# PRABHAKAR & ORS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS

- **Citation:** [1976] 2 S.C.R. 315
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1976
- **Bench:** P. K. Goswami, N. L. Untwalla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/prabhakar-ors-v-state-of-maharashtra-ors-6805
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Bombay Police Officers (Combined Cadre) Conditions of Service Order, 1954Clause 7(1) (a)-Rule of fixation of seniority by taking the date of the com-1
mencement of training is constitutionally valid, not discriminatory and does not
offend Art. 14and;16 of the Constitution.
Appointments to the posts of sub-inspectors (either to the Distt. Policei Force
or the Police Force of Greater Bombay) in the State of Bombay, prior to 1st
of May 1939, were after a training of 18 months at the Police Training School
at Nasik. Between the period 1st May 1939 and 1st of June 1949, a new training school at Naigaum a part of Greater Bombay was started wherein the period
of training varied from 3 to 8 months and after the short training the cadets
were appointed straight away as Sub-Inspectors of Police in Greater Bombay.
Separate seniority lists were maintained for the Dist!. force and the city force.
The Nasik school continued to exist side by side with 18 months training. On
the general principle of fixation of seniority when the combined cadre service
order came into force w.e.f. 1-8-54 the two seniority lists were, maintained on
the basis of their passing out the training and in order of merit obtained at the
passing examination. After the formation, when transfers were to be made. a
difficulty arose in fixing the inter-Se seniority of the officers appointed after
fu!J 18 months training and one appointed after training for a shorter period
and to avoid anomaly and hardship a provision was made in clause 7 whereby
for the purpose of seniority (i) in the case of officers whose training com~
menced on any date from 1-5-39 to 1-6·1949, the date of commencement of
the training was taken. and
A
B
c
D
(ii) in other cases, the dote of successful completion of such a course
E
and inter-se the place occupied in the result~ of the examination held at the end
·of such a course was taken.
When the constitutionality of 'clause 7 (!)(a) was challenged, the High
<Court of Bombay declared Clause 7(1) (a) of the order void, being violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on three grounds :
(!) That the Government had reduced the period of training at N aigaum
School as against the resolution dated April 6, 1940 providing for
the establishment of a Training School at Naigaum.
,
(2) That according to the sai'd clause of the Order the commencement
of the training period of the Mofussil officer was to be taken for
determination of his seniority whereas in case of the· officer belonging to the Greater Bombay Police Force, the date of his appointment
was to be taken and in the opinfon of the High Court, this was
clearly discriminatory.
( 3) That in case of a cadet whose period of training had been ext-ended
on account of his failure at the examination the impugned clause
gave an advantage even to such a bad officer.
Dismissing the appeal appellant No. 3 and allowing the appeal of appellants
Nos. I and 2. the Court
F
G
HELD : (i) The High Court has committed an error in the interpretation
H
·of the provision contained in clause 7(1) (a) of the Bombay Police Officers
- '(Combined Cadre) Conditions of Service Order. On transfer of any police officer
'from Greater Bombay to the District and vice-versa, if his training had com~
A
n
c
D
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 2 S.C.R.
-
menced on any date between the period of !st May 1939 to 1st June 1949 then
his seniority was to be determined vis-a-vis the police officer of the force to
which he was transferred with reference to the dates on which their training
commenced. It is not that in one case. it will be the date of commencement
of the training and in the other it will be date of appointment. [319-C-D].
(ii) Ordinarily and generally method of fixation of seniority as provided
in sub-clause (b) of clause 7(1)(a) of the order was the correct and proper
method to be followed.
But because of the special situation of appointment
of some police officers during the period of 10 years on a shorter period of
train

## Text

I
315
PRABHAKAR & ORS.
v.
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
October 22, 197 5
[P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALLA, JJ.]
Bombay Police Officers (Combined Cadre) Conditions of Service Order, 1954Clause 7(1) (a)-Rule of fixation of seniority by taking the date of the com-1
mencement of training is constitutionally valid, not discriminatory and does not
offend Art. 14and;16 of the Constitution.
Appointments to the posts of sub-inspectors (either to the Distt. Policei Force
or the Police Force of Greater Bombay) in the State of Bombay, prior to 1st
of May 1939, were after a training of 18 months at the Police Training School
at Nasik. Between the period 1st May 1939 and 1st of June 1949, a new training school at Naigaum a part of Greater Bombay was started wherein the period
of training varied from 3 to 8 months and after the short training the cadets
were appointed straight away as Sub-Inspectors of Police in Greater Bombay.
Separate seniority lists were maintained for the Dist!. force and the city force.
