http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13  

PETITIONER: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: INDER SINGH & ORS. ETC.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       14/10/1997

BENCH: A.S. ANAND, S. RAJENDRA BABU

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                             WITH             CIVIL APPEAL NOS 8302/95 AND 1939/97                             AND CIVIL APPEAL NOS 7137-38 AND 7145-47 OF 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 2584, 4937, 3679, 3745 and 12685 of 1996)                       J U D G M E N T D.P. Wadhwa J.      Leave granted in all the special leave petitions.      In this  batch of appeals, it is the State of Punjab in the Police  Department which  is the appellant. There are in all 18  respondents. They were all enrolled as Constables in the Police  Department and  later deputed  to  the  Criminal Investigation Department  (CID) of the Punjab Police. During the course of their deputation, they earned promotions on ad hoc basis and some of the respondents reached the rank of ad hoc Sub-Inspectors.  When they were sought to be repatriated to their  parent  departments,  they  were  to  go  back  as Constables  or  Head  Constables  if  in  the  meanwhile  on deputation  they   earned  any  promotion  in  their  parent departments. They  had served  long years in the CID and the prospect of  going back  as  Constables  was  not  to  their liking. They, therefore, approached the High Court of Punjab and Haryana  by filing  writ petitions which were allowed to an extent.  The  High  Court  did  say  that  the  order  of repatriation of the respondents being legal could not be set aside as  such. However,  directions were  issued  that  the cases of  the respondents  in their  parent  departments  to considered for  promotions on the relevant dates when person junior to  them were  promoted at  different levels  and, if necessary, even to relax the rules. In some of the cases two directions were given, namely, (1) if the respondents sought voluntary sought  voluntary retirement  from the  posts they were holding  in CID,  the order  of repatriation  would not come in  their cases  for voluntary retirement be considered on the  basis of the posts they were holding in CID; and (2) to determine  the seniority  of  the  respondents  in  their parent departments  by giving  them the  benefit of  service they rendered  in CID  and consequently to be considered for promotion with  effect from  the date  the persons junior to them were promoted.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 13  

    To understand  the rival contentions, we shall consider the case  of Inder  Singh one  of the  respondents (CA  Nos. 1293-1303 of  1996). He was enrolled in the Punjab Police on August 31,  1966 as Constable and on April 13, 1969 was sent on deputation  to CID  in the same rank. He was sought to be repatriated on  September  15, 1990 while he was holding the rank  of   ad  hoc  Sub-Inspector.  During  this  period  of deputation, Inder  Singh, by  order dated  February 19, 1985 was promoted  as officiating Head-Constable after giving him exemption under  the relevant  rules which  we will consider hereinafter. In  the parent  Department, he  was holding the substantive rank  of Head  Constable. During the pendency of the writ  petition in the High Court, we are told that there was stay  of order  of repatriation.  Inder Singh  was  not, however, given  any posting  till the judgment was delivered by the High Court. On November 7, 1994, he was posted in the CID unit  at Faridkot.  However, this joining was subject to final decision of the present appeal. This Court at the time of the  admission of  the special  leave  petitions  granted status  quo   which  is   continuing.  The   appellant  has, therefore, contended  that from  the date  of  repatriation, Inder Singh  remained absent  uptil November 6, 1994. Taking into account  this period  of four years, Inder Singh was on deputation in  CPD for  over 28  years. We may note that the Department has  not taken any action against Inder Singh for his  alleged   absence  from   the  date  of  the  order  of repatriation till  the order  of this  rejoining CID and his posting at  Faridkot. The  High Court  in granting relief to respondents negatived  the contention  of the State that the respondents could  not be  promoted to higher posts in their parent departments  without passing the various departmental examinations as  per the  relevant Rules.  That was  how the High Court  dealt with  these contentions  first by allowing the writ  petitions by  the learned  singh judge and then on appeal before  the Division Bench filed by the State against the judgment of the learned single Judge. The High Court was of the  view that  in terms of sub-rule (3) of Rule 21.25 of the Punjab  Police Rules, when an officer borne on the rolls of a  district or  range reached  a place in seniority which would entitle him to be considered for substantive promotion if he were serving in the establishment to which he belonged permanently, he  shall be informed and given the opportunity to return  to the district police force. The Court said that admittedly, the  writ petitioner, who was sent on deputation to the CID, was not so informed and given the opportunity to return to  his parent  Department when he was entitled to be considered for  substantive promotion to the higher post. As held by  the learned  single Judge, the appellant who failed in its  statutory duty  to inform  the petitioner  when  his juniors  in   the  parent  department  were  considered  for promotion to  the higher  post, could  not take advantage of its own  wrong. The  writ petitioner  while on deputation to CID, Intelligence  Department, was  found fit  and had  been promoted as  Sub-Inspector on  12th December,  1989, and was holding that  post on  the  date  when  the  order  for  the repatriation to  his parent  department was issued. The High Court said  that in view of such peculiar facts, it would be a good  ground for relaxing the rule for considering him for promotion to  the higher  post with effect from the date his immediate juniors  were so  promoted in  accordance with the directions given by the learned Single Judge. The respondent in the  writ petitions had prayed for writ of certiorarl for quashing the  order of  repatriation and  a writ of mandamus directing the  petitioner to absorb him in CID (Intelligence Department) where  he had  put in  23 years  of  service  or

