SANJAY PRAKASH Vs UNION OF INDIA

DATE OF JUDGEMENT	28 June, 2021
COURT	SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
APPELLANT	SANJAY PRAKASH
RESPONDENT	UNION OF INDIA

INTRODUCTION

“This case involves petitions for special leave to appeal (SLPs) arising from a common judgment delivered by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. The judgment concerns five writ petitions filed by Group A officers of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Border Security Force (BSF), and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), collectively known as the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).”

The High Court, in its judgment, disposed of the petitions by directing the Ministry of Home Affairs and the DoPT to review and possibly amend the existing RRs after considering representations from the CAPF members. The review was to be conducted promptly, with an aim to conclude the exercise by June 30, 2021.

FACTS

• “Group A officers of the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), Indo-Tibetan Border Police (ITBP), Border Security Force (BSF), and Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB), collectively known as the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs).”
• Five sets of officers belonging to the Indian Police Service (IPS) and the Central Indian Police Service Association.
• The writ petitions challenged the directions for filling additional posts created pursuant to the Cadre Review (CR) of 2016 in the CAPFs as per existing Recruitment Rules (RRs), which allow a certain percentage of posts at each level up to the Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) to be filled by deputation.
• The petitioners sought a mandamus to amend the RRs to provide that all posts up to SAG level be filled by promotion only, excluding deputation, and to treat each CAPF as an Organized Group ‘A’ Service (OGAS).

• The Delhi High Court permitted the members of each CAPF to make comprehensive representations to the Ministry of Home Affairs for amendments to the RRs.
• The Ministry of Home Affairs was directed to review the existing RRs of each CAPF and consider the representations from the members.
• The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) was directed to take necessary action based on the Ministry of Home Affairs’ review.
• The High Court also directed the timely commencement of the Cadre Review exercise due in 2021 and the incorporation of representations from CAPF members.

• The IPS officers sought impleadment in the petitions for special leave to appeal, apprehending that their deputation posts in the CAPFs might be diluted if the petitioners’ plea was accepted.
• The petitioners resisted the impleadment, arguing that the applicants (except Jitender Rana) were not posted in any CAPF as deputationists and had not been empaneled for central deputation.

ISSUE

1. Whether the IPS officers, who are seeking impleadment in the SLPs, have a legitimate interest in the outcome of the petitions, given that their concerns primarily involve the potential impact on deputation posts in the CAPFs?
2. Whether the current Recruitment Rules (RRs) for the CAPFs, which allow for filling certain senior posts through deputation, are legally sound or require amendment to ensure that all posts up to Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) are filled through promotion alone?
3. Whether the Delhi High Court’s directions for reviewing and amending the Recruitment Rules, including conducting a Cadre Review (CR) and considering representations from CAPF personnel, are appropriate and legally justified?
4. Whether accepting the petitioners’ plea, which seeks to limit deputation and enhance promotion opportunities within CAPFs, would unduly affect the career prospects of IPS officers?

CONTENTIONS OF APPLICANTS

1. “The Indian Police Service (IPS) is an All-India Service under Article 312 of the Constitution of India. As per the IPS (Cadre) Rules, 1954, every state has a central deputation reserve not exceeding 40% of the total senior duty posts. Deputation is integral to this constitutional scheme.”
2. Individual service rules of each of the five CAPFs provide for deputation in senior posts. The right of IPS officers to be deputed to senior posts in CAPFs flows from these provisions.
3. The petitioners aim to eliminate deputation in CAPFs by IPS officers, seeking to fill all Senior Administrative Grade (SAG) posts within the services from within CAPFs only. Such a change would significantly impact the career prospects of IPS officers who rely on deputation for their career advancement.
4. IPS officers have a direct and subsisting interest in the subject matter of the petitions and should be impleaded as necessary parties.
5. They rely on precedents like Prabodh Verma And Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., where it was held that those vitally affected by a judgment must be made parties to the proceedings.
6. They also reference A. Janardhana vs Union of India and Mukul Kumar Tyagi vs State of Uttar Pradesh, emphasizing the need to include those whose interests would be directly affected by the court’s decision.