The Nasik school continued to exist side by side with 18 months training. On
the general principle of fixation of seniority when the combined cadre service
order came into force w.e.f. 1-8-54 the two seniority lists were, maintained on
the basis of their passing out the training and in order of merit obtained at the
passing examination. After the formation, when transfers were to be made. a
difficulty arose in fixing the inter-Se seniority of the officers appointed after
fu!J 18 months training and one appointed after training for a shorter period
and to avoid anomaly and hardship a provision was made in clause 7 whereby
for the purpose of seniority (i) in the case of officers whose training com~
menced on any date from 1-5-39 to 1-6·1949, the date of commencement of
the training was taken. and
A
B
c
D
(ii) in other cases, the dote of successful completion of such a course
E
and inter-se the place occupied in the result~ of the examination held at the end
·of such a course was taken.
When the constitutionality of 'clause 7 (!)(a) was challenged, the High
<Court of Bombay declared Clause 7(1) (a) of the order void, being violative of
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on three grounds :
(!) That the Government had reduced the period of training at N aigaum
School as against the resolution dated April 6, 1940 providing for
the establishment of a Training School at Naigaum.
,
(2) That according to the sai'd clause of the Order the commencement
of the training period of the Mofussil officer was to be taken for
determination of his seniority whereas in case of the· officer belonging to the Greater Bombay Police Force, the date of his appointment
was to be taken and in the opinfon of the High Court, this was
clearly discriminatory.
( 3) That in case of a cadet whose period of training had been ext-ended
on account of his failure at the examination the impugned clause
gave an advantage even to such a bad officer.
Dismissing the appeal appellant No. 3 and allowing the appeal of appellants
Nos. I and 2. the Court
F
G
HELD : (i) The High Court has committed an error in the interpretation
H
·of the provision contained in clause 7(1) (a) of the Bombay Police Officers
- '(Combined Cadre) Conditions of Service Order. On transfer of any police officer
'from Greater Bombay to the District and vice-versa, if his training had com~
A
n
c
D
316
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1976] 2 S.C.R.
-
menced on any date between the period of !st May 1939 to 1st June 1949 then
his seniority was to be determined vis-a-vis the police officer of the force to
which he was transferred with reference to the dates on which their training
commenced. It is not that in one case. it will be the date of commencement
of the training and in the other it will be date of appointment. [319-C-D].
(ii) Ordinarily and generally method of fixation of seniority as provided
in sub-clause (b) of clause 7(1)(a) of the order was the correct and proper
method to be followed.
But because of the special situation of appointment
of some police officers during the period of 10 years on a shorter period of
training, a departure was made as provided in clause (a). There was nothing
wrong, illegal or unreasonable in making a provision in sub-clause (a) that in
such a situation the commencement of the period of training will be taken as
the date for the purposes of fixation of seniority. There was a reasonable nexus
between the object and the rule. [319-H, 320 A-B]
(iii) It was for the rule making authority to decide and to choose in such
a situation-either the date of commencement of the training or the date of
appointment. Taking the former date in the special circumstances is reasonable
and justified. Such a provision is not violative of Art. 14 and
16 of the
Constitution. [320 B-CJ
(iv) To hold clause 7(1) as ultra rires on the ground that it gives any
advantage even to such! a bad officer whose period of training had been extended
on account of his failure in the examination may be
theoretically
correct.
Clause 7(l)(a) was not meant to give any undue advantage to a non-deserving
police officer· who failed to pass the training examination at the proper time.
[320 C-Dl
( v) Clause 7 (1 )(a) of the order is constitutionally valid and not discriminatory. [320-E]
C1vrL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 721 of 1974.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order ,dated the
E
25th August 1972 of the Bombay High Court in Sp!. Civil Appln.
F
G
No. 1831 of 1968.
V. M. Tarkunde, Sharad Manohar, V. N. Ganpule and P. C. Kapoor
for the Appellant.
M. N. Shroff for Respondents 1-3.
K. K. Singhvi, R. K. Garg, E. C. Agarwal and V. J. Francis for
Respondent No. 4.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UNTWALIA, J.-The only point which falls for our determination
in this appeal by special leave is whether clause 7 ( 1) (a) of the Bombay Police Officers (Combined Cadre) Conditions of Service Order,
1954-hereinafter called the Order, made by the Government of Bombay in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Section 5 of
the Bombay Police Act, 1951 is constitutionally invalid being viOlative
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as bas been held
by the Bombay High Court in the Writ Petition filed by respondent
no. 4.
H
In the Province or the State of Bombay, there were two separate
police forces-the Mofussil police force governed by the Bombay District Police Act, 1890 and the City Police of Bombay governed by the
'
'
\
!
,-·
PRABHAKAR v. MAHARASHTRA (Untwalia, !.)
317
City of Bombay Police Act, 1902.