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 13  

directing the  petitioner to  determine the seniority of the respondent in his parent department after giving him benefit of service which he had rendered for 23 years in the CID and consequently to  promote him  from the date when his juniors were promoted.      The Rules  are called Punjab Police Rules and have been framed under the Police Act 1861. It is not necessary for us to quote  the relevant  Rules in  extenso except  Rule 21.25 dealing with deputation to CID which is as under:      "21.25(1)    Upper     and    lower      subordinate posts  other than those      of  inspectors   in  the   Criminal      Investigation Department  shall  be      filled   by   the   deputation   of      suitable  men  from  districts  for      periods three  years extensible  by      not more  than two  years at a time      at the  discretion  of  the  Deputy      Inspector-General,         Criminal      Investigation Department.      (2) A  Police officer on deputation      to   the   Criminal   Investigation      Department will retain his original      position  in   the  cadre   of  his      district or  range.  While  in  the      Criminal  Investigation  Department      he will be eligible for officiating      promotion  in   that   branch;   on      reversion   from    the    Criminal      Investigation  Department  he  will      assume his  place in  his  original      cadre. Officiating promotion may be      given in  the district  or range in      the place  of an officer deputed to      the     Criminal      Investigation      Department, such  officiating  post      lapsing on the officer’s reversion.      (3) When  an officer  borne on  the      rolls  of   a  district   or  range      reaches a  place in seniority which      would entitled him to be considered      for  substantive  promotion  if  he      were serving  in the  establishment      to which he belongs permanently, he      shall be  informed  and  given  the      opportunity   of    returning    to      district police work. No officer on      deputation    to    the    Criminal      Investigation Department  shall  be      substantively  promoted   to   head      constable  or  higher  rank  unless      both the  Deputy Inspector-General,      Criminal  Investigation  Department      and the  Deputy  Inspector-General,      Criminal  Investigation  Department      and the Deputy Inspector-General of      the range to which he belongs agree      that  he   is  qualified  for  such      promotion  by  all  the  prescribed      standards.      (4) The  Deputy  Inspector-General,      Criminal Investigation  Department,      may make  recommendation on  behalf      of,  sub-inspectors  serving  under      him to the Deputy Inspector serving

