AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.C. Das, J.—1. By filing this writ petition the petitioners inter alia prayed for the following relief(s):-
"(iii) Issue a RULE NISI upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 asking them to show cause as to why the Writ of Mandamus should not be issued commanding them to treat the Petitioners equal with the Sub Inspector of Police(unarmed branch) and to render equal benefit in service;
iii(a). Pass direction commanding upon the Respondents to make 2(two) categories of Sub Inspectors i.e. Sub Inspector(men) and Sub Inspector(women) discarding the present nomenclatures and treat the petitioners as Sub-Inspectors(men) and prepare a single seniority list for all the Sub-Inspectors showing the appropriate seniority position of the petitioners in the seniority list on the basis of their initial appointment to the post and to consider their promotion in the next higher post in accordance with their seniority list;
(iv) issue a Rule NISI upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 asking them to show cause as to why they shall not be directed to make a common seniority list of all the Sub Inspectors of Police in all branches and to render service benefit treating them equal for their next promotion.
(v) issue a Rule NISI upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 asking them to show cause as to why a Writ of Mandamus should not be issued commanding them to consider the promotion of the Petitioners treating them equal with the promotes from the post of Sub Inspector of Police(unarmed branch) for the next higher post;
(vi) issue a Rule NISI upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 asking them to show cause as to why Writ of Mandamus or direction should not be issued commanding/directing to consider them the promotion of the Petitioners in the rank of Sub Inspector of Police treating them equal with the promotees in terms of PHQ order No. 241/2010;
(vii) Issue a Rule NISI upon the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 directing them to render appropriate remedies in favour of the Petitioners treating them equal with the Sub Inspector of Police(unarmed branch);"
Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, assisted by learned counsel, Ms. P. Sen for the petitioners. Also heard learned counsel, Mr. J. Majumder for the State respondents and learned counsel, Mr. P. Dutta for respondent No. 5, Tripura Public Service Commission.
The petitioners inter alia contended that pursuant to advertisements made by respondent No. 5, Tripura Public Service Commission(for short, TPSC) for filling up of posts of Sub-Inspector of Police, Armed Branch(AB for short) and Unarmed Branch(for short, UB), the petitioners and many others applied in due course and a Common Eligibility Test was conducted by respondent No. 5, TPSC and thereafter recommended names of eligible candidates to the State Government for their posting. The respondent Nos. 1 to 4 issued offer of appointment to the petitioners as Sub-Inspector of Police(AB) and the petitioners accepted the offer and joined the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (for short, SI of Police), Armed Branch. It is alleged that no option of the petitioners was taken while they were given offer for appointment to the post of SI in the Armed Branch. The petitioner No. 1 was appointed in the year 1987 and the rest of the petitioners were appointed in the year 1989 after a common selection process, as SI of Police in the Armed Branch.
It is the case of the petitioners that TPSC conducted common selection process/eligibility test for selection of candidates for filling up of post of SI of Police both Armed and Unarmed Branches and the petitioners were given offer in the Armed Branch whereas some others were given offer and posted in the Unarmed Branch. Those who were given offer and posted in the Unarmed Branch of the SI of Police they got a few promotions in the meantime whereas the petitioners are still working as SI of Police and did not get any promotion. It is alleged that for no fault of the petitioners they have been discriminated by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 because of their posting in the Armed Branch of SI of Police.
It is further contended by the petitioners that separate seniority lists for the Armed Branch, Unarmed Branch and Women Branch of SI of Police were maintained by respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and therefore the petitioners being members of the Armed Branch were discriminated and maximum promotional posts were meant for Unarmed Branch of SI of Police. There ought to be a common seniority list for both Armed and Unarmed Branches of SI of Police but the respondents for same cadre of SI of Police maintained separate seniority lists and hence the petitioners become victims of discrimination.
It is also contended by the petitioners that after promotion from the post of Sub-Inspector to the post of Inspector a common seniority list is maintained for all the Inspectors irrespective of their promotion from Armed Branch or Unarmed Branch or Women Branch.