Some steps for inter-mixing and
inter-transfer of officers of on('. force to the other were taken by making some provisions in Bombay Act XVI of 1949 caHed the Police
Forces (Control and Direction) Act, 1949. The Bombay Police Act
of 1951 repealed the earlier Acts. Under the Order which came into
force on and from the 1st August, 1954, provision was made in clause
4 empowering the State Government whenever it thought fit to order
the transfer of any police officer belonging to the combined cadre from
Greater Bombay to any District and vice-versa: The combined cadre
was sought to be formed under clause 3 of the Order. Two separate
lists of the officers in accordance with their respective seniority were,
however, maintained even under clause 3 of the Order.
Previously
there was one Police Training School at Nasik where cadets for training were sent. The period of their training was 18 months. On passing
out the training the cadets were appointed to the posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police. Some were appointed to the District Police Force and
some were sent to the Poliee Force of Greater Bombay. In the year
1939 due to certain exigencies of administration such as introduction
of the scheme of Prohibition and the impending second World War
more Sub-Inspectors we1e needed to be appointed for Greater Bombay.
A new Training School was opened at Naigaum a part of Greater
Bombay. This new Training School remained in existence for about
a decade from the 1st of May, 1939-to 1st of June, 1949. The p~riod
of training was reduced from 18 months to a much shorter period
varying from 3 to 8 months. Thus cadets of particular batches after
completion of training for a shorter period were straightaway appointed as Sub-Inspectors of Police inl Greater Bombay.
This went on
for a period of about 10 ye~rs as already stated. On the other hand,
almost invariably, the training period at Nasik School remained of 18
months.
On the general principle of fixation of seniority, the two
senioritJ lists .which were maintained separately even under the Order,
were maintained on the basis of their passing out the training and in
order of merit obtained at the passing examination.
But since after
the formation of the combined cadre under the Order transfers were
to be made under clause 4, a difficulty was felt in the matter of fixation
~f seniority vis:a:vis the. officer who had been appointed after completion o~ ~11 trammg penod .and the one. who. had been appointed on
the tra~ng of a shorte~ penod. To avoid this anomaly and difficulty,
a prov1s10n was made m clause 7 of the Order thus :
"7. ( 1) When an officer who was in service immediately
before the formation of the Combined Cadre is transferred
under clause 4, his seniority among Police Officers of equivalent ranks in Greater Bombay or in the Districts, as the case
may be shall be determined in the case of an officer who was
appointed to a post either in Greater Bombay or in the Districts after a course of training at a Police Training School,-
(a) if the training commenced on any date between the
period from 1st May 1939 to 1st June 1949 (both inclusive)
with reference to the date on which training commenced;
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
318
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1976] 2 S.C.R.
A
( b) in other cases, with reference to successful completion of such a course arid intoc se the place occupied in the
results of the examination held at the end of such a course."
Respondent No. 4 was a Police Officer appointed in the year 1948
after a short training period at Naigaum School. He challenged by a
writ application the vires of the entire Order on certain grounds. He
B
prayed for a direction to respondents 1 to 3 for not giving affect to
the Order and for re-fixation of seniority. There was some dispute as
to the seniority of a police officer appointed in a regular manner and
the one appointed to the police force from the Excise Departme.nt.
The High Court allowed the writ application in part, declared clause
7 ( 1 )(a) of the Order as constitutionally invalid and also directed the
adjustment of places of seniori.ty as between the police officers who
C
came by regular appointments and those who came from the Excise
Department. Some officers of the Department were impleaded as respondents in the writ application in their respective capacity. The two
such officers made parties in the writ application were respondents 4
and 5 of the Mofussil Police Force.
Respondents 6 and 7 therein
were police officers who had come from the Excise Department. Appellants 1 and 2 in the present appeal are two other police officers of
D
the Mofussil Police Force and appellant No. 3 is a Police Officer who
came from the Excise Department. He was respondent 6 in the writ
application.
The order of the High Court made against
appellant
No. 3 could not be assailed before us. Appellant No. 3, is not, therefore, entitled to any relief in this appeal.
So far the case of appellants 1 and 2 is concerned, it must be
E
noted that the High Court has declared clause 7(1)(a) of the Order
void being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution on
three grounds :
F
G
JI
( 1) That the Government had reduced the period of training at Naigaum School as
against the
resolution
dated April 6, 1940 providing for the establishment
of a Training School at Naigaum.
(2) That according to the said clause of the Order the
commencement of the training period of the Mofussil
officer was to be taken for determination of his seniority whereas in case of the officer belonging to the
Greater Bombay Police Force, the date of his appointment was to be taken and in the opinion of the
High Cour.t, this was clearly discriminatory.
(3) That in case of a cadet whose period of training had
been extended on account of his failure at the examination the impugned clause gave an advantage even
to such a bad officer.
In our opinion, none of the grounds forming the basis of the judgment of the High Court is sustainable. The attack on Rule 7(1) (a)
was not specifically made in the writ application as originally presented
\
I
..