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 13  

    under him  to the Deputy Inspector-      General  of   the  range   and  the      Inspector-General    of     Police,      respectively, for  promotion to the      selection  grade  or  admission  to      List F. A sub-inspector who becomes      eligible  while   serving  in   the      Criminal  Investigation  Department      for   grade    promotion   in   the      selection grade, shall receive such      promotion, if the Deputy Inspector-      General of  the range  and Criminal      Investigation Department agree that      he is fit for it.      (5)   Annual   reports   on   upper      subordinates serving  on deputation      in   the   Criminal   Investigation      Department shall  be  sent  by  the      Deputy  Inspector-General  Criminal      Investigation  Department,  to  the      range   Deputy    Inspector-General      concerned  for   record  and  other      necessary action.      (6) In  very exceptional  cases and      for the  political branch  only and      with the  written sanction  of  the      Deputy            Inspector-General      personally,  direct  enrollment  as      constable or  in higher  ranks, may      be    made    to    the    Criminal      Investigation           Department.      Specialists  shall,  however,  when      possible,   be    entertained    on      contract terms  control, terms,  so      that   their    services   may   be      dispensed with  then their  utility      ceases or deteriorates.      21.25(A)  The   Deputy   Inspector-      General,   Criminal   Investigation      Department,  shall   have  complete      disciplinary   control   over   all      police offices while serving in the      Criminal Investigation Department."      Rules also  described the  duties of CID by that is not necessary for us to refer to.      Rules relating  to promotion  and deputation  are quite specific  and   there  is  no  ambiquity  about  them.  Each district/Range (Districts  are grouped  into Ranges) has its own cadre  of officers  upto certain ranks. We are concerned with the rank upto Sub-Inspector. Promotion from one rank to another and  from one  grade another  in the same rank is on the basis of selection-cum-seniority. What factors are to be taken into  consideration for promotion have been set out in Rule 13.1  and which are of general nature. Upto the rank of Sub-Inspector five  lists A,B,C,D and E are to be maintained for the  purposes  of  promotions  from  the  Constable  and contain the  names of  the candidates as per their seniority after they have fulfilled the specified requirements. List A contained the names of the Constables who  were eligible for promotion to  the selection  grade and  is maintained by the Superintendent of  Police of  the District.  List B contains the names  of all  Constables selected  for admission to the promotion course  for  Constables  at  the  Police  Training College. Selection is made in the month of January each year and is  limited to  the number  of  seats  allotted  to  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 13  

district for  the year  with  twenty  per  cent  reserve.  A Departmental  Promotion   Committee  is   constituted  which conducts tests  in general  law (Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code,  Indian Evidence  Act and  Local and Special Laws), interviews  and examination  of records  and prepares the merit  list, Rule  13.7 (2)  prescribes the  eligibility criteria of  the Constables who are to be entered in List-B. Those Constables  who have passed the Lower School Course at Police  Training   College,  Phillaur   and  are  considered eligible for  promotion to  Read Constables  are entered  in List-C. Promotions to Head Constables are made in accordance with the  principles  set  out  in  Rule  13.1(1)  and  (2). Selection grade  Constables who  have not  passed the  Lower School Course  but are  otherwise considered suitable can be promoted to  Head Constables  upto a maximum of ten per cent of vacancies  but that  can be done with the approval of the Deputy Inspector-General  of Police.  Similarly  D  List  is maintained for  selection for  admission  to  the  promotion course for Head Constables at the Police Training College is made  from  amongst,  all  the  confirmed  Head  Constables. Eligibility for  admission to  the promotion course for Head Constables  is   prescribed  in  Rule  13.9(1).  Those  Head Constables who  qualify at  Police Training  College in  the promotion  course  for  Head  Constables  find  their  names entered in  Part-I of  List-D. Rule  13.9(2) prescribes that names of outstanding Head Constables who have not passed the promotion course  for Head  Constables due to being over-age but otherwise  are of  exceptional merit  and are considered suitable may,  with the  approval  of  Inspector-General  of Police, be  entered in Part II of List D. Further under this sub-rule no  more than in per cent of the posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors will  be filled  from the names in Part II of List D.  Promotions to  the post of Assistant Sub-Inspectors are to  be made  from List D (Part II). Similar procedure is prescribed for  promotion of all Assistant Sub-Inspectors to Sub-Inspector from  List E (Part-I) which contains the names of Assistant  Sub-Inspectors  who  qualified  for  promotion course  for  Assistant  Sub-Inspectors  at  Police  Training College List  E is  also in  two parts.  Part II  of List  E contains  the   names   of   Assistant   Sub-Inspectors   of exceptional merit  who have  not qualified  the  course  for Assistant Sub-Inspectors  at Police Training College and are considered suitable for promotion.      CID does  not have a cadre of its own officers upto the rank of  Sub-Inspectors. Rules 21.25 states that posts other than those  of Inspectors  in CID  shall be  filled  by  the deputation of  suitable men  from districts for period three years extensible by not more than two years at a time at the discretion of  the Deputy  Inspector-General, CID.  A police officer on  deputation  to  the  CID  retains  his  original position in the cadre of the district or range. While in the CID he  is eligible for officiating promotion in that branch but on  reversion from  CID  he  assume  his  place  in  his original cadre.  Sub-rule (2)  of Rule 21.25 also prescribes that officiating  promotion may  be given in the district or range in  the place  of an  officer deputed  to CID but such officiating post  lapsing on  the officer’s reversion. Under sub-rule  (3)   of  this  rule  when  an  officer  while  on deputation in  CID reaches  a  place  in  seniority  in  his district he  is entitled  to be  considered for  substantive promotion as if he was serving in that district but he shall be informed  and given  the opportunity  of returning to his district police  work. This sub-rule further prescribes that no officer  on deputation  to  CID  shall  be  substantively promoted to  Head Constable  or higher  rank unless both the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 13  

