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: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: K.M. Joseph, J. and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, J.
Can an Inspector General (IG) of Police modify the recommendations of a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) regarding promotions within the police force? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the promotion of a police constable to Head Constable. The Court examined the powers of the IG in the promotion process, specifically under the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable in the State of Haryana. The bench comprised Justices K.M. Joseph and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, with the judgment authored by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha.

Case Background

In 1995, the appellant, Sushil Kumar, was appointed as a Constable in the Haryana Police. He was later positioned as a Head Constable under the existing ORP Policy on August 21, 2001. Based on his acts of bravery, the Superintendent of Police (SP) recommended his name for promotion under the 10% quota for outstanding performance on January 21, 2004. This recommendation was for inclusion in the B-I List for promotion to the post of Head Constable. However, the Inspector General of Police (IG) dropped his name, and only 7 out of 9 names were forwarded to the Central Departmental Promotion Committee (CDPC). In 2007, the SP again forwarded his name, which was approved by the IG, and he was made an 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. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, stating that selection is not a matter of right, and this decision was upheld by the Division Bench.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellant initially filed a writ petition before a Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, seeking retrospective promotion from 2004. The Single Judge dismissed the petition, stating that selection is not a matter of right. The appellant then filed a writ appeal before a Division Bench of the same High Court, which was also dismissed. The High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case is governed by the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable in Haryana. Rule 12.10 states that Head Constables shall be appointed by promotion from selection grade constables according to Rules 13.7 and 13.8. Rule 13.1(3) specifies that six promotion lists (A, B, C, D, E, and F) will be maintained. Lists A, B, C, and D regulate promotions to selection grade constables, head constables, and assistant sub-inspectors.

Rule 13.7 outlines the selection process for candidates for the Lower School Course at the Police Training College, which leads to Head Constable postings. Head Constables are selected from a list of Selection Grade Candidates from three sources: (a) direct recruitment (55% quota), (b) seniority-cum-merit (35% quota), and (c) outstanding performance (10% quota). Rule 13.7(2)(iii) states that constables under 40 with two years of service are eligible for List B-1 based on outstanding performance or bravery. Rule 13.7(9) specifies that 10% of seats are filled by the Central Departmental Committee based on state-level comparative merit. Rule 13.7(14) states that the DPC, headed by the SP, prepares List B-1, which is not final until approved by the IG/DIG.

The relevant extracts from the rules are as follows:

