IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHIAND OTHERS HARINDER SINGH DHALIWAL CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. Mr. A **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. 1. This is a proceeding which we have taken up as the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 22.10.2021 had requested to decide this LPA within a period of four months. 2. It seems that on account of be taken up as Court with regard to the seniority lists of Inspector Grade Grade-II as existing in the Department. 3. The dated 08.09.2017 4. The brief facts which need to be notice learned Single Bench, the respondents preferred a Writ Petition order dated 16.02.2006 by which respondents No. 4 to 8 had been promoted to the Post of Assistant Security Commissioner ( IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on : Date of Decision THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, RAIL NEW DELHIAND OTHERS V/s. HARINDER SINGH DHALIWAL AND OTHERS HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the appellant Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. **** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. This is a proceeding which we have taken up as the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 22.10.2021 had requested to decide this LPA within a period of four months. It seems that on account of the COVID as certain queries were also raised Court with regard to the seniority lists of Inspector Grade II as existing in the Department. The appellants by way of this LPA 08.09.2017 passed by the learned Single Bench The brief facts which need to be notice learned Single Bench, the respondents No.1 to 3 preferred a Writ Petition i.e. CWP-4353-2006 16.02.2006 by which respondents No. 4 to 8 had been promoted to the Post of Assistant Security Commissioner ( IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA-2446-2017(O&M) Reserved on : 26thof May, 2025 Date of Decision: 29th of May, 2025 THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, RAIL ..…...Appellant (s) V/s. AND OTHERS .....Respondent(s) HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA , Advocate for the appellants. kash Singla, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. This is a proceeding which we have taken up as the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 22.10.2021 had requested to decide this COVID-19, the case could not raised from time to time by the Court with regard to the seniority lists of Inspector Grade-I and Inspector appellants by way of this LPA have challenged order ned Single Bench in CWP-4353-2006. The brief facts which need to be noticed are that before the No.1 to 3/writ petitioners had 2006, challenging the validity of 16.02.2006 by which respondents No. 4 to 8 had been promoted to the Post of Assistant Security Commissioner (hereinafter referred to as Suresh Kumar 2025.05.29 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2446-2017 (O&M) “the ASC”). Respondent No.1 Assistant Public Prosecutor in May Prosecution Grade Prosecution Wing. Similarly, respondent No.2 joined Railway Protection Force in the year 1974 and was selected as Sub Inspector Prosecution Grade Inspector Prosecution Grade promoted as Inspector Prosecution Grade No.3-Krishan Kumar Sharma was a practicing Lawyer 1987-1999 at Alwar, Rajasthan and was appointed as Inspector Prosecution Grade-II on 31.03.1999 Grade-I on 22.03.2022. 30.06.2025, other two respondents and 31.12.2022 respectively 5. The challenge by the in allowing their Writ Petition to consider the name of the promotion to the post of ASC as on 17.01.2006 with reference to Railway Protection Force (Group (Railway Protection Force Security Commissioner and Assistant Security Commissioner Recruitment Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1994”), months and also extend the consequential service and monet 2017 (O&M) Respondent No.1-Harinder Singh Dhaliwal was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor in May 1996 and was sel Prosecution Grade-II on 23.03.1999 in the Railway Protection Force, Prosecution Wing. Similarly, respondent No.2 joined Railway Protection Force in the year 1974 and was selected as Sub Inspector Prosecution Grade-II on 14.12.1992 Inspector Prosecution Grade-II on 10.12.1998 promoted as Inspector Prosecution Grade-I on 23.03.2002. Respondent Krishan Kumar Sharma was a practicing Lawyer 1999 at Alwar, Rajasthan and was appointed as Inspector Prosecution II on 31.03.1999. He was further promoted to the post of Inspector I on 22.03.2022. While respondent No.1 is due to retire on 30.06.2025, other two respondents have already been and 31.12.2022 respectively, on attaining the age of 60 years. The challenge by them to the order dated 16.02.2006 