Union of India v. K.H. Srinivasan, (SC) BS178732
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Arijit Pasayat and Mukundakam Sharma, JJ.

Civil Appeal Nos. 5745 of 2008 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 20365-20367 of 2005). D/d. 19.9.2008.

Union of India - Appellant

Versus

K.H. Srinivasan & Ors. - Respondents

For the Appellant :- Vikas Singh, ASG, Ms. Rekha Pandey and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.

For the Respondents :- P.R. Ramasesh, Ms. Binu Tamta, S.N. Bhat, Sanjay R. Hegde, Amit Kumar Chawla and A. Rohan Singh, Advocates.

Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Amendment Regulations, 1997 - Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulation, 1955, Regulation 5, proviso (c) (as amended in 1997) - Selection process - Law laid down in pre 1997 cases regarding preparation of year wise select list, could not be routinely applied after the amendment - Regulation 5 after the amendment is conceptually different - Matter, therefore, remitted to High Court for fresh consideration in the light of 1997 Amendments.

[Paras 6, 9 and 10]

Cases Referred :-

Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India, 1993(2) SCT 236 : [1993 Suppl. (3) SC 575].

Union of India v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah, [1996(6) SCC 721].

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court allowing the writ petitions by directing as follows :

3. Before the High Court it was urged by the respondents as follows :

4. According to learned counsel for the appellant the effect of the amendment to the Regulations in 1997 and scope and ambit of Regulation 5 has not been kept in view by the High Court. The Regulations are Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 (in short the 'Regulation').

5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand supported the judgment of the High Court.

6. It appears that the High Court placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Syed Khalid Rizvi & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., 1993(2) SCT 236 : [1993 Suppl. (3) SC 575] and Union of India & Ors. v. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah [1996(6) SCC 721]. Stand of the appellant-Union of India with the relevant Regulations have been amended with effect from 1997 by Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Amendment Regulations, 1997 (in short 'Amendment Regulations'). The High Court did not consider the effect of the amendment, more particularly, the proviso (c) to Regulation. Same in its entirety including proviso (c) reads as follows :

7. The stand of the appellant in a nutshell is that Syed Khalid's case (supra) will not have any application after 1996. The un-amended Regulation 5 with the 3rd proviso makes the position clear that the decision in Syed Khalid's case (supra) and Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah's case (supra) had no application after the amendment in 1997.

8. The Rule prior to 1997 amendment reads as follows :

9. The pre and post amendment Regulation 5 are conceptually different.

10. Since the High Court has not considered the effect of the amendment in 1997 and the applicability of the ratio in Syed Khalid's case (supra) and Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah's case (supra) thereafter, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remit the matter to it to consider the matter afresh in the light of the amended Regulations.

11. The appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Appeals allowed.