Jharkhand HC quashes sub-inspector seniority list, rules direct recruits senior to LDCE appointees
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK RANCHI, November 6: The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the state government’s final seniority list of police Sub-Inspectors,…
THE JHARKHAND STORY NETWORK
RANCHI, November 6: The Jharkhand High Court has quashed the state government’s final seniority list of police Sub-Inspectors, ruling that directly recruited officers will rank senior to those appointed through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE).
Justice Deepak Roshan, in a judgment pronounced on November 6, directed the Jharkhand government to prepare and publish a fresh seniority list within ten weeks. The court clarified that the seniority of Sub-Inspectors must be determined in accordance with the date of completion of mandatory training and the consequent confirmation of service, rather than merely the date of their initial appointment.
The ruling came in a batch of writ petitions filed by directly recruited Sub-Inspectors challenging the seniority granted to officers appointed through the LDCE. The petitioners had questioned the final seniority list issued by the state government through Memo No. 951/P dated September 9, 2024.
Dispute over seniority between two categories
The dispute arose from two recruitment processes initiated in 2017.
The state issued Advertisement No. 05/2017 on July 15, 2017, for direct recruitment to 2,483 posts of Sub-Inspector. Subsequently, Advertisement No. 09/2017 was issued on August 4, 2017, for filling 1,544 posts through the LDCE.
Although the advertisement for direct recruitment was issued earlier, the LDCE selection process was completed first. Appointment letters were issued to the selected LDCE candidates on March 6, 2018, and they were directed to report for training on March 11, 2018.
The directly recruited Sub-Inspectors were appointed on August 6, 2018, and sent for training at different police training institutions in the state.
The two categories followed different training schedules. The directly recruited officers completed their training, including practical training, and their services were confirmed with effect from August 6, 2021.
The LDCE appointees, meanwhile, completed their training later. Their second phase of training took place between September 5, 2021, and January 3, 2022. Their services were confirmed with effect from August 2, 2022, following the successful completion of training.
The state initially published a seniority list in July 2021 that did not include the LDCE appointees, as their services had not yet been confirmed. However, a provisional seniority list issued in November 2023 placed the LDCE appointees above the directly recruited officers. Despite objections and representations, the government finalised the list in September 2024, prompting the writ petitions.
Petitioners argued that confirmation date should determine seniority
The directly recruited officers contended that they should be treated as senior because their services were confirmed on August 6, 2021, while the LDCE appointees were confirmed only on August 2, 2022.
Their counsel relied on Rule 689(c) of the Jharkhand Police Manual, which states that the seniority of Sub-Inspectors, whether directly recruited or promoted, shall be counted from the dates on which they were actually recruited or promoted against permanent posts.
The petitioners argued that the word ‘actually’ in the rule excluded provisional or notional appointment and that the LDCE appointees could not claim seniority for the period during which they were undergoing training and probation.
They also relied on Rule 682(d), which provides that the period spent under training and probation would count as service for pension purposes. According to them, the specific mention of pension meant that the period could not automatically be counted for seniority.
The petitioners further argued that the LDCE appointees’ appointment letters made their services temporary until successful completion of training and confirmation.
State and LDCE appointees opposed the claim
The state government defended the seniority list, referring to Police Order No. 102 dated February 8, 1983, and contending that seniority had been determined by taking into account marks obtained in the selection examination and police training.
The LDCE appointees argued that their appointments should be treated as appointments by promotion and that their seniority should relate back to their initial appointment in March 2018.
They also submitted that the delay in completing their training was attributable to the Training Directorate and not to them. They contended that they should not lose seniority because of an administrative delay.
The respondents further relied on the general principle of service jurisprudence that seniority ordinarily flows from the date of initial appointment.
Court holds LDCE entry is appointment by promotion
After examining the recruitment framework, the High Court held that appointment through the LDCE was not promotion in the conventional sense but constituted an ‘appointment by promotion’.
The court noted that the Jharkhand government had introduced the LDCE route through the Jharkhand State Police Sub-Inspector Limited Departmental Competitive Examination Rules, 2016. Under this arrangement, 25 per cent of the vacancies earmarked for promotion were made available to serving police personnel below the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector through the competitive examination.
The court observed that the selection procedure under the 2016 rules was substantially similar to the process followed for direct recruitment. It also referred to an earlier judgment in Mukesh Kumar and Another versus State of Jharkhand and Others, in which the High Court had upheld the validity of the limited departmental competitive examination framework.
The court held that Rule 689(c) of the Police Manual governed the determination of inter-se seniority among directly recruited, promoted and LDCE-appointed Sub-Inspectors.
It rejected the argument that seniority should be determined only by applying general principles of service jurisprudence, observing that a specific provision already existed in the Police Manual.
Training and probation period cannot be counted for seniority
A key issue before the court was the interpretation of the words ‘actually recruited or promoted against permanent post’ in Rule 689(c).
The court held that the use of the word ‘actually’ meant that recruitment or promotion must have effectively taken place and could not be based merely on a provisional or notional arrangement.
It also examined Rule 681, which requires directly recruited Sub-Inspectors to undergo one year of institutional training followed by two years of practical training. During this period, they remain on probation and their services are confirmed after successful completion of the prescribed training.
The court noted that the 2016 rules also made training compulsory for LDCE appointees and prescribed a two-year probation period.
Interpreting Rule 682(d), the court held that the period spent under training and probation was specifically recognised as service for pension purposes, but not for determining seniority.
The judgment observed that if the rule-making authority had intended to include the training and probation period for seniority, it could have expressly provided for it, as it had done in the case of pension.
The court also pointed out that probation could be extended if an officer’s performance was not found satisfactory. In such circumstances, treating the entire provisional period as qualifying service for seniority could lead to an unfair outcome.
Confirmation of service becomes decisive
The court examined the records relating to the completion of training and confirmation of service of the two categories of officers.
It noted that the LDCE candidates were declared to have successfully completed their training through Memo No. 1102 dated August 2, 2022. Their services were confirmed with effect from that date.
In contrast, the directly recruited petitioners had completed their training, including practical training, and their services were confirmed with effect from August 6, 2021.
The court held that the general principle that confirmation relates back to the date of initial appointment could not override the specific provisions governing seniority under the Police Manual.
It further observed that the delay in the appointment of direct recruits and the delay in the training of LDCE appointees were not decisive. The question had to be determined on the basis of the applicable service rules.
The court concluded that the date of completion of training and the consequent order confirming an officer’s service were crucial for determining inter-se seniority.
2024 seniority list set aside
Holding that the LDCE appointees had completed their training and received confirmation of service later than the directly recruited Sub-Inspectors, the High Court quashed the final seniority list issued through Memo No. 951/P dated September 9, 2024.
The state government has been directed to rearrange and publish the final seniority list by placing directly recruited Sub-Inspectors above those appointed through the LDCE.
The court, however, made an exception for any directly recruited officer whose probation was extended and whose service was confirmed later. The seniority of such an officer will be determined from the date of actual confirmation.
The state government has been given ten weeks from the date of the judgment to complete the exercise.
All the writ petitions were allowed, and pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of. The court made no order as to costs.
