Case: The State Of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Saran

1. The State of Rajasthan is the appellant in this appeal which has been filed pursuant to a certificate of fitness granted by the High Court of Rajasthan under Art. 133(1)(c) of the Constitution and it challenges the correctness of a judgment of the High Court allowing a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution filed by the respondent.2. The respondent, Ram Saran, was appointed a Constable in 1947 in the Ajmer district police force. Two years thereafter he was promoted to the rank of Head Constable and was confirmed in that post. On June 29, 1956 he was appointed to officiate as a Sub-Inspector. At that stage the States Reorganisation Act (Central Act XXXVII of 1956), hereinafter referred to as the Act, was enacted which became operative from November 1, 1956 - referred to in the Act as the appointed date - and by virtue of its provisions the former State of Ajmer was merged in the State of Rajasthan and under its terms again the respondent was absorbed in the Police Service of the Rajasthan State. To give effect to this provision a formal order appointing the respondent as an officiating Sub-Inspector in the Rajasthan State police force was also passed dated the same day.3. Subsequent thereto, on April 6, 1957 the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ajmer Range ordered the reversion of the respondent to his substantive post of Head constable in the District Police Force. The respondent was dissatisfied with this order and his complaint was that it was not one passed in the normal course of posting since there were, on that date, officiating Sub Inspectors in the State police force who were junior to him but who continued to hold their officiating posts and that such a reversion to his substantive post was in effect an order of supersession. He made representation to the authorities to set the matter right. When he did not succeed in his efforts, he filed, on July 22, 1959, a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution for quashing the order of reversion dated April 6, 1957 and for a direction to restore him to the rank of officiating Sub Inspector according to his seniority. The State as well as the Inspector-General of Police and the Deputy Inspector-General of Police were impleaded as parties to the petition and the learned Judges of the High Court allowed it principally on the ground that this order of reversion was in violation of the provisions of S. 115 of the Act. It is the correctness of this order that is challenged in this appeal before us.

Reasoning:
The learned Judges, in their judgment have made a passing reference to this feature of the case and seem to express the opinion that the system of regionwise promotion was productive of inequality and hardship. The difficulty in the way of the respondent, however, is that the plea raised in regard to this matter is of the vaguest character and appears to be designed as affording some support for the main allegations and contentions we have dealt with and not as an independent and distinct ground for impugning the constitutional validity of the scheme of promotion. In consequence of this state of the pleadings the facts and details necessary for sustaining or repelling this contention were not brought into the record, so that admittedly the point could not be decided on the record as it stands. Realising this learned Counsel for the respondent urged that the matter should be remitted to the High Court for a consideration of this issue about the breach of Art. 14 of the Constitution and the constitutional validity of the regionwise seniority lists prepared for promotion, reversion etc. allowing liberty to the parties to lead further evidence on the matter. Having considered the suggestion carefully we have arrived at the conclusion that on the pleadings, as they stand, this question could not be determined satisfactorily. If the issue as to discrimination and a violation of Art. 14 has to be satisfactorily investigated and decided both the parties would have to file amended pleadings in order to focus attention on several details, with the result that this would virtually amount to the filing of a new petition. We consider therefore that if the respondent is so advised he should be at liberty to challenge the order now impugned on these other grounds and that for that purpose it would really be in his interest that he should be permitted to file a fresh petition making necessary allegations and setting forth the requisite facts when the State also would have an opportunity to make its answers to such a plea. It is in the light of this consideration that we have refrained from remanding the case to the High Court for the consideration of this point.