Courts are concerned with the decision-making process, not just the decision: Supreme Court

IN THE CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 401 OF 2022 ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO. 30370 OF 2017 SUSHIL KUMAR …. APPELLANT(S) THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S) JUDGMENT PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA J. Leave granted. This Civil Appeal arises out of the final judgment and order dated 29.07.2015 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh passed in LPA No. 19111. The Appellant was appointed as a Constable in the year 1995. It is his case that he was positioned as a Head Constable under the extent ORP Policy on 21.08.2001. Due to his acts of bravery his name was recommended by the Superintendent of Police for promotion under the 10% quota of outstanding performance for inclusion in the B I List for promotion to the post of Head Constable in the year 21.01.2004. However the Appellant’s name was dropped down by the Inspector General of Policewhen only 7 out of the 9 names were forwarded to the Central Departmental Promotion Committeethe IG does not act as the appellate authority and cannot substitute his decision to that of the DPC. It is also contended that the IG has no power to adjudge the comparative merit in list B I prepared by the DPC. He further submits that the IG has not given any reasons nor was the Appellant given any opportunity of hearing. He alleges that he is far more meritorious than the ones who have been recommended by the SP and approved by the IG in 2004. It is his case that the decision is arbitrary because the very same credentials enabled him to be selected and recommended in 2007. He has therefore prayed for retrospective promotion from the year 2004. The learned Additional Advocate General for the Respondent State Shri Raj Singh Rana has submitted that the names recommended by the SP to the CDPC are only provisional and subject to ratification by the IG and mere forwarding of the name of the Appellant by the SP will not create any right of promotion in his favour. He has submitted that the word “through” in Rule 13.7(9) of the Punjab Police Rules 1934 calls for application of mind by the IG and not mere forwarding of the recommendations as sent by the concerned unit head. The Respondents have alleged that the seven constables appointed were more qualified than the Appellant. The Rules: The present appeal pertains to the promotion of Constables to the post of Head Constables in the State of Haryana. The matters relating to the promotion of Constables to the rank of Head Constables are governed under the Punjab police Rules 1934 as applicable in the State of Haryana. 6.1 The scheme of appointment and promotion is governed by the provisions which are as follows: 12.10 Appointment of Head Constable: Head constables shall be appointed by promotion from selection grade constables in accordance with rules 13.7 and 13.8. 13.1 Promotion from one rank to another. 3) For the purposes of regulating promotion amongst enrolled police officers six promotion lists A B C D E and F will be maintained. Lists A B C and D shall be maintained in each district as prescribed in rules 13.6 13.7 13.8 and 13.9 and will regulate promotion to the selection grade of constables and to the ranks of head constables and assistant sub inspector......... 6.2 Chapter 13 of the Rules lay down the scheme for promotion. Rule 13.7 is concerned with the selection of candidates for admission to the Lower School Course at the Police Training College out of which postings of Head Constables are made. The Head Constables are selected out of a list of Selection Grade Candidates which is made out of three sources being:direct recruitment(b) Seniority cum merit (c) Outstanding performanceshall be maintained by each Superintendent of Police. It shall include the names of all constables selected for admission to the Lower School Course to be held at the Police Training College. Selection to the list B shall be made in the month of January each year and shall be limited to the number of seats allotted to the district for the year. The number of seats in Lower School Course in a year shall be allotted on the basis of existing vacancies and the vacancies likely to be created within one year in the respective unit. 55% of the seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course shall be filled in on the basis of a competitive examination 35% on the basis of seniority cum fitness and 10% on the basis of consistent outstanding performance in job obtaining Gold or Silver Medal in All India Police Games Duty Meet National Games or exceptional display of bravery during the course of performance of official duty 2)(iii) All constables irrespective of their educations qualifications shall be eligible to be brought on list B 1 on the basis of consistent outstanding performance job obtaining Gold or Silver medal in All India Police Games Duty Meets National or International Games or exceptional display of bravery during the course of performance of official duty if they are under the age of 40 years and have completed two years of service on the first day of January of the year in which selection is made. Only those constables shall be brought on list B 1 after two years of service but before five year of service who have won a medal in International Sports events like Olympics Asian Games Commonwealth Games or similar International events. Constables who have won medals in National Games All India Police Games Duty Meets and who are being considered for exceptional bravery or consistent outstanding performance shall be considered only if they have put in the minimum five year of service …. 