Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1981 (8) TMI SC This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1981 (8) TMI 235 - SC - Indian Laws

Issues involved: Appeal against demotion from Superintendent of Police to Deputy Superintendent of Police u/s Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 1: Challenge of reversion based on lack of reasons for supersession

The appellant challenged his reversion from Superintendent of Police to Deputy Superintendent of Police, arguing that the Selection Committee did not provide specific reasons for his supersession as required by regulation 5 of the India Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955. The High Court dismissed the petition, stating that the sufficiency of reasons is for the State Government and the Central Public Service Commission to determine, not the Court. The appellant reiterated this contention before the Supreme Court.

Issue 2: Examination of relevant regulations

Regulations 5 and 7 of the India Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 were examined. Regulation 5 mandates the Selection Committee to record reasons for supersession, while regulation 7 deals with the approval and maintenance of the Select List. The Court noted that the Select List can be reviewed as per the regulations.

Issue 3: Compliance with regulations and precedent

The Court referred to a previous case where the Selection Committee provided a similar vague reason for supersession. The Court emphasized the importance of recording specific reasons for supersession to ensure just and reasonable treatment of officers as per constitutional protections. It was held that the Selection Committee's failure to provide adequate reasons for supersession in the appellant's case violated the regulations.

Outcome:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturned the High Court's judgment, and annulled the Select List related to the appellant's case and his reversion. The appellant was granted all consequential benefits despite retirement. Each party was directed to bear their respective costs.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates