AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.S. Doabia, J.—Petitioner who was working as Follower (Cook) was appointed as driver. An order to this effect was issued on 7.8.1996.
This was issued with the approval of Police Head Quarters. This is apparent from annexure P/B. For facility of reference this order is being reproduced below :
DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE DODA
ORDER NO. 350 OF 1996
DATED 07.8.1996
The following Followers of District Police Doda who are possessing valid driving licences are hereby converted as driver constable in the Distt Police Doda in the pay scale of Rs. 82515900EB201200 with immediate affect. Constabulary Nos. shown against their names below are allotted to them.
Follower Mohd Ibrahim No 16/F (Cook) Cont No. 843/D
Follower Jiwan Kumar 18/F (Mechanic) 844/D
This order is issued in pursuance of PHQ approval conveyed vide letter No. AIG(P)N/Dvr/273040 dated August 6, 1996.
Sd/
(J.A. Mukhoomi) IPS
Sr. Superintendent of Police, Doda
No CASI 1375056 Dated 10.8.96
Copy to :
The Director General of Police J&K Srinagar.
The Inspector General of Police Jammu Zone.
The Dy. Inspr Gen of police D/U Range Batote for favour of information please.
Dy. SP DAR DPL Doda/LO DPL Doda/Storekeeper DPL Doda/Acctt DPO Doda/QASI/ON for information and n/action.
Further fact is that on 23.02.1999 order in question was rescinded. This was basically done on the ground that when order of conversion was passed then beneficiary was under height/over age. As to whether petitioner was under height or was over age is not spelled out from para 2 of the
order. This is being reproduced below :
Whereas PHQ J&K Jammu vide letter No Pers/Conver/Dvr/96454155 dated 12.2.1999 has withdrawn the conversion order in respect of these two officials among others as they have not been found eligible for such conversion being under height/over age on perusal of records. Their formal conversion order has been rescinded by the PHQ w.e.f. the date the same have been issued vide PHQ No 4110 of 1997 dated
31.12.1997.
Respondent No. 4 filed objection. Stand taken is that petitioner was not having requisite height of 5'6"", therefore, he was not eligible for conversion. Reliance is being placed on regulations 176 and 182. For facility of reference these regulations are being reproduced below :
Qualifications for direct appointment as Inspectors Sub Inspectors as Assistant SubInspectors : (1) Applications for direct appointment to the rank of Inspector Sub Inspector or Assistant Sub Inspector shall at the discretion of the Inspector General be referred to the Superintendent of the district in which the applicant resides direct for report in Form 25.
(2) The applications should be accompanied by the following certificates :
(i) Education Certificate in original or a copy attested by a Magistrate or by any other gazetted officer.
(ii) Permanent residentship certificate.
(iii) Testimonial in support of the applicants having taken part in sports activities.
(iv) Age according to the Matriculation Certificate. The applicant must be between 18 and 25 years of age.
Applications of only such candidates will be considered for selection who conform to the following physical standards fixed by the Government :
(i) Height 5'6
(ii) Cheat Unexpanded 32
Expanded 331/2"".
The minimum academic qualification for the post of an Assistant Sub Inspector is Matriculation and a candidate for SubInspector or Inspectorship should ordinarily be a graduate. The Inspector General of Police may in special cases relax this educational qualification.
Recruits age and physical standards of :
(1) The physical standards and Age of candidates for enrolment as constable shall be the same as for other ranks as mentioned in rule 176.
(2) The greatest care shall be taken to ensure that the age of every police officer is correctly recorded at the time of his enrolment and appointment. The record becomes of the utmost importance when the question arises of an officer's right to pension and is accepted as decisive in the absence of full proof.
Above Regulations would not apply to the fact of this case. So far as Regulation 176 is concerned it is applicable to direct recruitment. Same would be the position when Regulation 182 is taken note of. Petitioner came to be appointed as driver by way of conversion. It was not the case of direct recruitment. Even otherwise once a decision is taken by competent authority then his predecessor is not within its right to review the
order. Such a view was expressed by the Privy Council in case reported as R.T. Rangachari v. Secretary of State, AIR 1937 Privy Council 27.
Privy Council has observed that in a case in which after Government officials duly competent and duly authorised in that behalf have arrived honestly at one decision their successors in office after the decision has been acted upon and is in effective operation cannot purport to enter upon a reconsideration of the matter and to arrive at another and totally different decision. Aforementioned observations would be attracted to the fact of this case. This petition is accordingly allowed. Order dated 23.2.1999 is set aside. Order dated 7.8.1996 shall remain in force.
This petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above.