• 12.10 Appointment of Head Constable: Head constables shall be appointed by promotion from selection grade constables in accordance with rules 13.7 and 13.8.
• 13.1 Promotion from one rank to another. (3) For the purposes of regulating promotion amongst enrolled police officers six promotion lists – A,B,C,D,E and F will be maintained. Lists A, B, C, and D shall be maintained in each district as prescribed in rules 13.6, 13.7, 13.8 and 13.9 and will regulate promotion to the selection grade of constables and to the ranks of head constables and assistant sub -inspector………
• “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. Selection to the list B shall be made in the month of January each year and shall be limited to the number of seats allotted to the district for the year. The number of seats in Lower School Course in a year shall be allotted on the basis of existing vacancies and the vacancies likely to be created within one year in the respective unit. 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…………
• (2)(iii) All constables irrespective of their educations qualifications shall be eligible to be brought on list B -1, on the basis of consistent outstanding performance in job/obtaining Gold or Silver medal in All India Police Games/Duty Meets/National or International Games or exceptional display of bravery during the course of performance of official duty if they are under the age of 40 years and have completed two years of service on the first day of January of the year in which selection is made. Only those constables shall be brought on list B -1 after two years of service, but before five year of service who have won a medal in International Sports events like Olympics, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games or similar International events. Constables who have won medals in National Games/All India Police Games/Duty Meets and who are being considered for exceptional bravery or consistent outstanding performance shall be considered only if, they have put in the minimum five year of service……….
• (9) Various units shall be allotted only 90% of total seats of the year for list B and candidates for 10% seats common to all units shall be selected by Central Departmental Committee. For selecting 10% of the candidates on the basis of consistent outstanding performance in job/attaining Gold or Silver Medal in All India Police Games/Duty Meet/National Games or exceptional display of bravery in the job, each unit shall send its recommendation through the concerned Inspectors General of Police/Deputy Inspectors General of Police to the Central Departmental Promotion Committee to be appointed for the entire State by the Director General of Police. These 10% seats shall be filled in on the basis of State level comparative merit of candidates sponsored by the units as above on the recommendation of the State level Departmental Promotion Committee. Such candidates recommended by the above Departmental Promotion Committee shall be assigned to various units for inclusion in list B against 10% quota irrespective of the unit to which the candidate originally belongs……
• (14) A Departmental Promotion Committee headed by the Superintendent of Police/commandant of the concerned district or unit and consisting of two Deputy Superintendents of Police shall prepare list B -1: Provided that list B -1 shall not be final until the same is approved by the Inspector General of Police/Deputy Inspector General of Police, who is the controlling officer of the said Superintendent of Police or Commandant. The Inspector General of Police/Deputy Inspector General of Police shall accord his approval only after due scrutiny of the list about its correctness. He will also be competent to refer the list back to the Superintendent of Police or Commandant from whom it had been received for correction of errors/omission, if any, in the list and will also be competent to seek clarification about some points from the Departmental Promotion Committee if he considers necessary.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The Inspector General (IG) has no power to interfere with the recommendations of the Superintendent of Police (SP).
• When the SP forwards the decision of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the IG does not act as an appellate authority and cannot substitute his decision for that of the DPC.
• The IG has no power to adjudge the comparative merit in list B-I prepared by the DPC.
• The IG did not provide any reasons for dropping the appellant’s name, nor was the appellant given an opportunity of hearing.
• The appellant was more meritorious than the candidates recommended by the SP and approved by the IG in 2004.
• The decision to drop the appellant’s name was arbitrary because the same credentials enabled him to be selected and recommended in 2007.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The names recommended by the SP to the CDPC are provisional and subject to ratification by the IG.
• Forwarding of the appellant’s name by the SP does not create a right to promotion.
• The word “through” in Rule 13.7(9) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, requires the IG to apply his mind, not just forward recommendations.
• The seven constables appointed in 2004 were more qualified than the appellant.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was whether the Inspector General (IG) has the power to review and modify the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) regarding promotions, specifically under Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in this judgment.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Rule 12.10, Punjab Police Rules, 1934:* The court used this provision to establish the basis for promotions to Head Constable positions, emphasizing that it is through a selection process from the ranks of selection grade constables.
• Rule 13.1(3), Punjab Police Rules, 1934:* The court referred to this rule to explain the structure of promotion lists within the police force, setting the context for the specific promotion list under consideration.
• Rule 13.7, Punjab Police Rules, 1934:* This was the central provision considered by the court. The court interpreted sub-rules (9) and (14) to determine the powers of the IG. The court held that the IG has the authority to review, modify, and approve the DPC’s recommendations based on the language of the rule, which states that the list is not final until approved by the IG.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, particularly Rule 13.7. The Court emphasized the importance of the Inspector General’s (IG) role in the promotion process, highlighting that the IG is not merely a forwarding authority but a critical reviewer of the Departmental Promotion Committee’s (DPC) recommendations. The Court’s reasoning focused on the following points:

• The language of Rule 13.7(14) clearly states that the list prepared by the DPC is not final until approved by the IG.
• The IG’s power of “approval” includes the authority to scrutinize, seek clarifications, and refer the list back for corrections, indicating a substantive review power.
• The 10% quota for outstanding performance is based on state-level comparative merit, and the IG plays a crucial role in ensuring that the most deserving candidates are selected.
• The competitive environment and the merits of candidates vary from year to year, making it necessary for the IG and CDPC to analyze and clear names based on current performance.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the IG’s power was merely to forward the recommendations. It emphasized that the IG’s role is to ensure that the selection process is fair and that only the most deserving candidates are promoted. The Court also highlighted that the merits of candidates are not static and can vary from year to year, justifying the IG’s power to review and modify the DPC’s recommendations. The court also emphasised that it is not concerned with the decision itself but with the decision making process.