Deputy Inspector-General,  CID  and  the  Deputy  Inspector- General of the range to which the officer belongs agree that he is  qualified for  such promotion  by all  the prescribed standards. It  would appear  that under  this sub-rule Inder Singh while  on deputation  with CID earned his promotion as officiating Head  Constables  without  his  having  to  have passed Lower  School Course in Phillaur and thus promoted to Head Constable  out of  10 per  cent of  vacancies as having been found suitable for the promotion.  In the writ petition of Inder Singh he raised the following four questions which according to him needed consideration:      "i) Whether  the  respondents  were      bound to  absorb the  petitioner in      the C.I.D.  Intelligence department      where  he   had  put  in  23  years      service  and   had  excellant   and      unblemished service record?      ii)  Whether  the  respondents  are      justified   in   repatriating   the      petitioner after more than 23 years      of service  and  that  too  without      giving him  any benefit of 23 years      of service which he has rendered in      the       C.I.D.       Intelligence      department?’      iii) Whether  the  respondents  are      justified   in   repatriating   the      petitioner  as   constable  to  his      parent department  when his juniors      have been  promoted and are working      on the  post of  sub Inspectors and      Inspectors?      iv)   Whether    the    order    of      repatriation is  discriminatory and      violative of  Articles 14 and 16 of      the Constitution of India?      As to  what relief the High Court granted we have noted above.      We find  that the respondents have not challenged their repatriation to  their respective  districts on the rolls of which they  are borne  but what  they contend  is that  they should hold  the same position there as they were holding in CID. They  submitted that  while they  were on deputation to CID their juniors have been promoted and now if they go back they have  to work  under them.  These  contentions  do  not appear to  us to  be correct. For one the respondents do not have any right to hold on the post which they were having in CID in their parent department and (2) they were holding the posts in  CID only on and hoc basis. Appellants have brought on record  a chart  to show  that even  Constables who  were senior to the respondents are still working as Constables as they could not qualify for further promotion in terms of the Rules mentioned  above.  In  the  case  of  Inder  Singh  no Constable junior  to him  has been promoted and there are 65 Constables who  are senior  to Inder  Singh  who  are  still working as  Constables. Respondents have been contended that as per  sub-rule (3)  of Rule 21.25 they were never informed and given  no opportunity  of returning  to their respective districts after  they reached  their places  in seniority of their  districts   entitling  them   to  be  considered  for substantive promotion. In the case of Inder Singh appellants have stated  that old  record of  test for  List-B  was  not traceable. However,  Inder Singh has given his unwillingness to undergo  Intermediate School  in the term commencing with effect from  April 1, 1990 to October 1, 1990. For promotion