9) Various units shall be allotted only 90% of total seats of the year for list B and candidates for 10% seats common to all units shall be selected by Central Departmental Committee. For selecting 10% of the candidates on the basis of consistent outstanding performance in job attaining Gold India Police Games Duty or Silver Medal Meet National Games or exceptional display of bravery in the job each unit shall send its recommendation through the concerned Inspectors General of Police Deputy Inspectors General of Police to the Central Departmental Promotion Committee to be appointed for the entire State by the Director General of Police. These 10% seats shall be filled in on the basis of State level comparative merit of candidates in All sponsored by the units as above on the recommendation of the State level Departmental Promotion Committee. Such the above Departmental candidates recommended by Promotion Committee shall be assigned to various units for inclusion in list B against 10% quota irrespective of the unit to which the candidate originally belongs 14) A Departmental Promotion Committee headed by the Superintendent of Police commandant of the concerned district or unit and consisting of two Deputy Superintendents of Police shall prepare list B 1: Provided that list B 1 shall not be final until the same is approved by the Inspector General of Police Deputy Inspector General of Police who is the controlling officer of the said Superintendent of Police or Commandant. The Inspector General of Police Deputy Inspector General of Police shall accord his approval only after due scrutiny of the list about its correctness. He will also be competent to refer the list back to the Superintendent of Police or Commandant from whom it had been received for correction of errors omission if any in the list and will also be competent to seek clarification about some points from the Departmental Promotion Committee if he considers The mandate of the above rule for appointment to the post of Head Constable under the aforementioned 10% quota for outstanding performance can be restated as under 7.1 There shall be a Departmental Promotion Committeein every district unit comprising of the SP Commandant and two Deputy Superintendent of Police headed by the SP. The DPC shall prepare a list called List B I. The list will be prepared from among the eligible candidates to be appointed the requirement of which is specified under Rule 13.7. All constables irrespective of their educational qualifications shall be eligible to be brought on list B I on the basis of consistent outstanding performance in job or exceptional display of bravery during the course of performance of official duty if they are under the age of 40 years and have completed two years of service on the first day of January of the year in which selection is made. The List prepared by the DPC headed by the SP will be forwarded to the Inspector General of Police Deputy Inspector General of Police who is the Cadre Controlling Officer of the SP Commandant. i) The IG DIG will undertake and examine its correctness. ii) The IG DIG will be competent to seek clarifications from the DPC if he considers it to be necessary. iii) He is also competent to refer the list back to the SP for correction of any error or omission. iv) The IG DIG shall thereafter accord his approval. It is specifically provided that the List shall not be final until the same is approved by the IG DIG. IG DIG shall send its recommendations on behalf of each unit to the CDPC. The CDPC is appointed by the Director General of Police PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA) NEW DELHI JANUARY 19 2022 

Summary:  While dismissing an appeal, the Supreme Court bench refrained from going into comparing individual merits. The Bench stated that in the matter of judicial reviews, the courts are concerned with the process of decision making and not just the decision itself. This was held by the Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narsimha, in the matter between Sushil Kumar v State of Haryana &amp; Others, decided on January 19, 2022. The present appeal arose out of a judgment delivered by Punjab &amp; Haryana High Court, passed in the year 2015.The appellant was a Police constable, was positioned as Head Constable under the extent policy and his name was recommended by the SP for promotion in the year 2004. However, his name was dropped down by the IG. After three years, his name was again forwarded and he got promoted in the year 2011. His grievance is that he should have been promoted in 2004 itself, since he was more meritorious than the ones promoted. He has pleaded a retrospective promotion from the year 2004. The counsels on behalf of the appellant have stated that the IG is not the appellate authority and therefore had no right to drop down a recommendation. The appellant was given no opportunity of hearing and was not given any reason. It was submitted that this decision was solely arbitrary and the candidate was more meritorious than the others. The respondents submitted that as per the rules of Punjab Police Act, 1934, the promotion is granted by the IG and mere forwarding of names does not give the appellant a right to get promoted. The promotion was solely on the basis of rules and law, and not arbitrary. It is their case, that the other promoted constables were more meritorious. After observing the facts of the cases, judgement of the high court and the law, the division bench remarked that the competitive environment differs from year to year. The rights to promote lie with the IG and the CDPC, and shall stay with them. The bench stated that it will not compare individual merits since the process of decision making is also of great importance. The bench dismissed the appeal stating that there was no illegality in the selection process. Click here to view the judgement Reviewed by Namisha Choudhary.