Supreme Court Upholds Union’s Decision to Scrap Limited Competitive Exam for IPS: Lt. Cdr. R.M. Ramesh vs. Union of India (2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: April 17, 2018

Citation: Not Available in the source document

Judges: Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph, and Deepak Gupta JJ.

Can the government cancel a recruitment process after conducting the examination? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Indian Police Service (IPS). The core issue was whether the Union of India’s decision to scrap the Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) for IPS recruitment, after the exam had been conducted, was legally sound. This judgment clarifies the extent of the government’s power in such matters and the rights of candidates who participate in recruitment processes. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justices Madan B. Lokur, Kurian Joseph, and Deepak Gupta, with the opinion authored by Justice Deepak Gupta.

Case Background

The Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, formed a committee headed by Shri Kamal Kumar, I.P.S. (Retd.), to address the shortage of police officers in the Indian Police Service (IPS). The committee recommended introducing a Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) as an additional recruitment method, besides direct recruitment through the annual Civil Services Examination and promotions from State Police Services. This LCE was intended for Deputy Superintendents of Police in State Police Services and equivalent officers in Central Police Services with at least five years of service, subject to a maximum age of 45 years. The government partially accepted this recommendation and amended the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, to include the LCE.

The Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) subsequently issued an advertisement on March 10, 2012, inviting applications for IPS posts through the LCE. Written tests and interviews were conducted, but the results were not declared. This led to several petitions challenging the amendments to the recruitment rules and the subsequent decision by the Union of India to scrap the LCE. The primary contention of those who appeared for the LCE was that they had a legitimate expectation of being appointed.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The amendments to the recruitment rules were challenged in various petitions. The Delhi High Court, in Zakat Foundation of India v. Union of India, rejected a petition arguing that the LCE was arbitrary and unconstitutional, stating that introducing the LCE was a policy decision in which the Court could not interfere. The High Court acknowledged that the UPSC and some State Governments had reservations about the LCE, but it did not invalidate the government’s decision.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, quashed the amended rules, citing a lack of consultation with State Governments and the abridgement of promotional avenues for State police officers. However, the Gauhati High Court overturned the CAT’s decision, upholding the validity of the amended rules. Neither the Delhi High Court nor the Gauhati High Court judgments were challenged and thus attained finality. Despite this, numerous petitions were filed in different High Courts, leading to the Union of India filing transfer petitions to consolidate the cases before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The core of the legal framework in this case revolves around the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954, as amended in 2011. Specifically, Rule 4(1) was amended to include recruitment through a Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) as a method of entry into the IPS. The amended Rule 4(1) reads:

“(b) by limited competitive examination; (c) by promotion of members of a State Police Service.”

Further, Rule 8 was inserted to govern the LCE:

“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 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 the State Government.”

These amendments placed the LCE as a method of recruitment between direct recruitment and promotion from State Police Services. The seniority of IPS officers is determined by their year of allotment, with direct recruits and LCE appointees following the year of the competitive exam, and seniority among officers with the same year of allotment is determined by the order of direct recruits, LCE appointees, and promoted State Police Service officers, as per the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988.

Arguments

Arguments on behalf of the Union of India:

• The primary reason for conducting the LCE was to address a significant shortage of IPS officers, with approximately 30% of posts being vacant when the Kamal Kumar Committee was formed.
• The percentage of vacancies has decreased since then, reducing the urgency for the LCE.
• If the candidates who appeared for the 2012 LCE are appointed now, they would be placed below the direct recruits of the same year, potentially leading to seniority disputes and litigation.
• The candidates who appeared for the LCE in 2012 were expected to be around 35 years of age, but due to the delay, many would now be over 40, which could affect their functioning in the IPS.
• The Union of India argued that the candidates had no legal right to be appointed and that mere selection does not guarantee appointment.

Arguments on behalf of the LCE Candidates:

• Even if they do not have a vested legal right, the applicants have a legitimate expectation to be appointed.
• The government can cancel a selection process only if there is an overriding public interest, which the Union of India has not demonstrated.
• The reasons given by the government do not satisfy the test of overriding public interest or higher purpose.
• The government should be fair and just, and the UPSC should be directed to declare the results, and appointments should be made.
• The principle of promissory estoppel was invoked, though it was later rejected by the court.

