# [1971] 3 S.C.R. 550

- **Citation:** [1971] 3 S.C.R. 550
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1971
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 1018 of 1967
- **Bench:** G. K. Mittbr, A. N. Ray
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1971-3-s-c-r-550-5188
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Service-Indian Police Service Sche;,e-Appellant interviewed and
ced in List 11 un4er the Scheme while officiating as Superintenden~ of.
ice-If inclusion in List conje"ed any rights on hl"m-Whether could
.be reverted to substantive post of 'Deputy Superintendent of Police.
The appellant originally belonged to the Police Service in the Stat~
'·of Patiala and was promoted to officiate as a Superintendent of Police in
.February 1950 in the erstwhile State of PEPSU. After the Indian Police
Servic~ Scheme was extended to PEPSU in 1950, the appellant was one
of several persons interviewed by the Federal . Public Service CommisA
B
c
sion and his name was placed on what was styled in Li~t II in the Sche~e.
He continued working as an officiating Superintendent of Police without
being confirmed in the post. On December 1, 1954, he was reverted to
D
his substantive rank of Deputy Superintendent by an order of the Inspecior-General of Police. The appellant thereafter filed a suit claimii1g that
the order of reversion was bad.
He alleged that the inclusion of his
name in List II of the Scheme gave him a right to continue as an offici.at-
:ing Superintendent of Police for five years and his reversion within that
period to his substantive post amounted to a punishmen1.
He alleged
there was thus non-c.Jmpliance with Art-:- 311 · of the C.on·stitution.
He
also complained that while he was reverted, persons who were junior to · E
him; in the sense that their names had ·not been included in any of the
Lists · under the Scheme, were allowed to continue as officiAting Supei'iniendents of1 Police; there was therefore
d~crimination ~s against him.
!be case of\__the respondent State was that the reversion tlad been effected
purely on aCiministrative grounds as a Superintendent of
1Police who was
returning to the State had to be accommodated, ·and the£e was no vacancy
in which the ap.Pellant could be allowed to work as Superintendent of
F
Police. 'The Trral Court held that the impugnee order was not made
by way of punishment and the plaintiff had failed .to prove there was
any discrimination against him. An appeal to the High Court was dis-
·missed. On appeal to this Court.·
·
HELD : The reversion was justified on administ!'ative grounds and ·
there was no bar to such reversion by reason of , the inclusion of the
·appellant's name in List II. The said list merely ensured that the officers
G
whose name were- borne thereon would be watched for the space of five
years and tliey might be absdrbed in .the All India Service even within
. ·the said period as a result of periodical reviews.. Although reversion on
the ground of unfitness was mentioned in the scheme the possibility of
such reversion when there was no available post in the cadre of Superintendents of Police was not ruled out. As the officers· in List 11...-had no
·right to be absorbed in the Indian Police Service immediately, the direction in the scheme that "officers placed in List II. wilt continue to hold
·their present post'.' merely. mt:ant that t~ey would ~ot be made. to go out
H
of their' posts except on Justifiable groun3s.
Holdmg a post ID an officiating capacity as a· 'Superintendent G>f Police.' did not entitled the appellant
~
\·.<
~,·~
..
•
GURDEV SINGH V. PUNJAB (Mitter, J.)
551
A
to continue in that post even if officers senior to him who were on leave
or had been sent out of the State on deputation were to come back to
the State and there was no room in the cadre to absorb them all. [556 Cl

## Text

550
GURDEVS~GH
'V .•
STATE OF PUNJAB
JaTijU{lly 27, 1971
[G. K. MITTBR AND A. N. RAY, JJ.]
Service-Indian Police Service Sche;,e-Appellant interviewed and
ced in List 11 un4er the Scheme while officiating as Superintenden~ of.
ice-If inclusion in List conje"ed any rights on hl"m-Whether could
.be reverted to substantive post of 'Deputy Superintendent of Police.
The appellant originally belonged to the Police Service in the Stat~
'·of Patiala and was promoted to officiate as a Superintendent of Police in
.February 1950 in the erstwhile State of PEPSU. After the Indian Police
Servic~ Scheme was extended to PEPSU in 1950, the appellant was one
of several persons interviewed by the Federal . Public Service CommisA
B
c
sion and his name was placed on what was styled in Li~t II in the Sche~e.
