Supreme Court Upholds Inspector General’s Authority in Police Promotions: Sushil Kumar vs. State of Haryana (2022)

Date of the Judgment: January 19, 2022
Citation: 2022 INSC 40
Judges: K.M. Joseph, J., Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Can an Inspector General (IG) of Police overrule a promotion recommendation made by a Superintendent of Police (SP)? This question was at the heart of a recent Supreme Court case concerning the promotion of a police constable. The Supreme Court of India, in this judgment, clarified the extent of the IG’s authority in the promotion process, particularly concerning the 10% quota for outstanding performance. The bench comprised Justices K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Case Background

The appellant, Sushil Kumar, was appointed as a Constable in 1995. He was later positioned as a Head Constable under the existing policy on August 21, 2001. In 2004, his name was recommended by the Superintendent of Police (SP) for promotion to Head Constable under the 10% quota for outstanding performance. However, the Inspector General of Police (IG) dropped his name. Three years later, in 2007, his name was again forwarded by the SP and this time approved by the IG, leading to his promotion as Officiating Head Constable from October 26, 2008. The appellant argued that he should have been promoted in 2004 and that the delay was illegal and arbitrary. He filed a writ petition in 2011 seeking retrospective promotion from January 21, 2004, which was dismissed by the Single Judge and subsequently by the Division Bench of the High Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that selection is not a matter of right. The Division Bench also dismissed the writ appeal, upholding the Single Judge’s decision. The appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, applicable in Haryana. Rule 12.10 states that Head Constables are appointed by promotion from selection grade constables as per Rules 13.7 and 13.8. Rule 13.1(3) outlines six promotion lists (A, B, C, D, E, and F), with Lists A, B, C, and D maintained in each district for promotions to selection grade constables, head constables, and assistant sub-inspectors. Rule 13.7 deals with the selection of candidates for the Lower School Course at the Police Training College, which leads to Head Constable postings. The selection is based on three quotas: (a) direct recruitment (55%), (b) seniority-cum-merit (35%), and (c) outstanding performance (10%).

Specifically, Rule 13.7 states:
“13.7 Selection of candidates for admission to courses at the Police Training College: List B (in Form 13.7) shall be maintained by each Superintendent of Police. It shall include the names of all constables selected for admission to the Lower School Course to be held at the Police Training College… 55% of the seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course shall be filled in on the basis of a competitive examination, 35% on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and 10% on the basis of consistent outstanding performance in job/obtaining Gold or Silver Medal in All India Police Games/Duty Meet/National Games or exceptional display of bravery during the course of performance of official duty…”

Rule 13.7(2)(iii) specifies eligibility criteria for List B-1, including constables with outstanding performance, medals in sports events, or exceptional bravery, provided they are under 40 years of age and have completed two years of service. Rule 13.7(9) states that 10% of seats are filled by a Central Departmental Committee based on State-level comparative merit. The recommendations are sent through the concerned Inspectors General of Police/Deputy Inspectors General of Police to the Central Departmental Promotion Committee. Rule 13.7(14) specifies that a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) headed by the SP prepares List B-1, which is not final until approved by the IG/DIG. The IG/DIG can scrutinize the list, seek clarifications, and refer it back for corrections.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The IG has no power to interfere with the SP’s recommendation.
• The IG does not act as an appellate authority over the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC).
• The IG cannot adjudge comparative merit in List B-I prepared by the DPC.
• The IG did not provide reasons for dropping his name in 2004, nor was he given a hearing.
• The appellant was more meritorious than those recommended in 2004, as evidenced by his subsequent selection in 2007.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The SP’s recommendations are provisional and subject to the IG’s ratification.
• Rule 13.7(9) requires the IG to apply their mind, not merely forward the recommendations.
• The seven constables appointed in 2004 were more qualified than the appellant.

The arguments presented by the appellant focused on the perceived lack of authority of the IG to overrule the SP’s recommendations and the lack of transparency in the process. The respondents, on the other hand, emphasized the IG’s role as a reviewing authority and the comparative merit of the selected candidates.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issues:

1. Whether the Inspector General of Police (IG) has the power to interfere with the recommendations of the Superintendent of Police (SP) regarding promotions under the 10% quota for outstanding performance.
2. Whether the IG acts as an appellate authority over the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) when reviewing the promotion list.
3. Whether the IG has the power to adjudge the comparative merit of candidates in List B-I prepared by the DPC.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The court did not cite any previous judgments or books in its reasoning.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The court emphasized the hierarchical structure and the need for a review process to ensure that promotions are based on merit and not just initial recommendations. The court also highlighted that the 10% quota is based on state-level comparative merit, requiring a broader assessment than just the SP’s recommendation.

The court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal framework, with a higher emphasis on the interpretation of the rules than the specific facts of the case.

The court rejected the argument that the IG’s power was merely to forward the recommendations. It clarified that the word “through” in Rule 13.7(9) implies the application of mind by the IG. The court also rejected the argument that the appellant’s previous performance should guarantee promotion, emphasizing that the merit assessment is dynamic and varies each year. The court stated, “The competitive environment differs from year to year. The scrutiny is dynamic and cannot be adjudged on the basis of a previous year’s performance.” The court also noted, “the recommendation of the DPC does not give any indefinite right to be appointed as Head Constable.” Further, the court observed, “In judicial review proceedings, the Courts are concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision itself.”

There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• The Inspector General of Police (IG) has the authority to review and approve or reject promotion recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police (SP) under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
• The IG’s role is not merely to forward recommendations but to apply their mind and ensure the correctness of the list.
• The 10% quota for outstanding performance is based on state-level comparative merit, which is assessed dynamically each year.
• A recommendation from the SP does not guarantee promotion; the IG and Central Departmental Promotion Committee (CDPC) have the discretion to determine fitness for promotion.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The judgment clarifies the scope of the Inspector General’s authority in police promotions under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, emphasizing that the IG has the power to review and approve recommendations, not just forward them. It also highlights that the merit assessment is dynamic and varies each year, thus reinforcing the hierarchical structure in police promotions. The ratio decidendi is that the IG has the power to scrutinize and approve the promotion list and the recommendation of the SP is not final.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The court clarified that the IG has the authority to review and approve promotion lists, ensuring that promotions are based on state-level comparative merit. The judgment reinforces the hierarchical structure in police promotions and emphasizes that recommendations by the Superintendent of Police are not final.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law
Child Category: Promotion
Child Category: Punjab Police Rules, 1934
Child Category: Rule 13.7, Punjab Police Rules, 1934

FAQ

Q: Can a police officer claim a promotion based solely on a recommendation from the Superintendent of Police?
A: No, a recommendation from the Superintendent of Police is not final. The Inspector General of Police has the authority to review and approve or reject such recommendations.

Q: What is the role of the Inspector General of Police in police promotions?
A: The Inspector General of Police acts as a reviewing authority, ensuring the correctness of the promotion list and applying their mind to the recommendations made by the Superintendent of Police.

Q: Is the 10% quota for outstanding performance a guaranteed promotion?
A: No, the 10% quota is based on state-level comparative merit, which is assessed dynamically each year. A recommendation does not guarantee promotion.

Q: Can a police officer claim retrospective promotion?
A: The court held that the merit assessment is dynamic and varies each year. The court did not grant retrospective promotion in this case.