2014 (6) TMI 1069 - SC - Indian Laws

Interpretation of precise connotative effect of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (the Rules), specially Rule 13.7 of the Rules - promotion of the constables in Chandigarh Police to the post of Head Constable - amendments that were incorporated on 4.3.1982, and another incarnation of the said amendments vide amendment dated 6.2.1988 - HELD THAT - In the case at hand, we are really concerned with the interregnum period between 4.3.1982 and 17.6.1988. The tribunal, on the first occasion, while quashing the order dated 27.6.1988 which was a resultant order after the amendment dated 17.6.1988, had clearly laid down that the authorities were required to prepare a fresh list for sending the Constables to the Lower School Course in accordance with the pre-amended Rule 13.7 as it existed prior to 17.6.1988 so far as the vacancies of Head Constables which had come into existence prior to the date of aforesaid notification and the criterion to be adopted by them could be seniority-cum-merit as prescribed therein. It was also unequivocally ruled that it would be open to the respondents to act in accordance with the amended Rule in respect of vacancies/posts of Head Constables which might have occurred subsequent to coming into force of the amended Rule or which may fall vacant thereafter. The decision of the tribunal, on the first round, related to the vacancies of Head Constables that had come into existence prior to the date of notification, i.e., 17.6.1988. Learned counsel for the Union Territory of Chandigarh in his written note of submissions has stated that 50 vacancies were found to have occurred before amendment and, accordingly, a list was prepared in order of seniority as per the provisions of unamended rules. At this point of time, it is necessary to clear the maze that as far as this exercise is concerned there was no cavil. The dispute arose when the authorities on 28.10.1988 prepared a list of eligible Constables/ad hoc Head Constables who fulfilled the prescribed conditions to sit in the competitive examination to be held in January, 1989. The said action of the authorities compelled the present applicants to file three Original Applications challenging the validity of the Rule and quashment of the order dated 28.10.1988 whereby the list was drawn up of the eligible candidates. As has been stated hereinbefore, the tribunal on 31.3.1989 modified its original interim order and directed that selection of the Head Constables may be made and given effect to subject to final decision of those Original Applications. The cornerstone of the impugned order dated 28.9.1998 is the order dated 8.1.1990. If this is allowed to stand, it would tantamount to palpable injustice - the order is absolutely unsustainable - Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, specifically Rule 13.7.
2. Validity of amendments to Rule 13.7 on 4.3.1982 and 17.6.1988.
3. Jurisdiction and correctness of the High Court's decision dated 18.12.2007.
4. Seniority and promotion criteria for constables to Head Constables.
5. Non-impleadment of necessary parties in the tribunal's proceedings.
6. Application of principles of delay and laches.
7. Invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution for complete justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, specifically Rule 13.7:
The Supreme Court had to interpret Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as it governs the promotion of constables in Chandigarh Police to the post of Head Constable. The original Rule 13.7 required a test for constables for admission to List 'B' for the Lower School Course. This rule was amended on 4.3.1982 to remove the test, making seniority-cum-merit the criterion for promotion. Another amendment on 17.6.1988 reinstated the test for promotion.

2. Validity of amendments to Rule 13.7 on 4.3.1982 and 17.6.1988:
The amendments to Rule 13.7 were a focal point. The amendment on 4.3.1982 removed the test requirement, making seniority-cum-merit the basis for promotion. The subsequent amendment on 17.6.1988 reinstated the test. The Court had to decide whether the amendments were valid and applicable to the constables who were already in service before the amendments.

3. Jurisdiction and correctness of the High Court's decision dated 18.12.2007:
The High Court's decision dated 18.12.2007 quashed the tribunal's orders dated 8.1.1990 and 23.9.1998. The Supreme Court examined whether the High Court acted within its jurisdiction and applied well-settled principles correctly. The High Court had held that the vacancies occurring between 4.3.1982 and 17.6.1988 should be filled based on seniority-cum-merit, while those occurring after 17.6.1988 should be filled based on the test.

4. Seniority and promotion criteria for constables to Head Constables:
The tribunal initially held that constables confirmed before 17.6.1988 had a vested right to be considered for promotion based on the pre-amended Rule 13.7 (seniority-cum-merit). The High Court disagreed, stating that only vacancies occurring between 4.3.1982 and 17.6.1988 should be filled based on seniority-cum-merit, and all other vacancies should be filled based on the test rule.

5. Non-impleadment of necessary parties in the tribunal's proceedings:
The respondents were not made parties in the tribunal's proceedings, which affected their seniority and promotion. The Supreme Court noted that non-impleadment of necessary parties violates principles of natural justice, rendering the tribunal's orders null and void concerning those parties.

6. Application of principles of delay and laches:
The High Court repelled the contention of delay and laches, noting that the special leave petition was dismissed as infructuous only in 1996, and the ultimate order dated 23.9.1998 affected the petitioners. The Supreme Court concurred, stating that the principle of delay and laches did not apply as the respondents were not parties to the earlier proceedings.

7. Invocation of Article 142 of the Constitution for complete justice:
The Supreme Court invoked Article 142 of the Constitution to do complete justice. It noted that the earlier order of the tribunal was legally sound, but the subsequent order dated 8.1.1990 misunderstood the ratio laid down in Achhar Chand's case. The Court held that non-affirmance of the High Court's order would result in a miscarriage of justice, and thus, upheld the High Court's decision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, quashing the tribunal's orders dated 8.1.1990 and 23.9.1998. It held that the vacancies occurring between 4.3.1982 and 17.6.1988 should be filled based on seniority-cum-merit, while those occurring after 17.6.1988 should be filled based on the test. The Court emphasized the importance of impleading necessary parties and invoked Article 142 to ensure complete justice.