Judgment:
Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J.
1. The sixth respondent in the Original Application No. 44/AN/2006 filed by one Shri Mohan Rao and four others (the sixth to tenth respondents in the present case) took out this writ petition feeling aggrieved by the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench, Circuit at Port Blair dated May 25, 2007. By the order the tribunal allowed the original application and set aside the ad hoc promotion given to the petitioner to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector.
2. By an order dated October 31, 2005 the Inspector General of Police, A & N Islands promoted the petitioner to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector on ad hoc basis with immediate effect. That order was partially modified by an order dated November 2, 2005 saying that the promotion given to the petitioner would be subject to his qualifying and being confirmed as Head Constable, since he had not undergone the lower school course to make him eligible for the promotional rank. He was directed to undergo the lower school course as early as possible. At those dates (October 31, 2005 and November 2, 2005) the petitioner and the five persons who took out the original application were all in the rank of Head Constable. It is to be noted that their promotions to the rank of Head Constable were yet to be confirmed. Questioning the ad hoc promotion given to the petitioner the sixth to tenth respondents took out the original application contending that without considering their cases, the Inspector General should not have given any promotion to the petitioner who was admittedly junior to them in respect of seniority in the rank of Head Constable. By the impugned order the tribunal held that the Inspector General acted arbitrarily and improperly.
3. Counsel for the petitioner argues that since the petitioner possessed certain qualifications indicating his outstanding performance and achievement as Head Constable working in the force, the Inspector General was competent to give him ad hoc promotion in exercise of power conferred on him by the provisions of the Andaman & Nicobar Police Manual, 1963, Rule 5.4(c), which is:
(c). (added vide C.S. No. 34) The date of admission to lists B to F shall not be material, but the order of merit in which examinations have been passed at the Police Training Institute shall be taken into consideration for comparing qualifications. In cases where other qualifications are equal, seniority in the Police Force shall be the deciding factor for granting promotion. Exception may, however, be made, by the Inspector General of Police, in the case of officers who have displayed any outstanding work of merit in any field.
4. By filing a reply before the tribunal the authorities supported the original application. Their case made out in the reply was that after considering the outstanding work of merit of the petitioner in the field of martial arts the Inspector General gave him ad hoc promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, and that the promotion was given in exercise of power conferred on the Inspector General by the provisions in Rule 5.4.(c).
5. We find that the tribunal was absolutely justified in interfering with the order of promotion. In view of the provisions in Rule 5.1 of the manual promotions from one rank to another and from one grade to another in the same rank are to be given by selection tempered by seniority, and efficiency, honesty and general conduct shall be the main factors governing selection. It has been provided in Rule 5.2 that promotions to the ranks of upper subordinates, whether officiating or probationary, shall be made by the Inspector General of Police on the recommendations submitted by the Superintendent of Police, and that promotions whether officiating or probationary, upto and including the rank of Head Constable shall be made directly by the Superintendent of Police. The provisions in Rule 5.3 say that orders regarding confirmation or reversion of the enrolled police officers promoted under Rule 5.2 shall be passed by the authority empowered to make the promotions. For promotions a detailed procedure has been laid down in the rules contained in Chapter 5 of the manual. In Rule 5.4(b) it has been provided that no person who has not passed the course of training at a Police Training College prescribed for Head Constables shall be eligible for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector provided that the, restriction may be waived by the Inspector General of Police for any special reason. All these provisions were just ignored without any reason while promoting the petitioner.
6. There is absolutely nothing to show that because of certain contingencies an occasion arose for filling an existing vacancy for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector by giving an ad hoc promotion. There is nothing to show either that while considering the case of the petitioner for giving an ad hoc promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, the Inspector General considered the cases of the sixth to tenth respondents who were admittedly senior to the petitioner. It is important to note that at the date the Inspector General decided to promote the petitioner in exercise of his powers available under Rule 5.4(c) the petitioner was not even holding the post of Head Constable as a confirmed police officer. There is nothing to show that he was holding the post substantively or that he was deemed to be confirmed. It is not known how he was promoted, though on ad hoc basis, when he was yet to attain a substantive status in the rank of Head Constable.
7. In our view, while considering the question of giving an ad hoc promotion the Inspector General was required to follow a fair procedure, if no procedure was laid down by any rules or by any administrative or executive instructions. Nothing has been produced before us to show that for the purpose of giving an ad hoc promotion any particular procedure was to be followed. We do not see how the Inspector General could pick out and apply only the exception making power mentioned in the provisions of Rule 5.4(c). That can be applied only at the time of considering the eligible candidates for promotion on regular basis. It has only a limited application, for tempering the seniority factor. In our view, the Inspector General wrongfully exercised the power for giving a wrongful benefit to the petitioner. Hence we hold that the tribunal was fully justified in Interfering with the order of promotion.
8. Before we part with the case we put it an record that we have not expressed any opinion on the question whether the petitioner's performance and achievements should be considered while considering him for promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector on regular basis. We also say that any observation made by the tribunal that the authorities should strictly follow the principle of seniority shall not be interpreted and used by the authorities as the basis for following any procedure not prescribed by the provisions in Chapter 5 of the manual or by any other law. If the relevant provisions of law prescribe a particular procedure for giving regular promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector, we make it clear that that procedure shall be followed, and that if the petitioner is entitled to get any benefit for his outstanding performance and achievements, the competent authority will be free to give that benefit in accordance with law.
9. For the foregoing reasons we hold that there is no merit in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order for costs in it.
Ugent certified xerox copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties upon compliance with all formalities.