He continued working as an officiating Superintendent of Police without
being confirmed in the post. On December 1, 1954, he was reverted to
D
his substantive rank of Deputy Superintendent by an order of the Inspecior-General of Police. The appellant thereafter filed a suit claimii1g that
the order of reversion was bad.
He alleged that the inclusion of his
name in List II of the Scheme gave him a right to continue as an offici.at-
:ing Superintendent of Police for five years and his reversion within that
period to his substantive post amounted to a punishmen1.
He alleged
there was thus non-c.Jmpliance with Art-:- 311 · of the C.on·stitution.
He
also complained that while he was reverted, persons who were junior to · E
him; in the sense that their names had ·not been included in any of the
Lists · under the Scheme, were allowed to continue as officiAting Supei'iniendents of1 Police; there was therefore
d~crimination ~s against him.
!be case of\__the respondent State was that the reversion tlad been effected
purely on aCiministrative grounds as a Superintendent of
1Police who was
returning to the State had to be accommodated, ·and the£e was no vacancy
in which the ap.Pellant could be allowed to work as Superintendent of
F
Police. 'The Trral Court held that the impugnee order was not made
by way of punishment and the plaintiff had failed .to prove there was
any discrimination against him. An appeal to the High Court was dis-
·missed. On appeal to this Court.·
·
HELD : The reversion was justified on administ!'ative grounds and ·
there was no bar to such reversion by reason of , the inclusion of the
·appellant's name in List II. The said list merely ensured that the officers
G
whose name were- borne thereon would be watched for the space of five
years and tliey might be absdrbed in .the All India Service even within
. ·the said period as a result of periodical reviews.. Although reversion on
the ground of unfitness was mentioned in the scheme the possibility of
such reversion when there was no available post in the cadre of Superintendents of Police was not ruled out. As the officers· in List 11...-had no
·right to be absorbed in the Indian Police Service immediately, the direction in the scheme that "officers placed in List II. wilt continue to hold
·their present post'.' merely. mt:ant that t~ey would ~ot be made. to go out
H
of their' posts except on Justifiable groun3s.
Holdmg a post ID an officiating capacity as a· 'Superintendent G>f Police.' did not entitled the appellant
~
\·.<
~,·~
..
•
GURDEV SINGH V. PUNJAB (Mitter, J.)
551
A
to continue in that post even if officers senior to him who were on leave
or had been sent out of the State on deputation were to come back to
the State and there was no room in the cadre to absorb them all. [556 Cl
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1018 of
1967.
B
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 16, 1967
of the Pu~jap and Haryana High Court in Regular First Appeal
No. 358 of f9-64.
M~ C. Setalvad, Bishan Narain, Jawahar Lal Gupta and P. C.
Bhartari, for the appellant.
C
Harbans Singh and R. N. Sachthey, fOr the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Mitter, J.-The appellant who originally belonged to the
police service in the State of Patiala and was promoted to offiD
ciate as a Superintendent of Police on 11th February 1950 in the
erstwhile State of PEPSU filed a suit against the State of Punjab
in January 1961 for a declaration to the effect that the order of
the PEPSU Government dated 1st December 1954 reverting him
to the post of Deputy Superintendent · of Police (the substantive
post which was formerly held by him) was unconstitutio.na.I and
void and that he was entitled to ~ll the rightS by way of arrears
E
of salary and allowances etc. of the post of Superintendent of Police
and that he continued as · such in that capacity even after the
date of the impugned order. The suit was dismiss~d by the Subordinate Judge of Patiala and his appeal to the Punjab High Court
met with no beter fat~. He baS come to this Court by a certificate granted by the High Court under Art. 13 3 ( 1) (c) of the ConF
stitution.
G
H
The relevant f~cts are as follows. The appellant started his
career in the police service in the year 1942 as an As.sistant Superintendent of Police in the former State of Patiala. On the formation of the State of PEPSU he started to function in the same
capacity in the said State. In 1950 he was promoted to officiate as a Superint~ndent pf Police. It appears that a scheme
known as the Indian Police .Service Scheme was extended to PEPSU
in the year 1950. The a~pellant was one of several pe~ons w~o
were called up for intervtew before the Federal Pubhc Se~ce
Commission in June 1950 under the orders of the PEPSU Government and his name was placed on what was styled the Second
List in the above scheme after the int«}rview.