[TABLE] of Submissions:

Innovativeness of the argument: The argument of the LCE candidates that there was a legitimate expectation of appointment and that the government could not cancel the selection process without an overriding public interest was innovative, challenging the government’s decision beyond the usual arguments of vested rights.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the decision of the Central Government to cancel the selection process of the Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) is legal or not.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

• Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana [1993 Supp.(2) SCC 600] – The Supreme Court held that merely because the Government had sent a requisition to the UPSC to select the candidates 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.
• Vijay Kumar Mishra v. High Court of Judicature at Patna [(2016) 9 SCC 313] – The Supreme Court held that there is a distinction between selection and appointment. A person who is successful in the selection process does not acquire any right to be appointed automatically. Such a person has no indefeasible right of appointment.
• Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47] – The Supreme Court held that even though 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 appropriate reasons.

Legal Provisions:

• Rule 4(1) of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 – This rule, as amended, provides for recruitment to the IPS through a limited competitive examination.
• Rule 8 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 – This rule, inserted by amendment, governs the conduct of the limited competitive examination.
• Rule 3 of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 – This rule provides that the year of allotment of a direct recruit shall be the year following the year in which the competitive examination was held.

[TABLE] of Authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the Union of India’s decision to scrap the Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) for recruitment to the Indian Police Service (IPS). The Court reasoned that while candidates may have a legitimate expectation of appointment, the government’s decision to cancel the recruitment process was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or capricious but was taken in the larger public interest.

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana [1993 Supp.(2) SCC 600]*: The court relied on this case to establish that candidates do not have a vested right to appointment merely because a selection process has been initiated.
• Vijay Kumar Mishra v. High Court of Judicature at Patna [(2016) 9 SCC 313]*: This case was used to distinguish between selection and appointment, emphasizing that selection does not guarantee appointment.
• Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [(1991) 3 SCC 47]*: The court cited this case to reiterate that while the State is not obligated to fill vacancies, it must act fairly and not arbitrarily.

The court emphasized that the government’s decision was based on the combined effect of several factors, including the decrease in vacancies, the delay in the selection process, the age of the candidates, and the potential for litigation. The Court stated that the decision was not mala fide or arbitrary and was taken in the larger public interest.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by a combination of practical and policy considerations. The court recognized that while the candidates had a legitimate expectation, this expectation was not absolute. The court weighed various factors, including the decreasing vacancy rates, the age of the candidates, and the potential for future litigation, all of which contributed to the decision to uphold the government’s decision to scrap the LCE. The court also emphasized that the decision was not arbitrary or mala fide, but rather a reasonable one in light of the circumstances.

[TABLE] of Sentiment Analysis of Reasons:

Fact:Law Ratio:

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered alternative interpretations but rejected them because the combined effect of the reasons provided by the government justified the decision to scrap the LCE. The Court also noted that the decision was not mala fide and that there was no higher purpose to be achieved by continuing with the recruitment process.

The Court’s decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring. There were no dissenting opinions.

The court reasoned that the decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or capricious. The decision was a reasonable one in the facts and circumstances of the case. The court emphasized that the decision was taken in the larger public interest.

The court quoted:

“It is, thus, well settled that merely because a person has been selected, does not give that person an indefeasible right of claiming appointment.”

“The decision, not to fill up the vacancies pursuant to the selection process, must be taken bona fide and for justifiable and appropriate reasons.”

“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.”

Key Takeaways

• Candidates who participate in a selection process do not have an indefeasible right to appointment, even if they are selected.
• The government has the power to cancel a selection process if there are valid reasons and it is in the public interest.
• The government’s decision to cancel a selection process must be fair, bona fide, and not arbitrary.
• Legitimate expectation does not override the government’s right to change policy for valid reasons.
• Courts will consider the combined effect of various factors when reviewing the government’s decision to cancel a selection process.

The judgment clarifies the extent of the government’s power in recruitment processes and the limitations on the rights of candidates. It also highlights the importance of public interest considerations in government decision-making.

Directions

The Supreme Court did not issue any specific directions other than disposing of all the transferred cases as infructuous and rejecting the applications for clarification/direction as well as intervention.

Specific Amendments Analysis

This section is omitted because the judgment does not discuss any specific amendment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that while candidates participating in a selection process have a legitimate expectation of being appointed, this expectation is not absolute and does not create a vested right to appointment. The government can cancel a selection process if there are valid reasons and it is in the public interest. This judgment reinforces the principle that the government must act fairly and reasonably, but also has the flexibility to adjust its policies in response to changing circumstances. The judgment does not change the previous position of law, but rather applies existing principles to the specific facts of the case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court upheld the Union of India’s decision to scrap the Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) for recruitment to the IPS. The Court found that the government’s decision was not arbitrary, discriminatory, or capricious, but was a reasonable one in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Court emphasized that the decision was taken in the larger public interest, considering the fall in vacancies, the delay in the process, and the potential for future litigation. This judgment clarifies the government’s power to cancel recruitment processes and the limitations on candidates’ expectations.