"
,-·
,
I
PRABHAKAR v. MAHARASHTRA (Untwalia, J.)
319
by respondent No. 4. He laid the fo~ation for the attack in his
re-joinder application. A counter-affidavit the~eafter was filed by the
State stating the facts which led to ~~ frammg of cla~se 7p) (a).
Respondent No. 4 filed a further re1omder. It was np~ . d1sput~,
rather admitted on all hands that at Naigaum School the trammg penod
was n'.iuch shorter than the period of 18 months· which contil1;ued at
Nasik. If during the period of 10 years cadets on the ~asis of a
shorter period of training were appointed to the Bombay ~olice Force
without any specific order of the Govemm~n~ (althou~ 1t ~ust not
be the case) it might have affected the validity of their appomtment
but not the fact that they had been so appointed on a shorter period of
training .
The High Court has committed an error in the interpretation of
the provision contained in clause 7 (1) (a) of the Order.
On transfer
of any police officer from Greater Bombay to the District and vice
versa, if his training had commenced on any date between the period
of 1st May, 1939 to 1st June, 1949, then his seniority was to be determined vis-a-vis the police 0:fficer of the force to which he was transferred with reference to the dates on which their training commenced.
It is not that in one case it will be the date of commencement of the
training and in the other it will be the date of appointment, as seems
to have been wrongly thought by the High Court. To explain, we may
take an example.
Srtppose a Sub-Inspector A whose training had
menced-say on 1st April, 1947 resulting in his appointment on 1st
on 1st November, 1947 was transferred to the Mofussil where, let us
suppose again, a police officer B was there whose training had commenced-say on let April, 1947 resulting in his appoinment on 1st
October, 1948, then in such a case B will be senior to A beeause his
training commenced earlier even though he was appointed later. But
if there be: an officer, suppose C, in the Mofussil whose training commenced--say on 1st April, 194 7 resulting in his appointment on 1st
December, 1948 then he cannot be senior to A by taking 1st June,
194 7 as the date of commencement of his training and comparing with
1st November, 1947 the date of appointment of A. This interpretation
of the rule which we have put was accepted to be the correct interpretation on all hands including the Government.
Learned counsel
f?r respondent No. 4, however, submitted that the impugned seniority
l~st had not been prepared by the Government on such an interpretation of clause 7 (1 )(a) , but the list prepared is on the basis of the
interpretation given by the High Court.
On behalf of the State we
were informed that it was not so.
We have no doubt in our mind
tha.t e".en if there be any mistake or di~crepancy in the seniority list
which 1s found to be not in confmmity with the interpretation put by
us to clause7(1)(a), then that mistake or discrepancy will have to be
removed sooner than later and the seni0rity list wi11 be set at right
accordingly.
·
A
B
c
u
E
F
G
\)rdin'.11'ilY and generally the method of fixation of seniority as
H
provided m sub-clause (b) of clause 7 ( 1) (a) of the Order was the
C?ITeJ?t and prop~r method to be followed. But because of the special
situation of appomtment of some police officers during the period of
320
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
L19.76] 2 S.C.R.
A
10 years on a shorter period of training a departure was made as pre>--
vided in sub-clause (a) . A cadet who received his full trainting for
18 months at Nasik for no fault of his was appointed later than a
cadet who started training later at Naigaum but was appointed earlier
than the former.
There was nothing wrong, illegal or unreasonable in
making a provision iill sub-clause (a) that in such a siWa~on the
commencement of the period of training will be taken as the date for
B
the purposes of fixation of seniority.
There was a reasonable and
rational nexus between the object a~d the rule. It was for the rule
making authority to decide and to choose in such a situation-either
the date of commencement of the training or the date of appointment.
Taking the former date in the special circumstances seems to be reasonab~e and justified. Such a provision cannot be said to be violative
c
D
E
of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
The third ground for declaring clause 7(1)(a) ultra vires given
by the High Court theoretically was correct but materials were placed
before us from the various affidavit~ to show that hardly there was
such a case which had got the
advantage of t!he
clause even after
failure in the examination.
There was one such case of hardship
of not passing out the examination in time due to reasons beyond the
control of the cadet. Clause 7(1) (a), in our opinion, was not meant
to give any undue advantage to a non-deserving police
o~ who
failed to pass the trainiQg examination at the proper time. No specific
instanee was brought to our notice where such advantage had been
accorded.
For the reasons stated above, the appeal of appeHants 1 and 2 is
allowed and that of appellant No. 3 is dismissed. It is held that clause
7(1) (a)
of the order is constitutionally valid and not discriminatory.
The directions given to respondents 1 and 3 to set right the seniority
list by the High Court on the basis of the alleged invalidity of clause
7(1)(a) of the order is set aside. In the circumstances. we sha11 make
no order as to costs.
S. R.
Appeal allowed in part.
\