CONTENTIONS OF PETITIONERS

• “The applicants (IPS officers) are not necessary or proper parties in this proceeding. The petitioners seek amendments to existing Rules and office memoranda that allow for a certain percentage of senior administrative grade posts to be filled by deputation. The relief is sought against the concerned arm of the Union Government over the framing of service rules.”
• If the petitioners’ plea is accepted, it would impact the right of IPS officers to hold senior positions in CAPFs on deputation. The petitioners are questioning the Government’s actions that allegedly clog promotional avenues for in-service CAPF officers.
• Acceptance of the petitioners’ plea would impair or eliminate the right of IPS officers to deputation, but this is a consequence of challenging the Government’s service rules, not individual IPS officers.
• Deputation provisions are specific to service rules of respective CAPFs and not general principles of deputation. References are made to various service rules (CISF, SSB, CRPF, ITBP, and BSF) which provide for recruitment by deputation to senior posts.

JUDGEMENT

1. “The Court found that Jitender Rana, an IPS officer on deputation in a CAPF, had a direct and subsisting interest in the matter. Despite not being on deputation to the specific Force related to the petitions, the commonality of the judgment warranted his impleadment. Other applicants also demonstrated sufficient interest in the outcome of the petitions and were allowed to intervene.”
2. The Association had not filed any application for impleadment or intervention before the High Court. Although the High Court did not formally allow their intervention, they were heard.
   • The Supreme Court recognized their right to be notified of the lodging of the SLPs under the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. However, filing a caveat did not entitle them to be treated as a party to the proceeding. The Association was granted leave to apply for impleadment before the appropriate Bench.
3. The five applications for intervention were disposed of accordingly. Necessary amendments and alterations of records were directed to be carried out based on the order. No order as to costs was made.

This decision underscores the Court’s consideration of the interest and direct involvement of parties in the proceedings, emphasizing the procedural aspects of intervention and impleadment in legal matters involving service rules and deputations.

ANALYSIS

The Court allowed some IPS officers to be impleaded, particularly those who were directly on deputation or had a direct interest in the outcome of the petitions. Specifically, Jitender Rana, an IPS officer on deputation, was permitted to be added as a respondent in relevant petitions.

Other applicants also demonstrated sufficient interest in the matter, justifying their intervention in the proceedings. The Court ruled that the Association’s caveat did not entitle it to participate as a party but granted them the right to apply for impleadment before the appropriate Bench.

The decision highlights the balance between individual rights and broader policy changes affecting government services. The Court found that certain IPS officers had a direct and subsisting interest in the outcome of the petitions, thus justifying their participation in the proceedings.

This case underscores the importance of considering the interests of those directly affected by changes in recruitment and deputation policies within public service frameworks.

CONCLUSION

“The Court directed that Jitender Rana, an IPS officer on deputation in a CAPF, be added as a respondent in the Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). His direct and subsisting interest in the subject matter justified his impleadment, even though the specific petitions did not relate to the Force in which he was on deputation. The Court allowed the intervention of other applicants who demonstrated sufficient interest in the outcome of the five SLPs, recognizing their stake in the promotional avenues within the CAPFs.”

The Court did not grant the Indian Police Service Central Association party status solely based on their caveat application. However, it permitted them to apply for impleadment before the appropriate Bench, acknowledging their right to participate in the proceedings concerning the present applications. The Court ordered necessary amendments and alterations to records based on this decision and stated that there would be no order as to costs.

In essence, the conclusion of this case reinforces the Court’s careful consideration of procedural fairness and the interests of all parties involved, particularly in matters affecting service rules and the deputation of officers in the CAPFs.

REFERENCES

1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186323331/

NAME: D. SUVARCHANA BAI

COLLEGE: DAMODARAM SANJIVAYYA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.