H~ continu~d working as an officiating Superintendent of Police wtthout bemg confirmed in that post.
Qn December 1, 1954 he was reverted to
552
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1971] 3 S.C.R.
:his substantive rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police by an
'order of the Inspector-Gener4l of Police and he was directed to
make over charge to oneS. Ajaib Singh, Superintendent of Police.
As he was on leave at that time he was given liberty to proceed
·on leave from that date after submitting a formal charge report.
A
The appellant's case before the Subordinate Judge in subB
stance was that the inclusion of his name in List II of the scheme
mentioned gave him a right to continue as an officiating Superin ..
tendent of Police for five years and his reversion within that period
to his substantive post amounted to a punishment : the order of
reversion was bad as there was no compliance with th.e provisions
of Art. 311 of the Constitution. He also complained that while
c
he was reverted persons who were junior to him in the sense that
their names -bad not been approved by the Special Recruitment
Board for inclusion in any of the Lists set forth in the Police Service Scheme were allowed to cont.tue in their post..s as officiating
Superintendents of Police : the order ol reversion was bad because
·Of discrimination. He thus complained of loss of seniority a.nd
postponement of chances of promotion in violation of his rights.
D
·
The defence set up in the written statement of the State of
Punjab was that the reversion was not by wav ot penalty and did
not affect the appellant's chances of promotion. It was further
pleaded that the inclusion of the appe1lant's name in List II did
riot entitle him to be absorbed immediately in the Indian Police
E
$ervice cadre. Neither did it confer any rights of seniority over
other officers of the same rank. The revision had been effected
purely on administrative grounds as there was no vacancy ~n which
he could be a11owed to work as a Superintendent of Police and
~onsequently there was no reduction in rank of the appellant. Art.
311 of the Constitution did not in the circumstances of the case
F
apply to the appellant.
:,
The issue on which the appellant lost before the trial Judge
was "Whether the order dated 1st Decembet, 1954 reverting the
plaintiff to the t>OSt of Deputy Superintendent of Police was illegal, unconstitutiOnal and void and not binding on him for reasons
·given in paragraph 7 of the plaint ?" The learned Subordinate
J;udge held that the order of 1st December 1954 was not made
}iy way of punishment and the pla.i1,1tiff had failed to prove that
there w~s any discrimin'ation against him in favour of any persons
j~ior to him.
G
i No oral evidence was adduced at the trial stage.
When the
H
matter appeared before the High Court ·in the appellate stage. the
appellant wanted to have himself examined orally and the High
Court alJowed that application. The plaintiff-appel1ant was then
(
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
GURDEV SINGH V. PUNJAB (Mitter, J.)
553
examined before the Subordinate Judge. He stated in his examination-in-chief that when he was reverted from the rank of Superintendent of Police three persons, Ram Singh, Daljit Singh and
Harpaul Singh who were also working in the same capacity as
himself and officiating in the cadre of Superinttmdent:; of Police
but whose names were not borne on List II of the Police Service
Sdleme on 1st December 1954 were allowed to function as before : besides them there was another person Kanwar Sain who
although jwiior to him was allowed to continue as Superintendent
of Police, Civil Defence, in an officiating capacity. His further
statement was that after 1st December 1954 two persons by Name
.Piara Lal and Karam Singh were promoted as Suparintendents of
Police in March 1955 and June 1956 respectively and on these
occasions his case was not considered for promotion. ln'his crossexamination he admitted that il the Indian Police Service Scheme
had not ~n extended to PEPSU, Ram Singh, Harpaul Singh and
Daljit Singh would have to be treated as senior to him in the civil
list.