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 13  

from Constable  to Head  Constable passing  of B-1 test is a must. Inder Singh was not eligible to appear in the test for the first three years as he had not completed three years of service. Subsequently  also he  did not  appear in  any test held for  the purpose.  However, he was promoted on February 19, 1985  as officiating  Head Constable  by  order  of  the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana from List C having been given exemption. Appellants have stated that since test is held in January every year circular/letters are issued to the organisations  including then  CID where their employees are working  asking them to appear in the test. This test is held on  the same  date throughout the State. The Constables who are  eager to  compete are always on the alert to appear in the  test as  it is  known to all the Constables that the test is  being held.  Appellants have also brought on record that apart  from the fact that every Constable on deputation in CID  would come to know of the test, the respondents were also individually informed except that in the case of one or two of  the respondents  records were  not available to show that they  had also  been individually  informed of the test being held.  On the  dates of  holding of  the test eligible candidates assemble  at the  prescribed place where the test is conducted.  Several Constables  serving  in  the  CID  on deputation appeared in B-1 test. So it is very well known to every Constable  wherever he  may be, the appellants submit. It would,  therefore, appear  to us that there cannot be any excuse that  the candidates were not aware of the holding of the test.      It is  when submitted  that deputation to CID could not exceed a  period of  five years  after the  expiry  of  this period the  respondents should  have been sent back to their respective districts  and that  after  all  this  period  on deputation to  CID now  asking them  to appear in test would not only be irregular but arbitrary as well. We do not think that sub-rule (1) of Rule 21.25 limits the deputation to CID for a  maximum period  of five  years. In the first instance deputation is for three years and it can be extended for not more than  two years at a time. It cannot be said that after three years  the extension  is for  further two years and no more. We  have to give an ordinary meaning to the words used in the  sub-rule. We,  however, agree  with the  respondents that every  time deputation  was extended  they should  have been informed  of their  rights in  CID while  on deputation vis-a-vis their parent department.      Mr. P.P. Rao, learned counsel for the appellants, State of Punjab,  submitted that  repatriation of  the respondents was necessary as Government thought of injecting fresh blood in CID.  It appears  to be rather a specious plea. It is not disputed that  officers having  put in  more years  than the respondents are  still working  on  deputation  in  CID.  No reason is  forth-coming as  to why  the respondents  are the only persons  who are picked up to be repatriated. But since this question  was not  raised in  these terms  we  are  not called upon to decide the same.      It  was   then  submitted   by  the   respondents  that deputation  to   CID  had  no  meaning  as  all  the  police departments in the State are headed by the Inspector General of Police  who is  also  the  administrative  head  of  CID. Reference in  this connection was made to Rules 1.2, 1.4 and 1.5. It  is, however, not necessary for us to refer to these Rules as  we do  not find  any substance in this contention. Rules are statutory and each district/range in the State has a separate  cadre of  its officers.  There is  no  cadre  of officers upto  the rank  of Sub  inspector in  CID  and  the officers upto  this rank are drawn from various districts in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 13  

the State. Merely because the administrative head of all the police departments  in the  State is  one it  cannot be said that there  can no  rule  for  deputation  to  a  particular department in  the whole  of the police establishment in the State. If  we refer  to  the  Rule  21.25  Deputy  Inspector General, CID  has complete disciplinary control over all the police officer  while serving  in that  department. On  this very reasoning,  there is  no scope  for the  argument  that respondents be  absorbed in  CID as  this Department  has no cadre of its own upto the rank of Sub-Inspector.      It was  then submitted  that officers  in  CID  are  of exceptional  merit   and  they   have  vast   experience  of conducting investigation  and in fact they help the district police in  the conduct of investigation and that they should be given exemption from appearing in tests or undergoing any training in  the Police Training School and that they should be promoted  in 10  per cent  quota meant  for  officers  of special qualities.  If that  is done it will certainly be in violation of  the statutory  rules. Promotion  has to  be by prescribed standards.  Moreover it is nobody’s case that any vacancy exists  to which  the respondents  could  have  been promoted. In  any  case  we  are  not  impressed  with  this argument.      Mr.  Bagga   appearing  for  more  of  the  respondents submitted that  the case  of Amrit  Kumar (CA  1297/95)  was different. In  his writ  petition (No.  8979 of 1991) in the High Court  it was  mentioned in  order dated  June 12, 1991 that Amrit Kumar was working as Sub-Inspector in CID and was being  repatriated   as  Head   Constable  to   his   parent department.  The   High  Court  ordered  that  he  shall  be repatriated as  Sub-Inspector and  it shall  be open  to the authorities  to   determine  his  seniority  in  the  parent department in  accordance with  law. On clarification sought by the State the court order dated March 6, 1992 states that it  shall  be  open  to  the  Department  to  determine  the seniority of  Amrit Kumar  and post  him to  the post he was entitled to and that the order dated June 12, 1991 would not confer any  benefit on  him. We,  therefore, fail to see how this case  is any  different or  that Amrit  Kumar would  be posted  as   Sub  Inspector  in  his  parent  department  on repatriation.      During course  of arguments,  certain decisions of this court were referred to on the question of deputation and the right of  the deputationist  on his  repatriation. These, we may note.  In D.M.  Bharati vs.  L.M. Sud & Ors. [1991 Supp. (2) SCC  162], the  appellant who was working as a Tracer in Municipal  Corporation,  Ahmedabad  went  to  Town  Planning Establishment by  way of  deputation. In  the Town  Planning Establishment,  the   appellant  was   promoted  as   Junior Draftsman and there was a proposal to promote him further as Surveyor-cum-Draftsman.  But  before  this  promotion  could materialise, the  Town Planning  Establishment was wound up. The appellant  was, therefore,  reverted back  to his parent department, i.e.,  the Municipal Corporation and posted as a Tracer and  not as a Junior Draftsman. The appellant treated this as a reversion and challenged the same. This Court said that it  was not  reversion and that when the appellant left the Municipal  Corporation  and  joined  the  Town  Planning Establishment, he  was a Tracer and he could go back only as a Tracer subject, however, that if in the meantime, while he was on  deputation, he  had qualified  for  promotion  to  a higher post in the parent department, that benefit could not be denied  to him.  The Court said that promotions earned by an employee  on deputation did not enjoin any protection and that on  repatriation, he  could be accommodated only on its

