Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2015 DIGILAW 1198 (SC)

Shamsher Singh Sandhu v. Union of India

2015-09-08

KURIAN JOSEPH, T.S.THAKUR

body2015
ORDER : 1. The short question that falls for determination in this special leave petition is whether or not the petitioner was eligible for promotion to the next higher rank of Inspector General of Police in CRPF. According to the respondents, he was ineligible for consideration and promotion because he was not in SHAPE-I which is one of the essential requirements for any such promotion. The High Court has agreed with the respondents and came to the conclusion that the petitioner was indeed not in SHAPE-I at the relevant point of time and hence was not entitled to be considered for promotion as Inspector General of Police. The petitioner if so happened had already been promoted as Inspector General of Police in CRPF on 11.09.2012, but since the process by which he picked up the next higher rank was, according to the respondents, not in accordance with the prescribed norms, the promotion granted to the petitioner was sought to be withdrawn by an order dated 3.4.2013 which came to challenged by the petitioner in a writ petition filed before the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir. A learned Single Judge of the High Court who heard the matter, however, dismissed the writ petition, aggrieved whereof the petitioner filed a Letters Patent Appeal before a Division Bench of the High Court who referred the petitioner for a fresh evaluation by a Board of Medical Experts from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. The Board submitted a report dated 02.07.2014 which was then looked into by the Empowered Committee who came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not in SHAPE-I as required. The matter was finally heard by a Division Bench of the High Court and the appeal filed by the petitioner dismissed affirming the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The present special leave petition calls in question the correctness of the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. 2. By an order dated 13.11.2014 this Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo. The result is that the petitioner today holds the rank of Inspector General of Police, CRPF. The present special leave petition calls in question the correctness of the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. 2. By an order dated 13.11.2014 this Court has directed the parties to maintain status quo. The result is that the petitioner today holds the rank of Inspector General of Police, CRPF. He has now filed the present application seeking a direction to the competent authority to convene the Supplementary Departmental Promotional Committee to consider the petitioner for promotion to the next higher rank of Additional Director General of CRPF for which post he claims to be eligible as he is completing his three years tenure as Inspector General of Police on 12.09.2015. 3. When the matter initially came up before us on 01.09.2015, Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General sought time to file his objection to this application for direction (I.A. No. 4 of 2015) and for taking instructions. He has accordingly done the needful. 4. Having heard Mr. B.P. Patil, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General for the respondent, we are of the opinion that while the question whether the petitioner was at the relevant point of time in SHAPE-I and continues to be so for further promotion is being examined by us, there is no reason why the Supplementary Departmental Promotion Committee cannot be convened to consider his claim for promotion to the next higher post of Additional Director General of CRPF. Any such consideration and the result thereof shall, however, be subject to the outcome of these proceedings. The result of the consideration allotted to the petitioner shall be kept in a sealed cover to be opened only after the matter is finally heard for disposal. 5. We, accordingly, direct the competent authority to convene the Supplementary Departmental Promotion Committee and to place the petitioner's case for consideration before it along with such other candidates as are eligible for such consideration in accordance with rules and the norms applicable. The result of petitioner's consideration shall be kept in a sealed cover and shall remain subject to the ultimate outcome of these proceedings. 6. I.A. No. 4 of 2015 for direction is accordingly disposed of. The needful be done expeditiously but not later than six weeks from today. 7. At this stage, Mr. The result of petitioner's consideration shall be kept in a sealed cover and shall remain subject to the ultimate outcome of these proceedings. 6. I.A. No. 4 of 2015 for direction is accordingly disposed of. The needful be done expeditiously but not later than six weeks from today. 7. At this stage, Mr. B.P. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner points out that since there is only one vacancy and that too of the year 2014-2015 unless there is relaxation granted in favour of the petitioner waiving the requirement of three years service as Inspector General of the CRPF, the petitioner will not be eligible for consideration. He further submits that other candidates who are considered for promotion have been given such a relaxation. He contended that there is no reason why in keeping with the past practice and the fact that relaxation has been given to other candidates, the petitioner's case for relaxation should also not be considered. Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General for respondent, however, submits that Government have taken as recently as on 13.01.2015, a decision that there shall be no relaxation. The decision is to the following effect: “The matter has been considered in the Ministry and it has been decided to proceed as per RRs for the post strictly. The proposal has therefore, been not acceded to.” 8. Mr. Ranjit Kumar submits that in the light of the above there is no question of any relaxation to either the petitioner or any other candidate senior or junior to him. That being so, the consideration has to be accorded strictly in accordance with the norms and conditions of eligibility. That submission is recorded. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed by the petitioner to the counter affidavit, already filed on behalf of the Government. 10. List the matter for final disposal on a non-miscellaneous day in the third week of November, 2015.