As the stand taken by the appellant rests on his claim based on
the inclusion of his name in List II of the Indian Police Service
Scheme it .is -necessary to examine the same and find out what right
it gave him. The Scheme, an exhibit in this case, shows that it
was meant to provide "for the extension of the organisation of the
Indian Police Service" so that senior police officers could be
available to the Government of the States and the Union of States
in India. The primary object of the extension was to maintain
and where necessary introduce a standard of efficiency at the
highest administrative level in the States comparable to that main~
tained in all Provincial Governments and at the Centre. The
Scheme was extended to numerous States including PEPSU. Clause
4 of the Scheme shows the intial constitution of the service. It
laid down steps to afford opportunities to existing incumbents of
the posts to be encadred and all officers holding posts of similar
status were to be considered to be the first and primary so~ ~r
recruitment to the State cadre of the Indian Police Serv1ee at ·its
initial constitution. This was done by each State Government
setting up a Selection Board in cQilSultation with the Government
of India. The Board was to review cases of $9fficers of the
State Government of the description mentioned make 'a preliminary selection from among them of all officers of' the State Government of the specified descriptions who were suitable for inclusion
in one or the other of the three lists referred to in the subsequent
paragraph. The First List was to contain names of officers who
were considered suitable for immediate appointment to, the Indian
Police Service subject to probation with reference to the minimum
All India Standard adopted in assessing the suitability of Provincia) SerVice Officers. The second list was to "cQD.tain names of
554
SUPRE~E COURT REPORTS
[1971]3 S.C.R ..
officers who though not up to the required standard immediately
A
showed sufficient promise to render it likely that they would attain
such standard, with further experience during a period not exceeding five years." Officers in List I were to be immediately appointed to the Indian· Police Service in the Stat,e cadre concenned subject to a probation. The scheme provided that-
~
"Officers in List ll will-~ontinue to hold their present
post but will not be absorbed in the Indian Police Service
immediately.
Their work will be watched during the
next five ye~rs and they will be absorbed in the All Lndia
Service as a result of periodical reviews as and when they
are found fit for the service. Those of them who are not
found fit .. within the period of five years will either be
reverted to posts outside th~ cadre of the Indian Police
Servi~e or retire as the State Government concerned
might think fit, unless they are also mcluded in List III."
B
c
The Order of the Inspector-General of Polioo dated December
D
1, 1954 was worded as follows :-
"1 am directed to inform you that, on having been
relieved by S. Ajaib Sirigh, Superintendent of Police.
you are reverted to your subStantive rank of Depucy
Superintendent of Police, with effect from to-day. You
may ptoeeed on leave from to-day after submitting formal
E
charge report."
By itself the order is unexceptionable- in that it merely directed
the appellant who was. serving in an officiating capacity to go
back to his substantive, post.
There is no stigma ca~t on him
and no adverse remark . agai~st his character or efficiency. If
it be a fact that he was reverted for administrative reasons he could - F
not complain except on the ground that. the inclusion of his name
in .List II gav¢ him a right to hold the post of the Superintendent
-of Police in an officiating capacity for five years. Apart from
the consideration of the rights based on the inclusion of his name
in the said list be could h~"-e no ~rievance about the retention of
Ram Singh, Daljit Singh and Harpal Singh in the cadre of offiG
ciating Superintendents of Pri1ice. He could only base his com·
plaint on the retentioo of Kanwar Sain who was .iunior to him
in the cadre in preference to himself.
Kanwar Sain, it appears
from the notes regarding the representation of the appellant with
regard to reversion made ,by the Inspector General ot _Police. could
not be reverted as he was at the material point of time on depuH
tation from Madhya Pradesh Government on particular terms /on
contract basis and it could not have been in the interest of Government to terminate his services earlier than the scheduled period
'·
A
B
c
D
GURDEV SINqH V. PUNJAB (Mitter, i.)
555
It is also of interest to 1110te that the reversion of the appellant
was ordered after matute consideration. A note prepared at the
office of the Inspector General· of ·Police which also bears the en~
dorsement of the Chief Secretary and the Chief Minister shows
that Ajaib Singh Gill who had completed 23 years and 7 months
of service was due back from leave on 1st December 1954 and he
had to be retained for another year and five months before he·
could be pensioned off. As there was no job of S.P . .lying vacant
in PEPSU at the moment it was suggested that the appellant who
was the "junior (most) D.S.P." officiating as S.P. should revert
and S. Ajaib Singh should be posted in his place.'