It is the further case of the petitioners that by a Notification dated 23.11.1992 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) issued by the Government of Tripura, two Battalions of Tripura Armed Police, i.e. 1st Battalion and 2nd Battalion were disbanded and by the same notification it was held that the personnel of the said two battalions who were in-service immediately preceding the order and were not terminated by an order of dismissal or otherwise would continue as before till 31.11.1992 for the purposes-(i) for settlement of financial and administrative matters in respect of those battalions, and (ii) for examination of the feasibility of their absorption in other units of the Police Organization. Since those two battalions of the Armed Police were disbanded there was no question of maintaining a separate seniority list of Armed Police whereas by Notification dated 25.02.2010 a provisional gradation/seniority list of Sub-Inspector of Police(AB) Men as on 01.01.2010 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) was published and thereby the petitioners could know that the respondents even after disbandment of two battalions of Armed Police still maintaining a separate gradation/seniority list wherein the names of the petitioners were reflected.
It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents were bound to maintain a common seniority list for all Sub-Inspectors of Police irrespective of Armed or Unarmed Branch and promotion ought to be given to the post of Inspector from that common seniority list considering the seniority as per rules. Since promotional avenues to the post of Inspector from the post of SI(AB) were only a few, the petitioners were deprived of due promotion whereas those who joined as SI of Police(UB) they got frequent promotions and thereby the petitioners got discriminated and deprived of their due promotion. The petitioners, therefore, prayed for issuing writ granting the relief(s) as stated hereinbefore and for allowing the writ petition.
Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 by filing a common counter affidavit inter alia contended that the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, Unarmed Branch and Armed Branch are separate and distinct post as contained in Regulations 741 and 742 of the Police Regulations of Bengal, 1943(for short, PRB). Requisition for selection of eligible candidates was given by the State Government to the respondent No. 5, TPSC, for the post of SI of Police, both in Armed Branch and Unarmed Branch. Petitioner No. 1 was selected pursuant to an advertisement No. 7/1987 and his name was recommended for the post of SI of Police, Armed Branch by letter dated 28.10.1987 by the TPSC. The advertisement and letter of recommendation annexed as Annexure-R1 and Annexure-R2 to the counter affidavit. Petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 were selected pursuant to the advertisement No. 5/1988 made by the TPSC and their names were recommended by letter dated 17.03.1989. Copies of advertisement No. 5/1988 and letter dated 17.03.1989 annexed as Annexure-R3 and Annexure-R4 to the counter affidavit.
It is contended by the respondents that in the advertisement the number of posts both in Armed Branch and Unarmed Branch was clearly mentioned and TPSC recommended respective candidates both for Armed Branch and Unarmed Branch and as per recommendation of the TPSC the appointment letters were issued.
It is also contended that the duties of the Armed Branch were only to maintain law and order whereas the duties of the Unarmed Branch were to investigate the criminal cases and other duties to prevent the crimes. The duties of officers of both the branches cannot be equated and both the branches of Sub-Inspectors of Police were separately maintained by the administrative authority for convenience as well as for efficiency in the police administration. There is no question of any disparity or discrimination towards the petitioners or towards a particular branch. The members of the officers in the Unarmed Branch were much more than that of Armed Branch and so there were more promotional avenues for the Unarmed Branch to the post of Inspector and that cannot be a ground for arriving at a conclusion that there shall be common seniority list for both Armed and Unarmed Branches (Men) SI of Police and separate seniority list for Women SI of Police. The petitioners did not raise any objection when the offer was given as per the recommendation of TPSC and they accepted the offer, joined the post of SI of Police in the Armed Branch in the year 1987 and 1989 respectively and after about two decades they have no right to question the process of selection and appointment to the post of SI of Police, Armed Branch.
It is also contended by the respondents that the State Government has taken into consideration the position of stagnation in a single post for many years and therefore time bound scale advancement, i.e. movement to a higher scale has been prescribed and the relief has been given to those who did not get promotion to the higher post because of stagnation. The petitioners did not get promotion because of non-availability of vacancy in the superior post for which they cannot blame the respondents.
It is further contended by the respondents that in the year 1992 two battalions of Armed Police were disbanded but that does not mean that the total Armed Police of Tripura was disbanded because of the disbandment of two battalions. The personnel of those two battalions of Armed Police, i.e. 1st Battalion and 2nd Battalion were accommodated in other branches of the District Armed Police for which 2137 posts were created by order of the State Government dated 30.11.1992 (Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit) and subsequently all the personnel of the disbanded battalions of Armed Police were accommodated in the District Armed Police. Those allotment of posts were made by letter dated 20.12.1993 (Annexure-R6 to the counter affidavit).
