9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Basis for fixing seniority in the Selection Scale in the Rajasthan Police Service. 2. Validity of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954. 3. Validity of the reservation policy and the 100-point roster system. Detailed Analysis: 1. Basis for Fixing Seniority in the Selection Scale: The core issue was whether seniority in the Selection Scale should be based on the date of appointment to the Selection Scale or on seniority in the Senior Scale. The Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954 govern recruitment and service conditions, and originally included Ordinary Time Scale and Senior Scale posts. Over time, the Selection Scale was introduced and expanded. The appellants and respondent No. 1 were all promoted to the Senior Scale, with respondent No. 1 being senior. Promotions to the Selection Scale were based on seniority-cum-merit. The High Court ruled that the Selection Scale does not constitute a separate post and that granting the Selection Scale does not equate to a promotion. Therefore, seniority should remain based on the Senior Scale. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating that promotion can mean advancement to a higher grade, not just a higher post. The Court referenced Rule 33, which governs seniority based on the date of regular selection to higher posts. The Court concluded that appointment to the Selection Scale constitutes a promotion, and seniority should be fixed based on the date of selection. Thus, the appellants, promoted in 1989, were senior to respondent No. 1, promoted in 1991. The High Court's direction to revise the seniority list based on Senior Scale seniority was set aside. 2. Validity of Rule 8 of the Rajasthan Police Service Rules, 1954: Respondent No. 1 challenged Rule 8, which deals with reservations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, arguing it was ultra vires Article 16(4) of the Constitution. The High Court did not address this issue, as it found no separate post in the Selection Scale. The Supreme Court noted that the validity of Rule 8 was not examined by the High Court due to its primary finding. The Court referenced the case of Indira Sawhney, which allowed existing reservation provisions to continue for five years from the date of the decision. Consequently, the challenge to Rule 8 was not upheld. 3. Validity of the Reservation Policy and the 100-Point Roster System: Respondent No. 1 also challenged the reservation policy dated February 10, 1975, and the 100-point roster system dated July 9, 1985. The High Court did not address these challenges due to its finding on the non-existence of separate posts in the Selection Scale. The Supreme Court considered the argument that reservations should be against posts, not vacancies, and referenced the Allahabad High Court's decision in J.C. Malik, approved by the Supreme Court in R.K. Sabharwal. However, the Court found no merit in this contention, as respondent No. 1 had not challenged the promotions of Km. Badam Bairwa and Hari Ram Meena in his writ petition. Additionally, the Court noted that the findings in R.K. Sabharwal were to be applied prospectively, thus not affecting actions taken prior to that decision. Conclusion: The appeals were allowed, the Rajasthan High Court's judgment dated September 21, 1993, was set aside, and respondent No. 1's writ petition was dismissed. The Supreme Court ruled that seniority in the Selection Scale should be based on the date of selection, confirming the appellants' seniority over respondent No. 1. No order as to costs was made.
|
