Office memorandum dated 3 February 1994 is unsustainable as ordered by single bench was set aside.

This special appeal has arisen from a judgment and
order of the learned Single Judge dated 4 September 2015 in a batch of writ
petitions.
 
On 3 February 1994, the State Government issued an office
memorandum by which a provision was made for the appointment of Constables as
Head Constables and Sub-Inspectors as Inspectors on ex-cadre posts in
recognition
of acts of exemplary bravery and courage.
 
The office memorandum envisages that
Constables and Sub-Inspectors who had shown exemplary courage and gallantry
while on duty would be appointed to ex-cadre posts which were to be created by
the State Government upon the recommendation of the Director General of Police.
Such acts of courage and gallantry would be commended when they had taken place
in encounters with notorious terrorists and dreaded criminals or where the
members of the police force had demonstrated courage and had assumed risks in
arresting such persons.
 
Two writ
petitions were initially filed before a learned Single Judge in which an out of
turn promotion was claimed in terms of the office memorandum dated 3 February
1994. A learned Single Judge of this Court by a judgment dated 13 January 2014
dismissed both the writ petitions on the ground that the office memorandum
dated 3 February 1994 would cease to remain in force and effect once the State
Government had framed the U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police)
Service Rules, 2008 and the U.P. (Civil Police) Constables and Head Constables
Service Rules, 2008 on 2 December 2008. The learned Single Judge has observed
that in the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court 3 February 2014, no
illegality was found in the Government Order dated 3 February 1994 on which
basis it has been held that the State Government was fully competent to grant
such out of turn promotions. 
We are
unable to subscribe to this line of reasoning of the learned Single Judge. The
issue before the Court, it must be noticed, is not concerned with the legality
of the order dated 3 February 1994 but whether after the rescission of that
order, the respondents would be entitled to assert an indefeasible right to be
considered for out of turn appointments on the basis of the provisions of the
order as they stood prior to the rescission. 
For all these reasons, we are of the view that the
judgment of the learned Single Judge holding that the process of out of turn
promotions would have to be completed in terms of the procedure which was laid
down by the office memorandum dated 3 February 1994 is unsustainable and would
have to be accordingly set aside.
 
We, accordingly, allow the special appeal and set aside the
impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 4 September 2015.
In consequence, the writ petitions filed by the respondents shall stand
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 
Order Date :- 12.1.2016 
RK 

(Yashwant Varma, J) (Dr D Y Chandrachud, CJ) 

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: