MOHAMMED FAIZAL K.A. versus D. SALI AND ORS.
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 232, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
A 
B 
(2017] 14 S.C.R. 232 
MOHAMMED FAIZAL K.A. 
v. 
D. SALi AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10262-10263of2017) 
OCTOBER 04, 2017 
[DIPAK MISRA, CJI AND A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) 
Service Law - Promotion - Seniority - Respondent no. l filed 
writ petition challenging his non-inclusion in the select list/or 
C promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police for the 
years 2000 and 2001 - High Court allowed the inclusion of 
respondent in select list for the year 2001 vide order dated 8'h April, 
2010 - Pursuant thereto, concerned authorities not only gave 
respondent no. l notional promotion to the post of Deputy 
Superintendent of Police (non-JPS) w.ef 19'h March, 2001,but also, 
D later on considered him for' JPS cadre in 2010 - Appellant filed 
separate writ appeals challenging an earlier order dated 23"(.;fune, 
2004 of High Court (wherein the State authorities were directed to 
consider the case of respondent no. l for inclusion in select list) 
and also said order dated 8'h April, 2010 - Both writ appeals 
E dismissed by the Division Bench of High Court - Contention of 
appellant that the decision to promr>te respondent No.1 against the 
vacancy in 2001 was illegal - Held: There is no infirmity in the 
judgment dated 23rd June, 2004, as it gave benign direction to the 
State authorities to consider the case of the respondent no. l in 
accordance with law and nothing more - Thereafter, competent 
F 
authorities, rightly, while considering the fact that respondent no.
l 
was awarded major punishment and which was still operating during 
check period, rejected his inclusion in select list for vacancies of 
2001, however, decided to include him in the select list for the year 
2003 vide order dated 20'" November 2004 - However, High Court 
G had wrongly quashed the order dated 20'h November 2004 and 
directed inclusion of respondent in the select list for the year 2001 
vide its judgment dated 8'" April, 2010, which upgraded respondent 
no. l and made appellant junior to him - Appellant justified in 
challenging the impugned decision dated 8'h April 2010 as it directly 
affected his seniority - Therefore, order dated 20'" November 2004 
H 
232
MOHAMMED FAIZAL K.A. v. D. SALi AND ORS. 
233 
passed by the Government, revived and restored and all subsequent A 
consequential orders/notifications issued in relation io the subject 
matter concerning the promotion and seniority of respondent no. I 
stand effaced as non-est - Authorities directed to re-visit the case of 
respondent No. I to allot him date of promotion and seniority to the 
post of Dep11ty Superintendent of Police w.ej J4'h January, 2005 
B 
and thereafter to re-allocate fresh notional date of promotion to the 
next higher posts. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. In the present case, it is indisputable that the 
punishment awarded to respondent No.1, vide order dated 5th c 
November, 1997, is to withhold increments for two years with 
cumulative effect. That obviously was to operate beyond two 
years from 1997. As mentioned in the counter affidavit filed by 
the Additional Secretary of the State before the High Court that 
aspect was duly considered by the Departmental Promotion 
Committee (DPC) and the· Competent Authority whilst passing D 
the order dated 20th November, 2004. It is for that reason, the 
DPC examined the case of respondent No.1 and decided to 
include him in the select list only for year 2003 as per Notification 
dated 28'h October, 2004. [Para 20) [253-A-C] 
2. The said order dated 20th November, 2004, was assailed 
by respondent No.1 by way of Writ Petition. The High Court did 
not examine crucial aspects though specifically
raised by the 
Department to oppose the writ petition. The Court instead was 
swayed away by the fact that consideration of punishment awarded 
in 1997 to respondent No.1, would be against the spirit of the 
earlier decision dated 23rd June, 2004 of the High Court and 
was impermissible. Having so held, the Single Judge proceeded 
to issue direction to the Competent Authorities on which the 
Competent Authorities acted upon without any demur. [Para 21) 
'[253-C-E) 
3. The fact that the Competent Authorities were ill-advised 
not to challenge such untenable direction of the Single Judge, 
would not preclude the aggrieved person from challenging the 
same. The consequence of allowing the second impugned decision 
E 
F 
G 
of the Single Judge (dated 8'h April, 2010) to remain in the field 
entailed in allocation of notional date of promotion and seniority H
234 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 14 S.C.R. 
.•A to respondent No.1as19th March, 2001. As, the seniority position 
of respondent No.1 was re-assigned on that basis; it directly 
affected the appellant who was already promoted to the post of 
Deputy Superintendent of Police in earlier point of time on 13th 
September, 2002. If the notional date of promotion allocated to 
B respondent No.1 as 14th January, 2005 in terms of the order dated 
201h November, 2004, was to remain in force, respondent No.1 
would remain junior to the appellant at serial No.285 as against 
the seniority position of appellant at serial No.208 as ·per the 
provisional seniority list published in 2012. The respondent No.1 
was upgraded in the Seniority List in terms of government orders 
C dated 27th June, 2012 and dated 7'h January, 2~13 respectively. 
As a consequence of these orders, the appellant was shown as 
junior to respondent No.1 .in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent 
of Police and Superintendent of Police (non-IPS), respectively. 
[Para 22] (253-F-H; 254-A-C] 
D 
4. The appellant was justified in challenging the impugned 
decision of the Single-Judge dated 81h April, 2010 by way ofsubject 
writ appeals, because of the consequential orders passed by the 
Competent Authorities allocating notional date of promotion and 
assignment of seniority to respondent No.1. The orders passed 
E by the Competent Authorities are the product of direction given 
by the Single Judge. That will have to be
effaced as non-est 
consequent to setting aside of the untenable decision of the Single 
Judge dated 8th April, 2010. [Para 23) (254-C-E) 
5. The fact that the subsequent decisions of the Competent 
Authorities .have not been specifically challenged by way of 
F substantive proceedings· by the appellant, would not come in the· 
way of the appellant having· succeeded in getting the order dated 
201h November, 2004 issued under the signature of Additional 
Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary _to Government of Kerala, 
revive!J .and restored. The authorities may have to re-visit the 
G . case of respondent No.1 to allot him date of promotion in terms 
H 
··or order dated 2o•h November, 2004 and restore his seniority 
position in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police as 14'h 
January, 2005 and correspondingly re-allocate the notional date 
of promotion for the next promotion to the post of Superintendent 
of Police (Non-IPS/IPS Cadres) respectively, if respondent No.1
MOHAMMED FAIZAL K.A. v. D. SALI AND ORS. 
235 
has completed the qualifying service period for being considered A 
for promotion thereto. Merell 'because other officers similarly 
placed as appellant have not questioned the impugned decision, 
will also_ be no impediment in reviving and restoring the 
government order dated 2o•h November, 2014 - as no prejudice 
will be caused to them in_ so directing. (Para 24) (254-E-H; 255-A] 
B 
6. A priori, these appeals must succeed. The impugned 
common judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High 
Court of Kerala dated 31•1 January, 2014 in Writ Appeals and the 
judgment and order of the Single Judge dated 81h April, 2019 in 
_ Writ Petition are set aside. As regards the.impugned order dated 
23n1 June, 2004, it gives a benign direction to the State Authorities C . 
to consider the case of respondent No.l in accordance with law 
and nothing more. As a result, the order issued by the Additional 
Chief Secretary, Government of Kerala, Home (A) Department, 
dated 20th November, 2004 is revived and restrired and all 
subsequent consequential orders/notificatiOns issued in, relation D 
. to the subject matter concerning the promotion and seniority of 
respondent No.1 will stand effaced as non-est. As a consequence; · 
the concerned authorities must re-visit the case of respondent 
· No.1 and allot him the date of promotion and seniority to the post 
of Deputy Superinten<Jent of,Poli~e w.e.t l41h January, 2005 and 
thereafter to
re-alfocate fresh notional· date of promotion to the 
E 
next higher selectim(iposts, namely, Superintendent of Police 
(Non-IP_S & IPS), as· the case may be, if and upon respondent 
No.1 fulfilling the eligibility and qualifying service period therefor. 
(Para 27] (255-D-G] 
Union of India and Ors. v. K. V. Jankiraman and Ors. 
(1991) 4 SCC 109 : (1991) 3 SCR 790 - relied on. 
State of Uttaranchal and Anr. v. Madan Mohqn Joshi 
·and Ors. (2008) 6 SCC 797 : (2008] 8 SCR 591; KM 
Rashmi Mishra v. MP. Public Service Commission and 
Ors: (2006) 12 SCC-724: (2006) 7 Suppl. SCR 708 ; 
Suresh v. Yeotmal District Central Cooperative BanK 
·Limited and Anr. (2008) 12 sec 558 : (2008) 3 
SCR 1023 ; State of T.N v. Thiru K.S. Murugesan and 
"Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 273 : (1995) 2 SCR 386 ; L. Rajaiah 
· v. Inspector General of Registration & Stamps, 
F 
G 
H 
' ,, 
'
236 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
Hyderabad and Ors. (1996) 8 SCC 246: [1996] 2 SCR 
136; Collector of Thanjavur Disitt. and Ors. v. 
S. Rajagopalan and Ors. (2000) 9 SCC 145 ; Union of 
India and Ors. v. Vipin Chandra Hirata! Shah. 
· (1996) 6 sec 121: (1996] 7 Suppl. scR 750 -
referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[2008] 8 SCR 591 
referred to 
Para 15 
(2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 708 
referred to 
Para 15 
[2008] 3 SCR 1023 
referred to 
Para 15 
[1991] 3 SCR 790 
relied on 
Para 18 
[1995] 2 SCR 386 
referred to 
Para 19 
(1996] 2 SCR 136 
referred to 
Para 19 
c2000) 9 sec 145 
referred to 
Para 19 
(1996) 7 Suppl. SCR 750 
referred to 
Para25 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. I 0262-
10263 of2017. 
E 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.01.2014 of the High Court 
of Kerala at Ernakulam in W. A. Nos. 953 & I 019 of 2013. 
Jaideep Gupta, Sr. Adv., G. Prakash, Jishnu M. L., Mrs. Priyanka 
Prakash, Mrs. Beena Prakash, Advs. for the Appellant. 
Dileep Pillai, Ajay K. Jain, Atul Shankar Vinod, M. P. Vinod, 
F 
C. K. Sasi, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
A. M. KHANWILKAR, J. I. These appeals emanate from the 
common judgment and order dated 31" January, 2014 passed by the 
G High Court ofKerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal Nos.953 of2013 and 
I 019of2013 filed by the appellant. Writ Appeal No.953 of 2013 was 
filed against the judgment and order dated 23'd June, 2004 passed by the 
learned Single Judge in OP
No.35398 of 2002, whereas Writ Appeal 
No. I 019 of 2013 was filed against the judgment and order dated 81h 
April, 20 I 0 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition ( C) No. 7801 
H of2005.
MOHAMMED FAIZAL K.A. v. D. SALi AND ORS. 
237 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
2. The former writ petition (No.35398/2002) was filed by A 
respondent No. l challenging the government order dated 4'h October,. 
2002, bearing No. GO. (Rt) No.1972/2002/Home Thiruvananthapuram, 
issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary to Government of 
Kerala, Home (A) Department. The said order was passed in compliance 
of the direction given by the High Court in the earlier writ petition filed 
B 
by respondent No.l being OP No.6684 of 2001, challenging his non-
inclusion in the select list for promotion to the post of Deputy 
Superintendent of Police for the years 2000 and 200 l prep~n:d, by the 
Departmental Promotion Committee (Higher) (for short, 'DPC), in its 
meeting dated 12th February, 2001 and 7th May, 2001. The High Court 
vide its judgment dat~d 13th March, 2002 had directed the Competent 
C 
Authority to consider the representation of respondent No. l and pass 
appropriate order in accordance with law. Accordingly, the government 
order impugned in OPNo.35398/2002 was passed on 4th October, 2002, 
which reads thus:-
''ANNEXURE P-3 
D 
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA 
Abstract 
Police Department-Establishnienl OP N0.668412001 filed by 
Shri D. Safi Circle Inspector of Police -.Judgment-
. Implementation orders issued. 
· 
E 
HOME (A) DEPARTMENT 
G 0. (Rt) No.197212002/Home 
Dated Thiruvananthapuram 
04.10.2002 
Read: 1 Judgment dated 13.03.2002 in OP No.668412001 
filed by Shri D. Safi
Circle Inspector of Police. 
2. Representation dated 06.04.2002from Shri D. Sali 
Circle Inspector of Police addressed to the Convener 
F 
Departmental Promotion Committee (Higher) 
G 
ORDER 
. 
. 
. . 
. 
The Hon 'b/e High Court I the judgment read as i'" paper 
above has ordered as follows: 
H
238 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 1-4 S.C.R. 
"The petitioner has not an efficacious remedy of filing a 
representation before the Convener of Departmental 
Promotion Committee against his supersession under Rule 
28(b)(i) (8) (a) of the General Rules of the KS & SSR. If the 
petitioner files a representation before the Convener of the 
Departmental Promotion Committee, the second respondent 
herein, within one month from today, the said respondent 
shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders thereon 
threating that the same has been passed within the prescribed 
time limit. The second respondent shall pass orders as 
directed above within three months from the date of receipt 
of a copy of this judgment" 
In obedience to the above judgment, the representation from 
Shri D. Sali Circle Inspector of Police read as 2"d pap.er 
above was placed before an Ad-hoc Departmental Promotion 
• Committee (Higher) on 30.04.02 for consideration. The 
committee considered the case in detail with relevant records. 
By virtue of seniority in the cadre of CI of police Shri D_, _ 
Sali CI of Police was co~sidered for inclusion I the Sf!/ect 
list of Cis of Police fit for pro.motion- as Deputy Supdt of 
folice for the year 2001 (both main and supplementary). 
He was .superseded from the above select lists in view of the 
· following: 
(i) 
Punishments of.increment for 2 years with cumulative 
effect vide PHQ Order No. G5/73089/93 dated 06.11.97 
(ii) Two
vigilance enquiries pending 
(iii) An oral Enquiry pending 
The oral Enquiry has ended up in his exoneration vide Gil · 
95453199 dated 20.05.2001. The Departmental Promotion 
Committee (Higher) which met on 09.04.2002 considered his 
case and decided to include him in the select list of Cis of 
Police fit for promotion as Deputy Supdt of Police for the 
year 2002 conditionally subject to exoneration in the 2 
vigilance enquiries pending. One of the above vigilance 
enquiries has ended in his exoneration. But the vigilance 
enquiry of a/legation of acceptance of bribe and assessment 
of wealth is still pending.
-< 
MOHAMMED F AIZAL KA. v. D. SALI AND ORS. 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, l] 
239 
The select list prepared by the Departmental Promotion 
A 
Committee (Higher which met on 12.02.2001 a-nd 
07.05.2001 were/or filling up the vacancies in 2001. As per. -
Rule 28(b) (i) (4) of KS & SSr the select list have tp. be 
prepared during ihe Calendar year for the vacancies 
anticipated in the next Calendar y~ar. - Hence the 
B 
Departmental Promotion Committee (Higher) ought to have 
been convened in 2000. Hence the check period yn<f er ' 
consideration is 1997, 1998 and 1999. Hence/or assessing 
the suitability of an Officer the punishment/disciplinary 
action, vigilance caseslen_9uities and ACR for the above 
period are taken into consideration. Since, D. Safi CI of C 
Police was awarded punishment of increment bar for 2 years 
. -with cumulative e// ect during the check period, the 
committee found that the request of Shri D. Sali CI of Police 
deserves no consideration. 
The request is hereby rejected. 
By order of the convener 
N. Ramakrishnan 
Principal Secretary to Govt. " 
D ,., 
(emphasis supplied) 
E 
3. The State ofKerala resisted the said writ petition {No. 35398/ 
2002) and justified the Government order dated 4th October, 2002. 
However, the_ arguments put-forth by the State did not find favour with 
the learned Single Judge who by his judgment dated 23rd June, 2004 held . 
that the punishment awarded to respondent No.1 in the year 1997 of 
stoppage of two increments, could-not
form the -basis for considering 
F 
respondent No. l for promotion in the year 200 l. For, the relevant years 
. for considering the entitlement for promotion to be made in the year 
2001 would be 1998, 1999, and 2000. Accordingly, the learned Single 
Judge was pleased to quash the Government order dated 4•h October, 
2002 and allowed the writ petition in the following terms:-
G 
"6, In the above vie~ of the matter, Ext. P3 order is /iabfo to 
be quashed. I do so. Thfire shall be a directio_n to the third 
·respondent to convene an ad hoc D.P.C. for the purpose of 
considering the case of the petitioner for the x..ear 2001. · 
H
240 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
The merit of the petitioner vis-a-vis others who were eligible 
to be considered for the year 2001 shall be assessed on the 
basis of the confidential records of the petitioner for the years 
1998, 1999 and 2000 and any other relevant material 
pertaining to the select list/or 2001. If the petitioner is found 
entitled/or inclusion on the basis of such assessment of merit 
his name shall be included in the select list for the year 2001 
in the appropriate place among officers who were included 
in the year 2001. This shall be done within four months 
from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. lf the 
petitioner finds a place in the select list for 2001 his claim 
for promotion on that basis shall be considered in accordance 
with law. 
Original Petition is disposed of a<;cordingly. " 
(emphasis supplied) 
D 
3. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction issued by the High Court, 
E 
th1: case of respondent No. I was re-examined by the Department. After 
considering all aspects of the matter, the Depai1ment issued order dated 
201h November, 2004, bearing GO. (Rt) No. 2527/04/Home, under the 
signature of Additional Chief Secretary and Principal Secretary to 
Government, Home (A) Department, which reads thus:-
"ANNEXURE P-6 
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA 
Abrstract 
Home Department - Establishment OP No.35398102 filed 
F 
by Shri D. Sali, Circle Inspector of Police-Judgment 
implementation Orders issued. 
G 
H 
HOME (A)
DEPARTMENT 
GO. (Rt) No 2527104/Home 
20.11.2004 
dated Thiruvananthapuram, 
Read: 1) 
Judgment dated 23.06.2004 in O.P. 
No.35398102
MOHAMMED FAIZAL K.A. v. D. SALi AND ORS. 
241 
[A. M: KHANWILKAR, J.] 
2) Represf!ntation dated 24.07.200Jsubmit(ed,by Shri D. 
A 
Safi 
ORDER 
Shri D. Safi, Circle Inspector of Police was superseded from 
the select list of Circle Inspector fit for promotion as Dy.Sps 
for the year 2000 and 2001 (i.e. for the vacancies in 2000 B 
& 2001) by the Departmental Promotion Committee (Higher) , 
held on 12.07.2001 in view of the penalty for Increment Bar 
for 2 years with cumulative effect awarded to him vide PHQ 
Order No.GS/73080193 dated05.11.97 and a Vigilance Case, 
Vigilance Enquiry and an Oral Enquiry pending against him C 
during the check period. He was subsequently included in 
the s~lect lists for the years 2002 & 2003 conditionally 
subject to exoneration in the 2. Vigilance Enquiry and an 
non Oral Enquiry pending against him. Though lie was 
. awarded a penalty of Increment Bar of 3 months without D 
cumulative effect on 02.07.2001 considering the nature and.· 
gravity of the charges against him the cornmittee included 
him in the select list conditionally. One of the Vi,gilance_ 
· Enquiries has been dropped by Government. But he· was not 
cleared the promotion since a Vigilance Tribunal enquiry 
has been ordered against him vide GO(MS) No.4104/Vig dated -:E 
25.02.04 based on the other Vigilance Enquiry. 
2. Based on the directions contained in. the judgment dated 
13.03.2002 in OP No.6684101 filed by him the ad"hoc 
Departmental Pr01noiion Committee (Higher) filed
on 
30.04.02 examined his case and rejected h~s request for 
F 
, inclusion in the select list. A r~ply in the matter was given to 
him vide GO /Rt) No. 1972/Home dated 01.10.02. 
3. In the judgment dated 23.06.04 in OP No.35398/02filed 
by him the Hon 'ble High Court have quashgd the above 
. .,, 
Government order rejecting~his request for inCtusion in the· G 
select list and directed the Conyenei; Departmental Promotion 
Committee (Higher) to convene an Ad-hoc Departmental . 
Promotion' Committee (Higher) for the purpose of •·· 
considering the case of the petitioner for year 2001. In the 
----.....~-·--:-~ .. -. 
' 
H
242 
A 
/, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
.[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
judgment it is also ordered that the merit of the petitioner 
vis-a-vis others who were eligible to be considered for the 
year 2001 shall be assessed on the basis of the Confidential 
Reports of the petitioner for the years 1998, 1999 & 2000 
and any other relevant material pertaining to the select list 
for 2001. If the petitioner is found entitled for inclusion on 
the basis of such assessment of merit his name shall be 
included in the select list for the year 2001 in the appropriate 
place among officers who were included in the year 2001. 
4. In the light of the above facts, the Adhoch Departmental 
Promotion Committee held on 24.09.2001 examined his case 
in detail with all the relevant records. As per Rule 28(b) (i)4(a) 
of KS & SSRs select list has to be prepared during a calendar 
year for the vacancies anticipated in the next calendar year. 
Accordingly, select list for the vacancies in 2001 has to be 
prepared in 2000 (i.e. during September/October 2000) for 
which the check period will be 1999, 1998 & 1997. But while 
preparing the select list the year was wrongly mentioned as 
2001 instead of 2000. But the Departmental Promotional 
Committee had taken the check period as 1997, 1998 & 1999 
in respect of all the officers included in the filed of choice. 
The punishments awarded, adverse entries in Confidential 
Report and the disciplinary proceedings etc during the years 
from 1997 were
taken into account while assessing suitability 
of the officers for inclusion in the select list for the year 
2000 (for the vacancies in 2001). 
5. The committee found that the petitioner was awarded a 
major punishment (i.e. increment bar for 2 years with 
cumulative effect vide PHQ order No.G5/73080/93 dated 
05.il.97) during the check period which is still pending. 
The review petition against the above punishment was 
rejected by Government vide GO(Rt) No.3220101/Home 
dated 18.09.2001. Th'! Committee therefore found that the 
petitioner is not entitled/or inclusion in the select list of Circle 
Inspector list for promotion as Dy.SPs for the year 2000 i.e. 
for the vacancies in 2001. 
The Departmental Promotion Committee (Higher) which held 
on 24. 09.2004 examined his case and decided to include
MOHAMMED FAIZAL K.A. v. D. SALI AND.ORS. 
243 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
. . . 
: 
him in the select list for the year 2003 and the select list was . A· 
issued accordingly as per notification No. 44663iA2/04/ .. 
Home daied 28.10.2004. ,_ 
In the circumstances stated above the .request contained in 
the representation read as 11 paper above is hereby rejected. 
(By Order of the Governor) . B . 
N. Ramakrishnan 
Additional Chief Secretary and 
Principal.Secretary to Government. " 
(emphasis supplied) 
C 
· ~s. The respondent No.I assailed the aforementioned order by 
filing another writ petition, bearing Writ Petition (C) No. 7801 of 2005. 
The State resisted· the said writ petition and justified its decision / 
considering the fact that the punishment awarded to respondent No: I on 
S'h .November, ,1997 of stoppage of increment f~r two years with 
cum.ulative effect, was in force during th~ check perfod. For whiCh 
D 
reason, the DPC decided to include the name ofresJJondent No.I in.the 
select list for the year 2003 and th_e list was .issued -accordingly'_as R.er · 
notification No.44663/ A2/04 dated 28th October, 2004. The learned Single .. __ _ 
Judge of the High Court, however, opined that in view of the direction_ 
issued by the Court.vide order dated 2J'd June, 2004 in OP No.35398 of.· E 
2002,it was not open to. the Competent Authority to consider the 
punishment imposed on respondent No. I in the year 1997 to-deny his · 
inclusion in the select list for the year 2001.
The relevant portion of the 
judgment of the High Court dated Sth Apfil, 20 I 0, reads thus:-
"5. I am of opinion that Ext. P4 judgment,' which has become .F 
final, co~cludes the issue squarely in favour oj the petitiondl: · 
In Ext. P4 judgment, this Court has considered all aspects 
of the matter and decided that, for the purpose. of 
considering the petitioner for inclusion in the select list for 
the year 2001, his' confidentfol records/or the years 2000, 
1999 and 1998 only could have been considered. Bzit in 
G 
Ext. P5, the very same punishment imposed. in 1997 relied 
. 
. 
.; - .. 
upon earlier to deny him inclusion i~ the seled list, has Been · 
relied upon, which was found to be unsustainable in Ext. P4 
judgment. Therefore, I-have no hesitation to nold that Ext. 
H 
' - :
244 
A 
B 
c 
/ 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
P5 order is in total disregard to Ext. P4 judgment of this 
Court. In the above circumstances, Ext. P5, to the extent the· 
petitioner has been excluded from the select list for 2001 is 
quashed. In so far as despite Ext. P4 judgment from this 
Court, the respondents have not chosen to consider the 
molter in the right perspective as directed therein, I am not 
inclined to leave it again to the respondents to pass fresh 
orders. The respondents have no case that without relying 
on the punishment of 1997, the petitioner can be validly 
denied inclusion in the select list for the year 2001. In fact 
he was included in the select list for the year 2003 and 
promoted also. 
... 
Therefore, there would be a direction to the respondents to 
include the petitioner in the select list for the year 2001 in 
the appropriate place in accordance with his seniority. All 
promotions for the year 2001 shall be reviewed on the basis 
of such inclusion of the petitioner in the select list for the 
year 2001 and fresh dates of promotion as Dy. Superintendent 
of Police shall be assigned to him accordingly. The petitioner 
would consequently be entitled to all service benefits and 
seniority arising there from including monetary benefits 
thereof. Orders in this regard shall be passed and monetary 
benefits disbursed to the petitioner as expeditiously as 
possible, at any rate, within two months from the date of 
receipt
of a certified copy of this judgment. 
The writ petition is allowed as above. " 
5. The concerned authorities acting upon the said decision issued 
order on 27'h June, 2012 and placed respondent No. l in the select list as 
per notification dated 12th February, 2001 at Serial No.6(a) and gave 
him notional promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police 
with effect from l 9'h March, 200 I. The said order reads thus:-
"ANNEXURE P-11 
GOVERNMENT OF KERALA 
Abstract 
Home Department-Police Establishment - Sri D. Sali, Deputy 
Superintendent of Police - Notional Promotion to the cadre 
of Deputy Superintendent of Police, granted - Orders issued
·, .. 
MOHAMMED FAIZAL K.A. v. D. SALi AND ORS. 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
HOME (A) DEPARTMENT 
G.0.(Rt) No.1934112002/Home Dated Thiruvananthapuram 
27.06.2012 
Read: (1) Notification No. 44702/A212001/Home dated 
22.02.iooi · 
(2) Notification No. 85137/A2120101Home dated 
09.02.2001 
(3) G.0. (Rt) No. 82512001/Home dated 03.03.2001 
. 
-' 
245 
.A 
B 
(4) Letter No. A2-70300/10 dated 04.05.2011 from C 
the 
State 
Police 
Chief. 
· Kera/a, 
thiruvananthapuram 
ORDER 
Sri D. Sali, Deputy Superintendent of Police was superseded 
from the select list of Circle Inspectors of Police fit for D 
promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police for the year 
2001 vide Notification read as f" paper above. The Ad-hoc 
Departmental Promotion Committee (Higher) held on 
12.02.2001 decided to include him as shown below in the 
above select list as per the Notification read as 2"d paper 
~~-
. 
E 
SI. No.6 
SI. No.6(a) 
SI. No. 7 
Sri D. Madhu 
Sri. D. Sali 
Sri K Manoharan Kumar 
The State Police Chie, in his letter read as 4'h paper above, 
has reported that Sri K. Manohara Kumar, who is the 
immediate junior to Sri D. Safi as per the notification read 
as i"' paper above, was promoted to the cadre of Deputy 
Superintendent of Police as per the Government Order read 
F 
as 3"' paper above and he took charge of the post of Deputy 
G 
Superintendent of Police on 19.03.2001 FN. Hence the State 
Police Chief has requested to sanction notional promotion 
to Sri D. Safi, Deputy ·superintendent
of Police in the cadre 
of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect from the FN 
of 19.03.2001. 
H
246 
A 
B 
-·-c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017] 14 S.C.R. 
, (3) Government have examined the matter in detail and they 
are pleased to order that Sri. D.Sa(i is notionally promoted 
to the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police with effect 
from the FN 19.03.2001, i.e., the date a/assumption of 
charges by Sri K. Manoharan Ku"!ar, Deputy Superintendent 
. of Police, who is the immediate junior to Sri D. Safi, subject 
to the condition that he will not be eligible for back arrears 
· of pay and allowance. 
By order of the Governor 
N.B. BALAKRISHNAN 
Under Secretary to Government". 
7. Not only'that, the Department considered the respondent No. I 
for further promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (non-IPS) 
but also, later on, for IPS cad.re in 2010. The appellant then assailed the 
decisions of the High Court dated 23'd June, 2004 and 81h April, 2010 by 
filing two separate writ appeals before the Division Bench of the High 
D 
C~uri. For the present, it may not be necessary to advert to the events 
that unfolded after the decision of the learned Single Judge of the High 
Court in the third writ petition dated 8th April 20 I 0. Inasmuch as, the 
matter in issue in the writ appeals is in respect of the correctness of two 
decisions dated 23'd June, 2004 and 8'h April 20 I 0, respectively. 
E 
F 
~ 
8. The writ appeals were opposed by respondent No. I, interalia, 
oil the ground that the same were barred by limitation and suffered from 
!aches. Further, the
appellant has no locus to challenge the inclusion of 
respondent No. I, in the select list for 200 I because the appellant became 
eligible for inclusion in the select list for promotion to the post of Deputy 
Superintendent of Police only in 2002. Even on merits, it was contended 
by respondent No. I that the Competent Authority committed no error in 
including him in the select list of2001 and to consider him for promotion 
to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police against the vacancies of 
2001. Since, his claim for promotion was being considered against the 
vacancies of2001, the check period would necessarily be 1998, 1999 
G and 2000 and for which reason punishment awarded to him in the year 
1997 cannot be reckoned or used against him to deny ilim promotion in 
the year 2001. 
H 
9. The Diyision Bench after considering the rival submissions held 
that no error was committed by the learned Single Judge in the
MOHAMMED FAIZAL K.A. v. D. SALI AND ORS. 
247 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.) 
interpretation or the application of Rule 28 of the Kerala State and A 
Subordinate Service Rules. The Division Bench also upheld the opinion 
of the learned Single Judge that the punishment awarded to respondent 
No. I in the year 1997 could not be reckoned for considering his claim . 
. for promotion against vacancies of2001. Further, the Division Bench 
noted that the appellant was not entitled to be considered nor was eligible 
B 
to be included in the select list of2001 and that the direction given by the 
' 
learned Single Judge was in relation to considering the eligibility and 
entitlement of respondent No.I, for promotion to the post of Deputy __ , 
Superintendent of Police against the vacancies of 2001. The Division 
Bench held that the directions issued by the learned Single Judge were 
not to interdict the seniority list or adjudicate the inter-se seniority dispute 
C 
which may have necessitated the presence of other officers who were 
likely to be affected by such adjudication, Therefore, the appellant was 
neither a necessary nor proper party to the writ petition. Thus, the Division 
Bench rejected the challenge to the Impugned decisions of the learned 
Single Judge because of non-impleadment of the 'appellant in the writ D 
petitions. The Division Bench also held that the appeals have been filed 
belatedly and without challenging the promotion of the first respondent 
or the re-assigned
seniority position to him, which inevitably resulted in 
pushing down the appellant and making him junior to respondent No. f. 
The Division Bench was of the view thatthe consequential orders issued 
by the Competent Authorities were relatable to two judgments and there 
E 
was no infirmity in those judgments. Resultantly, both the writ appeals 
came to be dismissed by the comm<;m impugned judgment and order 
dated 31st January, 2014. 
r 
10. Aggrieved, the· appellant has taken,recourse to the present 
appeals. The arguments, as were canvassed before the Division Bench 
F 
of the High Court have been reiterated by both the sides. 
11. We have heard Mr. Jaideep Gupta, learned senior counsel 
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Dileep Pillai and Mr. C.K. Sasi, 
learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 
12. The moot question is: whether the appellant had locus to 
G 
challenge the decisions of the le11rned Single Judge dated 23rd June, 2004 
and 8th April, 20 I 0, respectively? Indeed, from the indisputable facts 
emerging from the record, the appellant was appointed as Sub Inspector 
of Police on 12th October, 1981 in the 13th batch after the respondent 
H
248 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 14 S.C.R. 
A 
No.I was already appointed on that post on 22
11d June, 1981, in the 12'h 
batch. It is also noticed that the appellant was promoted to the post of 
Circle Inspector on I" June, 1994 after respondent No. I was already 
promoted on the said post in January, 1992. Since; respondent No.I was 
promoted in earlier point of time, he became eligible for being considered 
B fo! promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police in February, 
2001 at which point of time the appellant was not eligible in that regard. 
The appellant became eligible to be considered for such promotion only 
in2002. 
13. In the backdrop of these events we will examine the challenge 
that we must address in the present appeals. The· 1is commenced at the 
C behest of respondent No. I because ofhfa non-inclusion in the select list 
for the years 2000-200 I prepared by the DPC in February 200 I. We 
will analyse the reasons for such non-inclusion and the justness thereof 
a little later. 
14. Be that as it may, the appellant, as aforementioned, was not 
D eligible to,be included in the said list. So understood, it must follow that 
the appellant cannot be an aggrieved party if any order was to be passed 
in favour of respondent No. I. However, the appellant asserts .that he is 
aggrieved because of the illegality in the decision to promote respondent 
No.I against the vacancy in 2001 on two counts. Firstly, because the 
E · appellant was already selected
and promoted to the post of Deputy 
Superintendent of Police on !3tli September, 2002 and, thus, became 
senior to respondent No. I in that cadre which was a selection post. 
Secondly, because of the wrongful inclusion and moreso, promotion of 
respondent No.I to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and 
also re-assigning notional seniority position as I 9'h March, 200 I in 
F fortherance of the impugned decision rendered by the learned Single 
Judge, dated 8th April, 2010, inevitably, it has resulted in making the 
appellant junior to respondent No. I in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent 
of Police and also affected his prospects of further promotion and 
seniority. That has given rise to the cause of action for the appellant to 
G challenge the decisions 'of the High Court but for which the respondent 
No. I could not have entered the stated cadre before ! 4th January, 2005. 
We find force in this submission. It is true that the appellant may not be 
eligible to be included in the select list for.the year 200 I, but it is open to 
him to point out that respondent No. I could never have been legitimately 
included in the select list until 2003 and before which date the appellant 
H
MOHAMMED FAIZAL K.A. v. D. SALi AND ORS. 
249 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
__. 
was alread.f promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police A 
and had been assigned seniority on that basis. The respondent Nol, 
however, was promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police 
and joined that cadre later only on 14'h January, 2005. As these just 
reasons have been glossed over or discarded as a result of the decision 
of the learned Single Judge, in particular dated S•h April, 2010, the appellant 
B 
is directly affected by the outcome of such decision in the matter of his 
seniority. Hence; he can be said to be an aggrieved person to challenge 
the High Court decision; and if that challenge succeeds;· all the 
consequential steps taken by the Competent Authority on the basis of 
such decision must stand effaced as non-est. In that, the appellant had 
already been selected and prompted to the post ofDeputy Superintendent C 
of Police on l3 1h September, 2002. It is because of the decision of the 
High Court dated Slh April, 2010 the Competent Authorities gave notional 
date of promotion to respondent No. I in that cadre as l 91h March, 2001 
and re-assigned the seniority to him 111aking the appellant junior to 
respondent No. I, even though selected and promoted in earlier pointof D 
time. 
. 
. 
· 15. Indeed, the Division Bench has.rightly distinguished the . 
decisions of this Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and Anr. 
Vs. Madan Mohan Joshi and Ors.'; J(M.
Rashmi Mishra Vs. M.P. 
Public Service Commission and Ors.2; and Suresh Vs. Yeotmal 
District Central Cooperative Bank Limited and Anr.3; having held 
E 
that the !is before the learned Single Judge was not in relation to 
adjudication of inter-se seniority position of the parties but was for 
determination of eligibility and entitlemenfof respondent No. I to consider 
him for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 
16. Be that as it may, the appellant could still challenge the 
decision of the learned Single Judge dated 81h April, 20 I 0, for the reasons 
indicated hitherto. The appellant, however, will have to point out the 
manifest illegality or error committed in the matter of giving promotion 
to respondent No. I against the vacancy of 2001 and succeed in that 
behalf.· 
17. We may, therefore, without dilating on any other contention, 
straightaway advert to the background in which the two decisions ~ere 
• (2oos) 6 sec 191 
1 (2006) 12 sec 724 
1 (2008) 12 sec 558 
F 
G 
H
250 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A· passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. The first impugned 
decision was rendered by the learned Single Judge on 23'd June, 2004. 
The relevant portion of this decision has been extracted in paragraph 6, 
above. The crux of the direction issued by the Court was to consider the 
claim ofrespondent No.I for promotion against the vacancy of 200 I on 
B the basis of his Confidential Records forthe years 1998, 1999and 2001 
"in accordance with law". We find no infirmity in the direction so issued 
by the High Court. For, the nature of direction given by the learned 
Single Judge vide judgment dated 23rd June, 2004, provided full play to 
the DPC to select or not to select respondent No. I against the vacancies 
of 200 I after considering the Confidential Records ofrespondent No. I 
C for three preceding years, i.e. 1998, 1999 and 2000 "in accordance with 
law''. This is how the DPC as well as the Competent Authority of the 
State understood the direction and after due deliberations issued an 
order on 20'h November, 2004. As a result, the Competent Authority 
while considering the claim referred to the fact that major punishment 
D (i.e. increment bar for two years with cumulative effect vide PHQ Order 
No.GS/73080 dated S'h November, 1997) was still operating against 
respondent No. I. That punishment was to operate for two years with 
cumulative effect from 1997. 
18. The question is: whether consideration of
punishment awarded. 
in 1997, for promotion of respondent No. I against the vacancy of2001 
E was permissible? True it is that the check period for selection against 
vacancies of 2001, would be 1998, 1999 & 2000. However, as the 
punishment awarded in 1997, transcended beyond 1997, as it was to 
operate for a period of two years, the argument ofrespondent No. I that 
the punishment given in 1997 could not be reckoned is untenable. The 
F 
learned Single Judge whilst considering the third writ petition of respondent 
No. I decided on 8'h April, 2010, however, observed that taking that 
punishment into account was against the spirit of the decision dated 23rd 
June, 2004 [rendered in the second writ petition (No.35398/2002) filed 
by respondent No. I]. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge as well as 
the Division Bench of the High Court committed palpable error and 
G misread the previous decision dated 23rd June, 2004 rendered in the second 
writ petition. As aforementioned, on a plain reading of the said judgment 
dated 23rd June, 2004, it is crystal clear that the Competent Authorities 
were directed to reconsider the claim ofrespondent No. I by taking into 
account the check period as 1998, 1999 & 2000 "in accordance with 
H
MOHAMMED FAIZAL K.A. v. D. SALi AND ORS. 
251 
[A. M. KHANWIJ,,KAR, J.] 
law", for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police 
A 
against the vacaneies in the year 2001. From the entire judgment dated_ 
23'd June, 2004, we are unable to discern any opinion recorded by the 
learned Single Judge that the punishment even ifit were to operate beyond 
1·997 and during the check period, cannot be taken into account by the 
DPC for determining the merit and ability of the candidate concerned. 
B 
The legal position on this issue is no more res integra. In the case of 
Union of India and Ors; Vs. K. V. Jankiraman and Ors. 4, in paragraph 
29 the Court observed thus: · 
"29. According to us, the Tribunal has erred)n holding that 
when an officer is found guilty in the discharge of his duties, 
an imposition of penalty is all that is necessary to improve 
his conduct and to enforce discipline and ensure purity in 
c 
the administration. In the first instance, the penalty short of 
dismissal will vary from reduction in rank to censure. We are 
sure that the Tribunal has not intended that the promotion 
should be given to the officer from the original date even D 
when the penalty imparted is of reduction in rank. On 
principle, for the same· reasons, the officer cannot be 
rewarded by promotion as a matter of course even if the 
penalty is other than that of the reduction in rank. An 
employee has no right to promotion. He has only a right to 
be considered for promotion.
The promotion to a post and E 
more so, to a selection post, depends upon several 
circumstances. To qualify for promotion, the least that is 
expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record. 
That is the minimum expected to ensure a Clean and efficient 
administration and to protect the public interests, An employee .f 
found guilty of a misconduct cannot be placed on par with 
the other employees and his case has to be treated differently. 
There is, therefore, no discrimination when in the matter of 
promotion, he is treated differently. The least that is expected 
of any administration is·that it does not reward an employee 
with promotion retrospectively from a date when for his 
conduct before that date he is penalised in presentii. When . 
an employee is held guilty and penalised and is, therefore, 
not promoted at least till the date on which lie is penalised, 
• (1991) 4 sec 109 
G 
H
252 
A 
B 
c 
D 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 14 S.C.R. 
he cannot be said to have been subjected to a further penalty 
on that account. A denial of promotion in such circumstances 
is not a penalty but a necessary consequence of his conduct. 
In fact, while considering an employee for promotion his 
whole record has to be taken into consideration and if a 
promotion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the 
employee into consideration and denies him tlte promotion, 
such denial is not illegal and unjustified. If. further. the 
promoting authority can. take into consideration the penalty 
or penalties awarded to an employee in the past while 
considering his promotion and deny him promotion 011 that 
ground, it will be irrational to hold that it cannot take the 
penalty into consideration when it is imposed at a later date 
because of the pendency of the proceedings, although it is 
for conduct prior to the date the authority considers the 
promotion. For these reasons, we are of the view that the 
Tribunal is not right in striking down the said portion of the 
second subparagraph after clause iii) of paragraph 3 of 
the said Memorandum. We, therefore, set aside the said 
findings of the Tribunal." 
(emphasis supplied) 
E 
19. This decision has been followed in the case of State ofT.N. 
Vs. Thiru K.S. Murugesan and Ors.,5 which is directly on the point. 
Although this decision was brought to the notice of the Division Bench, 
to say the least, the same has not been
analysed by it in proper 
perspective, as is clear from paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment 
dated 81h April, 2010. There is yet another decision which has taken the 
F same view in the case of L. Rajaiah Vs. Inspector General of 
Registration & Stamps, Hyderabad and Ors. 6 The Court has 
unambiguously noted that if the incumbent is undergoing punishment 
during the relevant check period he will not be eligible for promotion for 
the relev.ant period. Similar view is taken in the case of Collector of 
G Tltanjavur Disitt. and Ors. Vs. S. Rajagopalan and Ors.'. 
H 
'(1995} 3 sec 213 
• (1996} s sec 246 
'c2000) 9 sec 145
MOHAMMED FAIZAL K.A. v. D. SALi AND ORS. 
253 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
20. In the present case, it is indisputable that the punishment A 
awarded to respondent No. I, vide order dated 5th November, 1997, is to 
withhold increments for two years with cumulative effect. That obviously 
was to operate beyond two years from 1997. As mentioned in the counter 
affidavit filed by the Additional Secretary of the State before the High 
Court dated 19th January, 2004 in O.P. No.35398 of2002, that aspect 
B 
was duly considered by the DPC and the Competent Authority whilst 
passing the order dated 20th November, 2004. It is for that reason, the 
DPC held on 24th September, 2004 examined the case of respondent 
No. I and decided to include him in the select list only for year 2003 as 
per Notification dated 28th October, 2004. 
21. Indeed, the said order dated 20th November, 2004, was ·-c· 
assailed by respondent No. I by way ofWritPetition (Civil) No. 780 I of 
2005. But, unfortunately, the learned Single Judge of the High Court did 
not. examine these crucial aspects though specifically raised by the 
Department to oppose the writ petition. The Court instead was swayed 
away by the fact that consideration of punishment awarded in 1997 to 
D 
respondent No. l, would be against the spirit of the earlier decision dated 
23rd June, 2004 of the High Court and was impermissible. Having so 
held, the learned Single Judge proceeded to issue direction to the 
Competent Authorities on which the
Competent Authorities acted upon 
without any demur. Whereas, it is amply clear that the learned Single 
Judge whilst deciding writ petition OP No.35398/2002 nor the subsequent 
E 
writ petition No. 7801/2005 adjudicated, much less answered, the issue . 
of permissibility or otherwise of taking note of the effect of punishment . 
awarded to respondent No. I operating for two years beyond 1997 and 
overlapping with the check period for vacancy of 200 I. 
22. The .fact that the Competent Authorities were ill-a\ivised not 
to challenge such untenable direction of the learned Single Judge, would 
not preclude the aggrieved person from challenging the same. As noticed 
· • earlier, the consequence of allowing the second impugned decision of 
F 
the learned Single Judge (dated S•h April, 2010) to remain in the field 
entailed in allocation of notional date of promotion and seniority to 
G 
respondent No.I as J91h March, 2001.As, the seniority position of 
respondent No. I was re-assigned on that basis, it directly affected the 
appellant who was already promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent 
H
254 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A of Police in earlier point of time on 13 1h September, 2002. If the notional 
date of promotion allocated to respondent No. I as I 4'h January, 2005 in 
terms of the order dated 20•h November, 2004, was to remain in force, 
the respondent No.I would remain junior to the appellant at serial No.285 
as against the seniority position of appellant at serial No.208 as per the 
B provisional seniority list published in 2012. The respondent No. I was 
upgraded in the Seniority List in terms of government orders dated 27'h 
June, 2012, bearing No. G.O. (Rt) No.1934/2012/Home and dated 7'" 
January, 2013 bearing No.G.0. (Rt) No.43/2013/Home, respectively. As 
a con~~quence of these orders, the appellant was shown as junior to 
respondent No. I in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police and 
C Superintendent of Police (non-IPS), respectively. 
23. Thus; the appellant was justified in challenging the impugned 
decision of the learned Single Judge dated 8'h April, 20 I 0 by way of 
subject writ appeals, because of the consequential orders passed by the 
Competent Authorities allocating notional date of promotion and 
D assignment of seniority to respondent No. I. The delay in filing writ appeals, 
in our view, has been duly explained by the appellant. Further, the ord~rs . 
passed by the Competent Authorities are the product of direction given 
by the learned Single Judge. That will have to be effaced as non-est 
consequent to setting
aside of the untenable decision of the learned 
Single Judge dated 8th April, 2010. 
E 
F 
24. The faet that the subsequent decisions of the Competent 
Authorities have not been specifically challenged by way of substantive 
proceedings by the appellant, would not come in the way of the appellant 
having succeeded in getting the order dated 20'h November, 2004 issued 
under the signature of Additional Chief Secretary/Principal Secretary to 
Government of Kerala, revived and restored. The authorities may have 
to re-visit the case of respondent No.I to allot him date of promotion in 
terms of order dated 20th November, 2004 and restore his seniority position 
in the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police as 14'h January, 2005 
and correspondingly re-allocate the notional date of promotion for the 
G n,ext promotion to the post of Superintendent of Police (Non-IPS/IPS 
Cadres) respectively, if respondent No. I has completed the qualifying 
service period for being considered for promotion thereto. We have no 
hesitation in holding that merely because other officers similarly placed 
• (1996) 6sec121 
H
MOHAMMED FAIZAL K.A. v. D. SALi AND ORS. 
255 
[A. M. KHANWILKAR, J.] 
as appellant have not questioned the impugned decision, will also be no A 
impediment in reviving and restoring the government order dated 20'h 
November, 2014-as no prejudice will be caused to them in so directing. 
25. Having said this, it may not be necessary for us to diiate on·. 
other issues raised by the appellant, including aboutthe interpretation of 
, Rule 28 by the learned Single Judge and upheld by the Pivision Bench of B 
the High Court - that it is mandatory to prepare a select list on year-to-
year basis, as expounded in the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. 
Vipin Chandra Hiralal Sltah. 8 We leave that and all other contentions 
raised before the High Court or this Court, not specifically answered in 
this judgment open. For, it is not necessary for us to dwell upon the 
same and also to obviate prolixity of the judgment. 
· 
c 
26. Accordingly, we hold that the Division Bench has completely 
glossed over the aforementioned legal position regarding the efficacy of 
the punishment awarded to respondent No. I in 1997, which transcended 
to subsequent years, overlapping with the check period of 1998, 1999 & · 
2000. 
D 
27. A priori, these appeals must succeed. The impugned common 
judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court ofKerala 
dated 31" January, 2014 in Writ Appeal Nos.953 and 1019 of2013, and 
the judgment arid orderofthe learned Single Judge dated 8'h April, 2010
in Writ Petition (C) No.780 l of 2005 are set aside. As regards the 
E 
impugned order dated 23'd June, 2004, in our view, it gives li benign 
direction to the State Authorities to consider the case of respondent 
No.l in accordance with law and nothing more. As a result, the order 
· issued by the Additional Chief Secretary, Government ofKerala, Home· 
. (A) Department, dated 20'h November, 2004 is revived and restored and 
F 
all subsequent consequential orders/notifications issued in relation to the 
subject matter concerning the promotion and seniority of respondent · 
No. I will stand effaced as non-est. As a consequence, the concerned 
authorities must re-visit the case of respondent No.l and allot him the 
date of promotion and seniority to the post of Deputy Superintendent of 
Police w.e.f. 14th January, 2005 and thereafter to re-allocate fresh notional 
G 
date of _promotion to the next higher selection posts, namely, 
Superintendent of Police (Non-IPS & JPS), as the case may be, if and 
upon respondent No. I fulfilling the eligibility and qualifying service period 
therefor. 
·· 
H

256 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 14 S.C.R. 
A 
28. We direct the concerned authorities of the State Government 
to complete the necessary formalities in furtherance of this order within 
three months from today and issue appropriate notification( s) as may be 
required in that regard. 
29. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. No order as to 
B costs. 
Ankit Gyan 
Appeals allowed.