Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 and Amended Rules, 2011– r.8 as amended – Union of India introduced Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) to make appointments to the Indian Police Service (IPS) – Examination took place from 20.05.2012 to 22.05.2012, however, results of the same were not declared – Thereafter, Union of India took the decision in 2018 to scrap the LCE held in the year 2012 – Whether the decision of Union of India to cancel the selection process is legal or not – Held: Legal and valid – Decision to scrap the LCE was taken in larger public interest and it cannot be termed to be arbitrary, discriminatory or capricious – The result of the said examination was expected to be declared in the year 2013 and the officers would have been sent for training in the same year – The officers, who may have been selected in the year 2013 at the upper age limit of 35 years or 36 years would be 5 years older in year 2018 and their induction or recruitment in the IPS would have been delayed by more than 5 years – Government had fixed the upper age limit of 35 years and with delay of more than 5 years the purpose for upper age limit, whatever it would have been, was defeated – If Union of India had made appointments, it would have led to a plethora of litigation where the persons recruited to the IPS between 2013 and 2018 would have claimed seniority over the persons, who appeared in the LCE – Litigation by officers against each other would have achieved no higher purpose – LCE was introduced keeping in view the shortage of police officials in the IPS and to fill up the vacancies, however, the percentage of vacancies in last 5 years had fallen considerably, therefore, the decision of the Government to scrap LCE cannot be termed irrational – The induction through LCE was mainly limited to persons belonging to the State Police Services and Central Police Organization – The gain, in the IPS, would have been set off by a consequent shortage in the State Police Services and the Central Police Organization – The decision to scrap the LCE is not mala fide and is a reasonable one in the facts and circumstances of the case – Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority) Rules, 1988 – r.3 – Service Law. Service Law – Union of India introduced the Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) keeping in view the shortage of police officials in the IPS – Examination took place from 20.05.2012 to 22.05.2012, however, it was subsequently scrapped – Whether the petitioners have any vested right to claim declaration of results and appointment pursuant to selection – Held: It is well settled that merely because a person has been selected, does not give that person an indefeasible right of claiming appointment – In the instant case, results have not been declared and even the selection process was not complete – Petitioners had no enforceable right to claim that the result should be declared or that they should be appointed if found meritorious.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD: 1. In the present cases, results of Limited Competitive Examination (LCE) have not been declared and even the selection process is not complete. As such, there is no manner of doubt that the petitioners have no enforceable right to claim that the result should be declared or that they should be appointed if found meritorious. The law is well settled that even though the candidates may not have a vested right of appointment and the State is not under any duty or obligation to fill up the vacancies, the State has to act fairly and it cannot act in an arbitrary manner. The decision, not to fill up the vacancies pursuant to the selection process, must be taken bona fide and for justifiable and appropriate reasons. [Paras 15, 16] [772-G-H; 773-A-B]
2. In the instant case, there is no manner of doubt that it was expected that the result of LCE would be declared in the year 2013 and the officers would be sent for training in the same year. The officers, who may have been selected in the year 2013 at the upper age limit of 35 years or 36 years would now be 5 years older. No doubt, they are members of the State Police Service or the Central Police Organisation, but their induction or recruitment in the IPS is delayed by more than 5 years. When the Government laid down a policy that upper age limit was 35 years, it must have had some reason for fixing the upper age limit. That purpose is now defeated. [Paras 20, 21] [774-D, F-G]
3. If the Union is compelled to make the appointments, this will lead to a plethora of litigation where the persons recruited to the IPS between 2013 and 2018 will claim seniority over the persons, who appear in the LCE. Such litigation would not be in public good and will achieve no higher purpose. In fact, such litigation may also affect the morale of the officers in the IPS. [Para 22] [774-H; 775-G-H]
4. The Union has also taken up a plea that though the fall in vacancies when taken numerically, may not be much but when taken on the percentage basis, there is a fairly large fall in the vacancies. Furthermore, the induction through LCE is mainly limited to persons belonging to the State Police Services and the Central Police Organisation. Any such induction would lead to a consequential shortage in these organisations. The gain, if any, in the IPS, would be set off by a consequent shortage in the State Police Services and the Central Police Organisation.[Para 23] [775-B-C, D-E]
5. The decision to scrap the LCE recruitment has been taken in the larger public interest. It is not actuated by extraneous reasons. The decision cannot be termed to be arbitrary, discriminatory, capricious or malafide and is a reasonable one in the facts and circumstances of the case. [Paras 24, 25] [775-E-G]
Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana (1993) 2 Suppl. SCC 600 : [1992] 3 Suppl. SCR 816 ; Vijay Kumar Mishra v. High Court of Judicature at Patna (2016) 9 SCC 313 : [2016] 3 SCR 806 ; Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India (1991) 3 SCC 47 : [1991] 2 SCR 567 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.