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 13  

original post  or to  the post  to which he stood notionally promoted in the parent department by having so qualified. In Ratilal B.  Soni & Ors. vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (1990) 1 SCR  414],   the  appellant  who  belonged  to  the  Revenue Department of  the Gujarat  Government was  allocated to the Panchayat Service  on coming into force of Gujarat Panchayat Act, 1961.  He went on deputation as Circle Inspector in the State Service  and was  later reverted  back to  his  parent cadre in  the Panchayat  Service. This was challenged by the appellant. This  Court held  that  the  appellant  being  on deputation could be reverted to his parent cadre at any time and he  did  not  get  any  right  to  be  absorbed  on  the deputation post.  In Puranjit  Singh vs.  Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors. [1994 Supp. (3) SCC 471]. it was held that when a  deputationist was  repatriated, he  could not  claim promotions  in   the  parent  department  on  the  basis  of officiation in higher post in the borrowing organisation. In R. Prabha  Devi &  Ors. vs.  Government  of  India.  Through Secretary,   Ministry    of    Personnel    and    Training, Administrative Reforms  &  Ors.  [(1988)  8  SCR  147],  the question before  this Court which fell for consideration was whether the  service rule  requiring eight years of approved service as  Section Officer  both for the direct recruits as well as  for promoters  for being eligible for consideration for promotion to the Grade-I post in the Central Secretariat Services was arbitrary being in contravention of Articles 14 and 16  of the  Constitution of  India. This  Court laid the following principle:      "The   rule-making   authority   is      competent  to  frame  rules  laying      down  eligibility   condition   for      promotion to  a higher  post.  When      such an  eligibility condition  has      been be  Said that a direct recruit      who is  senior to  the promotees is      not required  to  comply  with  the      eligibility  condition  and  he  is      entitled  to   be  considered   for      promotion to the higher post merely      on the  basis of his seniority. The      amended  rule   in   question   has      specified a  period of eight years’      approved service  in the  grade  of      Section Officer  as a  condition of      eligibility  for  being  considered      for promotion  to Grade  I post  of      C.S.S.   This   rule   is   equally      applicable  to   both  the   direct      recruit Section Officers as well as      the promotee Sections Officers. The      submission that  a  senior  Section      Officer   has   a   right   to   be      considered for promotion to Grade-I      post  when  his  juniors  who  have      fulfilled the eligibility condition      are being  considered for promotion      to the  higher post,  Grade  I,  is      wholly      unsustainable.      The      prescribing   of   an   eligibility      condition   for   entitlement   for      consideration  for   promotion   is      within the  competence of the rule-      making authority.  This eligibility      condition has  to be  fulfilled  by      the  Section   Officers   including

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 13  

    senior direct  recruits in under to      be eligible  for  being  considered      for promotion.  When qualifications      for appointment  to  a  post  in  a      particular  cadre  are  prescribed,      the  same   have  to  be  satisfied      before a  person can  be considered      for  appointment.  Seniority  in  a      particular cadre does not entitle a      public servant  for promotion  to a      higher post  unless the fulfils the      eligibility condition prescribed by      the relevant  rules. A  person must      be eligible  for  promotion  having      regard   to    the   qualifications      prescribed for  the post  before he      can be  considered  for  promotion.      Seniority  will  be  relevant  only      amongst persons eligible. Seniority      cannot    be     substituted    for      eligibility nor it can over-ride it      in the  matter of  promotion to the      next  higher   post.  The  rule  in      question which prescribes a uniform      period of  qualified service cannot      be said  to be  arbitrary or unjust      violative of  Articles 14  or 16 of      the Constitution."      In view  of the clear statement of law, the respondents before us  cannot claim promotion in their parent department in contravention  of statutory  Rules as they do not satisfy the eligibility conditions.      In T.  Shantharam vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. [(1995) 2 SCC  538], the  appellant was  appointed  in  the  Revenue Department of the State Government as Second Division Clerk. He was  sent on  deputation to  the Food  and Civil Supplies Department which  was then  part of  Revenue  Department  as Assistant Civil Supplies Inspector. There he was promoted as Second Grade Civil Supplies Inspector. There was a seniority dispute between  the appellant  and Mr. R.K. Vasudev who was appointed in  the Food  Wind of  the Revenue Department. The Court  found   that  at   all  levels  of  appointments  and promotions, the  appellant was  always senior  to  Mr.  R.K. Vasudev. But  fact remained  that the appellant continued to be on  deputation in the Food Wing of the Revenue Department right from 1967 to 1986. When the appellant was sought to be repatriated,  he  approached  the  Karnataka  Administrative Tribunal which  by order  dated January  28,  1988  directed absorption of  the appellant  in the Food Department holding that he  had not  been given  any performa  promotion in his parent department  and that  there was  no valid  ground  to reject his request for absorption and that the appellant was entitled for a direction to the respondents to absorb him in the Department  of Food  and Civil Supplies in the post them told by  him. The  appellant was,  thus,  absorbed  and  was placed above  R.K. Vasudev.  The appellant was then promoted as Assistant  Director on  January 1,  1980. Similarly, R.K. Vasudev  was   also  promoted  as  Assistant  Director.  The question before  this Court  was of  the inter  se seniority between the  appellant and  R.K. Vasudev.  This Court agreed that as per Rules, the appellant could not have been sent on deputation to  higher post  than the post held by him in the parent Department.  But then  the Court  said  that  he  had uninterruptedly worked  in the  Food  Department  and  under those circumstances  though initially  the  appellant  might

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 13  

have been mistakenly deputed to hold higher post in the Food and Civil  Supplies Department, but "Since the appellant had obviously discharged  his duties and higher responsibilities to the  satisfaction of  all concerned,  at this distress of time, it  is highly unjust to send him back to hold the post in the  parent department  which he was entitled to hold and the Tribunal  is not  right to  interfere with action of the department in its absorption of the appellant as per its own earlier order".  This judgment is quite distinguished and of no help  to the  respondents as  the  question  which  falls squarely for  consideration before  us was not there and the appellant in  that case had been absorbed by the department. In the present case before us, there is no separate cadre to which the  respondents or any one of them could be absorbed. In Narayan Yeshwant Gore vs. Union of India & Ors. [(1995) 4 SCC 470],  the appellant  who was  working in  the  National Sample  Survey   Organisation  as   Inspector  was  sent  on deputation to Census Department at Nagpur. He remained there from 1961  to 1975  and earned promotion. His last promotion being that  of Assistant  Director. When he came back to his parent department, he was appointed as Assistant Director on ad hoc basis. While he was on deputation, his juniors in the parent department  were appointed  as Assistant Directors on ad hoc  basis. After  the decision of this Court in Narender Chadha & Ors. vs. Union of India [(1996) 2 SCC 157] where it was held  that all  those officers  who  were  appointed  as Assistant  Directors   in   the   National   Sample   Survey Organisation  should   be  deemed  to  have  been  appointed substantively from  the date of their ad hoc appointment. In consequence thereof, they became senior the  appellant. This Court held  that the  appellant was similarly situated along with those who were granted benefit by this Court and merely because the  appellant was  working in the Census Department at the  relevant time, he could not be prejudiced. The Court extended the benefit given in Narender Chadha’s case (supra) to the  appellant as  well. Again  this  decision  does  not support the case of the respondents before us.      Concept of  "deputation" is  well understood in service law  and  has  a  recognised  meaning.  ‘Deputation’  has  a different connotation  in service  law  and  the  dictionary meaning of  the word  ‘deputation’ is  of no help. In simple ‘deputation’ means  service outside the cadre or outside the parent department. Deputation is deputing or transferring an employee to  a post  outside his  cadre, that  is to say, to another department  on a  temporary basis.  After the expiry period of  deputation the  employee has  to come back to his parent department  to occupy the same position unless in the meanwhile he  has earned  promotion in his parent department as per  Recruitment Rules.  Whether the  transfer is outside the normal  field of  deployment or  not is  decided by  the authority who  controls the  service or  post from which the employee is  transferred. There can be no deputation without the  consent   of  the  person  so  deputed  and  he  would, therefore, know  his rights and privileges in the deputation post. The  law  on  deputation  and  repatriation  is  quite settled as  we have  also been in various judgments which we have  referred   to  above.  There  is  no  escape  for  the respondents now  to go  back to their parent departments and working there  as Constables  or Head  Constables s the case may be.      It is  no doubt  really harsh  on the respondents to be sent back after they have served the CID for number of years in higher  rank though  on ad hoc basis and now when they go back  they  have  to  work  either  as  Constables  or  Head Constables. It  was submitted  before us  that  an  employee