It is the case of the respondents that the Armed Police is still in existence who are now posted in the District Armed Reserve as per PRB. It is also contended that the petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 have already been promoted to the post of Inspector in the meantime. The respondents, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
Respondent No. 5, TPSC also contested the writ petition by filing a separate counter affidavit contending that on the basis of the requisition for recruitment to the post of SI of Police(both UB and AB) advertisements were published in the daily local newspaper and a common recruitment/selection process was conducted by TPSC. After the selection process merit list was prepared taking into consideration the option exercised by the candidates in the application forms and also availability of the vacancies branch-wise. Generally, the candidates whose positions were better in the merit list were allotted Unarmed Branch followed by the candidate of lower merit in the Armed Branch keeping in view the vacancies available and option exercised by the candidates. A candidate who secured better position in the merit list but opted for Armed Branch he was allotted Armed Branch irrespective of his merit in the list. It is also contended that the Commission has gone through the applications of the candidates for finding out their option for a particular branch and also taking into consideration the temperament, personality and physical health of the candidates and then recommended the suitable candidates against a particular branch. The options of the candidates were given due weightage taking into account the candidates'' fitness for a particular branch. The Commission recommended the names of suitable candidates for the post of SI of Police, AB and UB in the year 1987 and 1989 and after selection the names of the candidates were recommended to the Director General of Police, i.e. respondent No. 3 and pursuant to that recommendation appointment letters were issued and the candidates accepted the recommendation and joined the post and undergone training as per rules and so at this stage they cannot challenge the recommendation of their names in respect of particular branch of SI of Police and the writ petition is therefore has no merit and liable to be dismissed.
The first argument advanced by learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty is that through a common selection process candidates were recommended by TPSC for the post of both Armed and Unarmed Branches SI of Police and the petitioners were given offer to the post of Armed Branch of SI of Police and accordingly they joined the post. They did not get promotion even after two decades and were stagnant in the same post. Whereas, under the same selection those who joined in the Unarmed Branch they got several lifting. There ought to be a common gradation/seniority list for both the Armed and Unarmed Branches of SI of Police in view of the provisions contained in Regulation 658(d) of PRB, whereas, respondent Nos. 1 to 4 are maintaining separate seniority list even after disbandment of two battalions of Armed Police. Referring to the provisions of Regulations 658(d) and 683 of PRB learned counsel argued that Sub-Inspector of Police is a single cadre irrespective of it is in the Armed Branch or Unarmed Branch and there was no logic of maintaining two gradation/seniority list and the rule also does not permit it and hence the writ petition may be allowed and the respondents may be directed to maintain a common seniority list for men SI of Police both Armed Branch and Unarmed Branch. He has also submitted that after disbandment of battalions 1 and 2 of Armed Police by Notification dated 23.11.1992 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition), there was no need of maintaining a separate gradation/seniority list of Armed Branch Sub-Inspector of Police whereas the respondents still prepared a gradation/seniority list as on 01.01.2010 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) which is not tenable and because of such separate seniority list of the Sub-Inspector of Police Armed Branch the petitioners got deprived of their due promotion.
On the contrary Mr. Majumder, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted that the members of police personnel in 1st and 2nd battalions of Tripura Armed Police participated in a widespread agitation in the year 1992 and therefore those two battalions were disbanded but the police personnel attached to those two battalions were adjusted in District Armed Reserve Police by the State Government and there were creation of post to that effect. It is submitted that only two battalions of Armed Police were disbanded but the Armed Police continued to exist even after disbandment of those two battalions and there is nothing to show that after disbandment of those two battalions there was no existence of any Armed Police. After those two battalions were disbanded the police personnel were adjusted in District Armed Reserve and to that effect he has referred to Annexure-R5, i.e. letter dated 30.11.1992 whereunder 2137 posts were created for adjustment of those police personnel.