If 'the above note was a genuine document-and we have no
reason to bold that it was otherwise-it is quite clear that the appellant was not sought to be reverted because of any shortcoming but
because room had to be made for s. Ajaib Singh Gill and the axe
fell on the· appellant as he was considered to be the person at the
bottom of the list of officers officiating as Superintendent of Police.
It is trlJe that Kanwar Sain's name does noti occur in this note but
if Kanwar Sain was on deputation from Madhya Prade&h GovemJnent on a contract basis no exception can be taken to his having
been retained in preference to the appellant.
It appears that in dismissing the ap~ of the ~:tppellant to the
Higli Court. the learned Judges proceeded on the assumption
E
that the · India!i Police Service scheme was legally binding and its
provisions would have the same effect as the statutory rules and
regulations. We may proceed to dispose of the appeal on the
same assumption.
Th~ learned Judges of the High Court took
the view that the appellant's grievance even based on List II could
l}.Ot be upheld because he had been found unfit for retention in
List II. The High Court apparently came to take this view of the
F
strength of a document which was e~ibi~d as C-2. The letter
Ex. C-2 dated September 8, 1956 was addressed by the Deputy
Secretary to the Government of India to the Chief Secretary to the
Government of PEPSU. It purports to show that the Chief Secm--
tary's memorandum to the Governme.nt of India on August f3,
1956 containing the assessment of the State Govei'IliDCilt in respect
G
of the work of Siasat Singh Sekhon and Gurdev Singh Sindhu and·
the finding that these two officers were not fit to be recommended
for appointment to the Indian PoJice Service cadre in accordance
with the provisions contained in paragraph 4(ill) (b)-.ef the said
extensiola was accepted by the Government of India. As the letter of the·€bief Secretary dated 13th August 1956 was not pro.
H
ducied befqte the court we are not in a position to say wbeft the
ass~
(tf the work of the appellant in connection with· the re·
tention oftlia JUline in Lilt II was made, i.e., whether it was befqre
j lst December 1954 or subsequent thereto and in our view the
~918 Sup.C~J
556
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1971] 3 S.C.R.
High Court should not have relied on this document. Moreover
A
the ground for reverting the appellant . to the substantive post of
Deputy Superintendent of Police as borne out by the note prepared
in the office of the Inspector-General of Police and acceded to by
the Chief Minister made no reference to any such assessment. It
is also noteworthy that no such ground was put I forwat:d m (he
written statement where the only plea raised was founded OJl. adB
ministrative convenience.
-...__
Even thou~ we find ourselves unable to upholdo-Jll_e judgment
of t.he High Court based on the contents of Ex. C-2, we take the
view tl;lat the reversion was justified on administrative grounds arul __
there was no bar to such reversion by reason of the inclusion
C
CJl, tfte appellant's name in List II. The said list merely ensured
that the officers whose names were borne thereon would be watched for the space of five years and they might be absorbed in the
All India Service even within the said period as a result of .periodical reviews.
Although reversion on the ground of unfitness was
mentioned in the scheme the possibility of such reversion when
there was no available post in the cadre of Superintendents of
D
Police was not ruled out. As the officers in List II bad no right
to be observed in the Indian Police Service immediately the direction in the scheme. that' "officers placed in List II will continue
to hold their present post', merely meant that they would
not be made to go out of their posts except on justifiable gro~nds.
Holding a post in an officiating capacity as a Superintendent of
E
Police did not entitle the appellant to continue in that post even
if officers senior to him who were on leave or had been sent out
of the State on deputation were to come back to the State and
there was no room in the cadre- to absorb them all.
All that
paragraph 4(iii) (b) ensu~ed was ~hat if th,ey were found fit within five years they woul~ be absorbed i" the All India Service cadre.
F
If they were not found fit after the end of that period they could
be reverted to posts outside 'the cadre of the Indian Police Service
or made .to retire unless their names were a1so included ·in· ·List
III-a contingency which has not arisen in this case. In our view,
although the order of the High Court cann.qt be upheld on the
ground mentioned in the judgment, the order cannot be quashed
for reasons indicated by us.
The appeal is therefore dismissed,
G
bu.t~ in the circumstances of this case we make no order as to
coSts.
·
RK.P.S.
Appeal dismissed.