The Supreme Court considered the argument that the appellant was more meritorious than those selected in 2004. However, it noted that the merits and accolades of candidates vary from year to year on a comparative merit scale. The Court emphasized that the competitive environment differs annually, and the scrutiny is dynamic. Therefore, the appellant’s credentials, which may not have been sufficient in 2004, could be considered in subsequent years. The Court also noted that it is the domain of the IG and the CDPC to analyze, consider, and clear the names of candidates who are deemed fit for promotion. The Court also observed that the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench for good reasons refrained from going into the individual comparative merit. In judicial review proceedings, the Courts are concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision itself.

The court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “The Rule itself clarifies the position that the recommendations of the SP are not final until the same is approved by the IG.”
• “The scope of the power vested in the IG is also indicated in the Rule which provides that he can seek clarifications from the DPC and also refer the List back to the SP for corrections/omissions if he thinks it is necessary.”
• “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.”

Key Takeaways

• The Inspector General (IG) has the authority to review and modify the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) regarding promotions within the police force.
• The recommendations of the Superintendent of Police (SP) are not final and are subject to the approval of the IG.
• The IG’s role is not merely to forward the recommendations but to scrutinize them and ensure that the most deserving candidates are selected based on state-level comparative merit.
• The merits of candidates are not static and can vary from year to year, and the competitive environment is dynamic.
• Courts in judicial review proceedings are concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision itself.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that under Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, the Inspector General (IG) has the power to review and modify the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) regarding promotions. The Court clarified that the IG is not merely a forwarding authority but a critical reviewer of the DPC’s recommendations. This decision reinforces the hierarchical structure within the police force and the importance of the IG’s role in ensuring fair promotions. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Rule 13.7 and reinforces that the IG has discretionary power in the promotion process and the SP’s recommendation is not final.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision. The Court held that the Inspector General (IG) has the authority to review and modify the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) regarding promotions, and that the IG is not merely a forwarding authority but a critical reviewer of the DPC’s recommendations. The Court emphasized the importance of the IG’s role in ensuring fair promotions based on state-level comparative merit.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Category: Promotion

Child Category: Punjab Police Rules, 1934

Child Category: Rule 13.7, Punjab Police Rules, 1934

Parent Category: Punjab Police Rules, 1934

Child Category: Rule 13.7, Punjab Police Rules, 1934

FAQ

Q: Can a Superintendent of Police (SP) finalize promotions in the police force?

A: No, the SP’s recommendations are not final. They are subject to review and approval by the Inspector General (IG) of Police.

Q: What is the role of the Inspector General (IG) in police promotions?

A: The IG has the power to review, modify, and approve the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC). The IG is not just a forwarding authority but a critical reviewer who ensures that the most deserving candidates are promoted.

Q: What does the term “state-level comparative merit” mean in the context of promotions?

A: State-level comparative merit means that candidates are evaluated based on their performance and qualifications compared to all other eligible candidates across the state, not just within their district or unit.

Q: Can a police officer claim a right to promotion based on the Superintendent of Police’s recommendation?

A: No, a police officer cannot claim a right to promotion based solely on the SP’s recommendation. The recommendation is provisional and subject to the IG’s approval.

Q: Can the Inspector General (IG) reject a promotion recommendation made by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC)?

A: Yes, the IG has the power to reject a recommendation if they are not satisfied with the merits of the candidate or if there are errors or omissions in the list. The IG can also seek clarifications from the DPC or refer the list back for corrections.