He has also submitted that requisitions were given to the TPSC for recommendation of the candidates toward filling up of posts for both Armed and Unarmed Branches of SI of Police. Pursuant to that notification TPSC conducted selection process jointly but made recommendations separately for both Armed and Unarmed Branches considering the merit and other criteria and according to the recommendation offer of appointment was issued to the particular candidates specifically for Armed and Unarmed Branches and they got the offer, accepted it, joined the post and now the petitioners cannot challenge the same after about two decades of their joining the post. It is fairly submitted by Mr. Majumder that the number of posts in the Unarmed Branch is much more than that of Armed Branch. So the promotional avenues to the post of Inspector were more for Unarmed Branch than that of Armed Branch. Simply because the petitioners did not get promotion during the period of their expectation it cannot be said that the entire process was wrong and therefore that should be interfered. According to Mr. Majumder the Armed and Unarmed Branches of SI of Police are distinct branches in the cadre of Sub-Inspector of Police and according to rule separate gradation/seniority list has been maintained by the State respondents and there is nothing wrong in doing so. He has also referred to the provisions of Regulations 741 and 742 of the PRB whereunder the selection process of Unarmed Branch and Armed Branch has been prescribed and according to him Armed Branch and Unarmed Branch are two distinct branches of Sub-Inspector of Police of the Police Department and the Armed Branch is maintained as a Reserve Force used for maintaining law and order in the state Whereas Unarmed Branch is used for other purposes including law and order. He has also submitted that petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 have already been promoted in the meantime to the post of Inspector and that is suppressed.
It is an admitted position that the petitioner No. 1 joined the post of SI of Police (AB) in the year 1987 and the petitioner Nos. 2 to 6 joined the similar post in 1989. It is also an admitted position that a common selection process was conducted by TPSC for both the Armed and Unarmed Branches of SI of Police in the year 1987 and 1989. Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 submitted copy of advertisement and the letter of recommendation of the TPSC in respect of selection of petitioner No. 1 and petitioner Nos. 2 to 6. Annexure-R1 and Annexure-R2 clearly show that the advertisement was made for filling up of eight posts of Unarmed Branch and fourteen posts of Armed Branch of SI of Police. Annexure-R3 and Annexure-R4 show that advertisement was made for filling up of twenty seven posts of Unarmed Branch and eighteen posts of Armed Branch of SI of Police. TPSC by filing counter affidavit clearly contended that the merit list of the candidates was prepared taking into consideration the option exercised by the candidates in the application form and availability of vacancies branch-wise. That contention of TPSC has not been challenged by the petitioners by filing rejoinder affidavit. Once the petitioners accepted the selection process made by TPSC, and further accepted the offer to the post of Armed Branch of SI of Police and joined the post after about two decades they cannot challenge the selection process, recommendation of TPSC as well as their posting to the particular branch of SI of Police. They are clearly estopped by their own conduct and now they cannot say that their option was not taken for recommending them to the particular branch of SI of Police.
Chapter 10 of PRB deals with the Police Establishments. Under that chapter, Regulation 658 deals with the police cadres. 658(d) and 658(e) of the Regulations prescribe as follows:
"658(d) There shall be in each Range a cadre of Sub-Inspectors, in all branches of the District and Railway Police, serving in the districts within it; this cadre will be shown in a gradation list which shall be printed in April each year and maintained up to date in the office of the Deputy Inspector-General.
(e) There shall be for each district separate cadres for (i) Sub-Inspectors, (ii) Assistant Sub-Inspectors, (iii) head constables, (iv) naiks and (v) constables, both of the Unarmed Police and of the Special Armed Force, which shall be shown in the district gradation list maintained under regulation 913."
Chapter 11 of the PRB deals with District Armed Police. Regulation 683 deals with the composition of District Police which reads as follows:-
"683. Composition of the District Armed Police.[S.12, Act V, 1861.]- (a) The District Armed Police shall be constituted by drafts from the ordinary police of the district out of which as many men as possible shall pass through this force for training, but in posting men Superintendents shall see that those who are unsuitable by physique or any other reason are not drafted into this force. All members of the district force are liable to serve in this force. There should be no limit to the period of their retention in the District Armed Police. They should continue so long as the Superintendent considers them suitable for the armed branch duties. These orders do not apply to districts, where the District Armed Police is constituted of Gurkhas and Garhwalis who shall not serve in other departments of the district force. In other districts, the proportion of the armed force to consist of Gurkhas, Gashwalis and Punjabis shall from time to time be fixed by the Inspector-General and the members of these classes, not being qualified for police-station duties, etc., shall not serve in other departments of the district force.