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 13  

could seek voluntary retirement after putting in 20 years of qualifying service  and that  the High Court in the impugned judgment gave  option to  the respondents  to seek voluntary retirement while still working in the CID and holding higher ranks. This  option can,  however, be  limited to only those respondents who  have put  in 20 years of qualifying service as per  the relevant  Rules. In  our opinion, the High Court was justified in giving such an option to the respondents to seek voluntary  retirement. At  the time  when special leave petitions were  filed against  the impugned  judgment of the High  Court,   this  Court   directed  that  status  quo  be maintained while  staying the  impugned judgment of the High Court. The  High Court  in the  writ petitions  filed by the respondents granted  stay of  the  orders  of  repatriation. After the  impugned judgment,  there was order of status quo by this  Court. In  this view of the matter, the respondents continued to  be in  the CID. We affirm he impugned judgment of the High Court to the extent that the respondents who put in  20   years  of   qualifying  service   in  their  parent departments and  in CID  would be entitled to seek voluntary retirement from  the ranks  they are  holding in CID and the period of  qualifying service would be counted upto the dare of this  judgment. These  options the respondents shall give within  30   days  from  the  date  of  this  judgment.  The respondents  who   do  not   give  such   option  and  those respondents who  have not  put in  20  years  of  qualifying service  would   have  to   revert  back   to  their  parent departments.      It is  in fact  an admitted position that Constables on deputation to CID have reached higher ranks and retired from CID in those ranks. A hope, though not true, is instilled in officers like  the respondents  that they  would continue in the CID holding higher ranks till the age of superannuation. The conduct  of  the  appellants  now  suddenly  asking  the respondents to go back to their parent departments when they have put in best years of their lives in CID would appear to be rather  unjust. It  would have  been more appropriate for the appellant to repatriate the respondents after the expiry of the  initial period of deputation or at least they should have been  told the  consequences  of  their  continuing  on deputation and  sudden repatriation.  It would  also be more appropriate, considering the fact that the deputation in CID could be for any number of years, that the rules are amended and a  separate cadre  is  created  in  CID  to  absorb  the officers, if  they are  on deputation for a number of years. It is  submitted before  us that Constables who have come on deputation to  CID retired while holding higher ranks in CID and they  earned their pension on the basis of their holding higher ranks  though the  pension was  being paid  by  their parent department.  This may  be on  the basis  of  relevant pension rules  as applicable  in  the  State.  Now,  if  the respondents go  back to  their parent  department  and  work their as  Constables or  Head  Constables  their  emoluments would be  reduced considerably and they would be deprived of getting higher pension when they retire.      Considering the  whole aspect  of the  matter we affirm the order  of the  High Court  to the  extent that option be given to  all those  respondents who  have put  in 20  years qualifying service to seek voluntary retirement from the CID in the  ranks they  are holding  and they  will be deemed to have worked  in CID  upto the  date of  this  judgment.  The option shall be given within 30 days.      Except as  aforesaid the  appeals are  allowed and  the impugned judgment  is set aside. Writ Petitions filed by the respondents are  dismissed. There  will be  no order  as  to

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 13  

costs.