Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 811 (UTT)

DIWAN SINGH RAWAL v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2013-12-19

ALOK SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) Vide Government Order dated 12.12.2011, 74 police stations were upgraded to be headed by police officer not below the rank of Inspector. Vide impugned Government Notification dated 11.06.2012, earlier Government Order dated 12.12.2011 upgrading the police stations to be headed by police officers not below the rank of Inspectors was cancelled. 2. Petitioners, who were posted as Sub Inspectors with Uttarakhand Civil Police, have invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the Government Order dated 11.06.2012 cancelling the earlier Government Order dated 12.12.2011. 3. I have heard Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for petitioners and Mr. A. S. Rawat, Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. Lalit Miglani, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that earlier Government Order dated 12.12.2011 demonstrates that it was issued in the name of His Excellency, the Governor of Uttarakhand, while impugned Government Order dated 11.06.2012 does not demonstrate that it was issued in the name of His Excellency, the Governor of Uttarakhand, therefore, order impugned is in violation of Article 166 of the Constitution of India, therefore, is non est and is liable to be quashed. 5. The then Director General of Police, Sri Vijay Raghav Pant has filed his counter affidavit in the present case. Paragraphs 3 (D) and (E) of the counter affidavit read as under: “3 (D) That after the implementation of the Government Order dated 12.12.2011, the practical difficulties with respect to the officers who were working on the field came forward and keeping in view the same, discussion was made in the meeting of the said Police Establishment Committee. Minutes of the meeting of the said Police Establishment Committee dated 14.05.2012 are being annexed as Annexure No. CA 4. After a thorough discussion in the Police Establishment Committee on the suggestions give by the officer working in the field, the report / recommendation dated 14.05.2012 was sent by the Committee to cancel the Government Order dated 12.12.2011 and a proposal dated 17.05.2012 was sent before the Government for cancellation of the Government Order dated 11.12.2011. Copy of the proposal dated 17.05.2012 is being annexed as Annexure No. CA 5 to this affidavit. Copy of the proposal dated 17.05.2012 is being annexed as Annexure No. CA 5 to this affidavit. (E) That the so after going through the report of the Committee dated 17.05.2012 has decided to cancel the Notification dated 12.12.2011 and to this effect the Notification dated 11.06.2012 has been issued by the State Government.” 6. From the averments made in paragraph 3 (D) and (E), it is, thus, clear that Police Establishment Committee in its meeting dated 14.05.2012 resolved to request the State Government to cancel its earlier Government Order dated 12.12.2011 upgrading the 74 police stations to be headed by police officers not below the rank of Inspectors. On the recommendation of the Police Establishment Committee dated 17.05.2012, the State Government was pleased to issue order dated 11.06.2012 cancelling its earlier Government Order dated 12.12.2011. 7. The Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of R. Chitralekha Vs. State of Mysore and others reported in AIR 1964 SC 1823 has held as under: “The contention of the petitioner was in the circumstances without merit. If the conditions laid down in Article 166 had been complied with the order could not have been called in question on the ground that it was not an order made by the Government. But it was settled law that provisions of the article were only directory and not mandatory in character and if they were not complied with it could still be established as a question of fact that the impugned order was issued in fact by the State Government or Governor. The letter in question no doubt did not conform to the provisions of the article but it ex facie said that the order to the effect mentioned therein was issued by the Government and it was not denied that it was communicated to the selection committee. In neither of the affidavits of the petitioner was there a specific averment that no such order was issued by the Government. On the other hand, there was a clear averment in the counter affidavit that the Government gave the direction, in question and it was not denied by the petitioner. In the circumstances, there was no reason to reject the averment made by the Deputy Secretary and hence, there was no merit in the contention of the petitioner. On the other hand, there was a clear averment in the counter affidavit that the Government gave the direction, in question and it was not denied by the petitioner. In the circumstances, there was no reason to reject the averment made by the Deputy Secretary and hence, there was no merit in the contention of the petitioner. See AIR 1952 SC 181 , AIR 1952 SC 317 , AIR 1959 SC 65 and AIR 1963 SC 395 . 8. As per dictum of Hon’ble Apex Court, provisions of Article 166 of the Constitution of India are only directory in nature and not mandatory in character and if they were not complied with, it could still be established, as a question of fact that the impugned order was issued, in fact, by the State Government or Governor. Therefore, the only thing, which is required to be seen, is as to whether impugned order was issued by the State Government. 9. As per paragraph 3 (D) and (E) of the counter affidavit, the State Government decided to issue impugned Government Notification, on the recommendation made by the Police Establishment Committee, therefore, order impugned can be said to be a Government decision, consequently, as per dictum of Constitutional Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court, nothing survives in the writ petition. 10. Not only this, petitioners, who were working as Sub Inspectors, have preferred present petition and on being asked, Mr. V.B.S. Negi, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, submits that by way of earlier Government Order dated 12.12.2011, petitioners were interviewed for the post of Inspectors and a reasonable expectation that petitioners would be promoted on the post of Inspectors came into existence and after cancellation of Government Order dated 12.12.2011, their reasonable expectations have been taken away, therefore, petitioners have every locus to challenge the same. 11. Submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, on the face of it, seems to be very attractive but in the humble opinion of this Court, do not hold water. To upgrade the police stations to be headed by police officers not below the rank of Inspectors can, at the best, be said to be a policy decision and not to upgrade them for x y z reasons, is again a policy decision. To upgrade the police stations to be headed by police officers not below the rank of Inspectors can, at the best, be said to be a policy decision and not to upgrade them for x y z reasons, is again a policy decision. It is settled position of law that this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, should not interfere with the policy decision, until and unless, the same is found to be unjust, arbitrary or discriminatory. In the further opinion of this Court reasonable expectation should not be made ground to interfere with the policy decision of the State Government. Therefore, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.