(b) Constables during their period of service in the District Armed Police shall draw a special pay of Rs. 4 per mensem."
The State respondents maintained separate gradation/seniority list for the Armed Branch and Unarmed Branch(Men) SI of Police. Whereas, for the post of Inspector of Police the State respondents maintained a common gradation/seniority list irrespective of promotion from Armed Branch(Men), Unarmed Branch(Men & Women) SI of Police. As prescribed in Regulation 8 of PRB, in Appendix-1 the rank of police officers has been prescribed which reads as follows:-
*Now the Table is headed by-�Director-General of Police� (w.e.f. the year 1982)"
A careful reading of the provisions of Regulations 658(d) and 658(e) makes it abundantly clear that there shall be in each range a cadre of Sub-Inspector in all Branches of the District. No doubt, the post of Sub-Inspector is one cadre whereas the Armed Branch and Unarmed Branch are two separate branches in the same cadre and therefore there is no impediment in maintaining separate gradation/seniority list for the Armed Branch and Unarmed Branch Sub-Inspector of Police. Learned counsel, Mr. Majumder for the State respondents has referred the provisions of Regulations 741 and 742 of PRB and submitted that qualification and other eligibility criteria for the post of Sub-Inspector, UB and AB were different and the nature of duties of those two branches were also different and therefore for administrative convenience the State respondents maintained separate gradation/seniority list for the Armed Branch and Unarmed Branch of SI of Police. Since there is nothing specific in the PRB that there shall be a common gradation/seniority list for all the branches of SI of Police, I find nothing wrong for the State respondents in maintaining separate gradation/seniority list for different branches of SI of Police for their administrative convenience. The argument of the learned senior counsel, Mr. Chakraborty that there shall be a single gradation/seniority list for both Armed and Unarmed Branches of the SI of Police cannot be accepted.
The respondents contended that petitioner Nos. 1 to 5 got promotion in the meantime but learned senior counsel contended that he has not received any communication from the petitioners that in the meantime the petitioners got any promotion or not. Be that as it may, it is a fact that the petitioners did not get promotion for long time. It is also a fact that the State Government prescribed rules for providing scale advancement/movement from a lower scale to a higher scale for the Government employees who got stagnant in a particular post without promotion. If the petitioners were not promoted to a higher post even after the vacancy the petitioners would have a good case. There is nothing in the writ petition that the petitioners have not been promoted though there are vacant promotional post meant for the Armed Branch SI of Police. The State Government at their wisdom is at liberty to fix particular vacancy for each category of the Sub-Inspector of Police, i.e. Armed Branch, Unarmed Branch and Women Branch. There is nothing in the writ petition that the promotional avenues fixed by the State Government were irrational or violative of any provision of the PRB. While there is no such allegation of violation of any provision of PRB and there is nothing to show that the promotional avenues were fixed irrationally, I find nothing to interfere in the administrative action taken by the State Government in respect of the promotional avenues of all categories of Sub-Inspectors of Police.
It is an admitted position that 1st and 2nd Battalions of Tripura Armed Police were disbanded in the year 1992. There is nothing in the writ petition that except those two battalions there was no other battalion or force of the Armed Police in Tripura. It is an admitted position that after disband of 1st and 2nd Battalions the police personnel were adjusted in other branches of police and there is existence of District Armed Reserve as prescribed in Chapter 11 of PRB. According to the provision of PRB there shall be District Armed Reserve and in that District Armed Reserve police personnel from all branches may be grafted. Since District Armed Police is still in existence, the Police Department may maintain separate gradation/seniority list for each branches of police personnel in a cadre and I find nothing wrong in maintaining separate seniority list for Armed Branch and Unarmed Branch of the Police. The petitioners who joined the service in the year 1987 and 1989, in the Armed Branch of the Sub-Inspector of Police cannot challenge it after twenty years of joining the post on the ground that their option was not taken or that the promotional avenues were meager.
In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the writ petition accordingly stands dismissed.
Parties to bear their own costs.