional candidates would prejudice the promotional prospects of the in-service candidates.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the following points:

• The State Government had issued the impugned G.R. without consulting the MPSC, violating Article 320(3)(a) of the Constitution.
• The government had not established any extraordinary circumstances to justify the relaxation of the recruitment rules under Rule 5.
• The appointment of additional candidates would distort the prescribed ratio for promotions and affect the promotional prospects of the existing employees.
• The Tribunal had erred in vacating the interim order of status quo on the grounds that the applicants had not challenged the G.R. and that some of them had failed the examination.

The ratio of fact:law is as follows:

The Court observed that the Tribunal had vacated the interim order of status quo on the ground that two of the Applicants had participated in the examination, but failed to qualify. The Court held that this was not a justifiable ground to vacate the interim order, since the promotional prospects of the Petitioners would be seriously prejudiced.

The Court also observed that the Tribunal had vacated the Interim Order on the ground that the Applicants had not challenged the G.R. dated 22.4.2019. The Court noted that this was an erroneous observation, which was evident from the prayers in the O.A., where the applicants had sought to quash the G.R.

The Court further observed that the Tribunal had vacated the Interim Order on the ground that in similar O.A s challenging the same G.R. dated 22.4.2019, the Applicants in those cases had withdrawn their respective cases. The Court held that this was also not a justifiable ground for vacating the Order of status quo.

The Court stated that, “The Government would be required to establish before the Tribunal as to whether there were any extra -ordinary circumstances which have warranted the exercise of power under Rule 5 , which may be resorted to only in rare and exceptional circumstances .”

The Court also observed that, “It is well-settled in service jurisprudence that the authority cannot fill up more than the notified number of vacancies advertised, as the recruitment of candidates in excess of the notified vacancies , would be violative of Article s 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of India.”

The Court observed that, “We are of the view that such a direction ought not to have been passed in the W rit Petition filed by the present Petitioners, who are aggrieved by the impugned Government Resolution No. Police -1818/ File 355/Pol 5A dated 22.04.2019 , which is the subject matter of challenge .”

Key Takeaways

• State governments must adhere to established recruitment rules and procedures.
• Consultation with the Public Service Commission is mandatory for recruitment matters.
• Relaxation of recruitment rules should be done only in exceptional circumstances and with proper justification.
• Appointments cannot exceed the number of notified vacancies.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Aurangabad Bench, to decide the pending O.A. within six months. The Tribunal was also directed to ensure that the additional 636 candidates are given notice of the pending O.A. and to club all pending Original Applications challenging the impugned Government Resolution.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that the State Government cannot make appointments beyond the notified vacancies without consulting the MPSC and without demonstrating extraordinary circumstances to justify the relaxation of the recruitment rules. This case reinforces the importance of following established recruitment procedures and the constitutional mandate for consulting the Public Service Commission. The decision underscores that the power to relax rules must be exercised sparingly and with proper justification. There is no change in the previous position of the law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Gajanan Babulal Bansode vs. State of Maharashtra is a significant ruling that upholds the importance of adhering to established recruitment procedures and the constitutional mandate for consulting the Public Service Commission. The Court stayed the Maharashtra government’s decision to appoint 636 additional Police Sub-Inspectors, emphasizing that such appointments must be made in accordance with the law and with proper justification. The judgment serves as a reminder that the power to relax rules must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.