resulted in allowing their Writ Petition with the directions to the respondent therein he name of the petitioners (respondents No.1 to 3 promotion to the post of ASC as on 17.01.2006 with reference to Railway Protection Force (Group-A) Posts of Deputy Inspector General Railway Protection Force), Deputy Chief Security Commiss Security Commissioner and Assistant Security Commissioner Recruitment Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1994”), months and also extend the consequential service and monet Harinder Singh Dhaliwal was appointed as 1996 and was selected as Inspector II on 23.03.1999 in the Railway Protection Force, Prosecution Wing. Similarly, respondent No.2-Mam Chand Sharma had joined Railway Protection Force in the year 1974 and was selected as Sub- on 14.12.1992. He was further promoted as II on 10.12.1998 and thereafter further I on 23.03.2002. Respondent Krishan Kumar Sharma was a practicing Lawyer for the period 1999 at Alwar, Rajasthan and was appointed as Inspector Prosecution was further promoted to the post of Inspector While respondent No.1 is due to retire on have already been retired on 31.10.2013 on attaining the age of 60 years. to the order dated 16.02.2006 resulted with the directions to the respondent therein respondents No.1 to 3 herein) for promotion to the post of ASC as on 17.01.2006 with reference to the A) Posts of Deputy Inspector General , Deputy Chief Security Commissioner/Senior Security Commissioner and Assistant Security Commissioner Recruitment Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1994”), within three months and also extend the consequential service and monetary benefits. Suresh Kumar 2025.05.29 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2446-2017 (O&M) 6. Learned Single Bench has f list prepared as on 01.07.2004 of Inspectors 8 to be senior to the respondents No.1 to 3 of promotion of 119 upgraded posts as on 17.01.2006. 7. The Railway Protection Force, Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1957”) and t (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1987”) conditions of the respondents. Case of the Appellants 8. L impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench has failed to take into consideration the provisions of the Rules in their correct perspective and the judgments applied by the learned Single Bench Others Vs. J. S Singh Rathore and Others SCC 605 could overruled in the case of Kumar and Others not sustainable in law. 9. T (i) Executive Branch (ii) Prosecution Branch and However, in 2003 (ii) Prosecution Branch as the Fire Service Branch was disband year 1992 and merged into the Executive Branch. 2017 (O&M) Learned Single Bench has further held that combined seniority list prepared as on 01.07.2004 of Inspectors, to be senior to the respondents No.1 to 3, was redundant for the purpose of promotion of 119 upgraded posts as on 17.01.2006. The Railway Protection Force, Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred “the Act of 1957”) and the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1987”) conditions of the respondents. Case of the Appellants Learned counsel for the appellants has order passed by the learned Single Bench has failed to take into consideration the provisions of the Rules in their correct perspective and the judgments applied by the learned Single Bench J. Sreenivasa Rao and Others ; Singh Rathore and Others Vs. B.N. Chaturvedi and Others could not have been relied upon as the same stands already overruled in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Kumar and Others ; (2023) 3 SCC 733. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. The posts of Inspector were earlier (i) Executive Branch (ii) Prosecution Branch and However, in 2003, there were only two Branches i.e. (i) Executive Branch (ii) Prosecution Branch as the Fire Service Branch was disband year 1992 and merged into the Executive Branch. urther held that combined seniority , reflecting respondents No.4 to was redundant for the purpose of promotion of 119 upgraded posts as on 17.01.2006. The Railway Protection Force, Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred he Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1987”) govern the service earned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the order passed by the learned Single Bench has failed to take into consideration the provisions of the Rules in their correct perspective and the judgments applied by the learned Single Bench of Y.V. Rangaiha and ; (1983)3 SCC 284 and Arjun B.N. Chaturvedi and Others; (2007) 11 not have been relied upon as the same stands already Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. Raj Therefore, the impugned order is earlier classified in three Branches (i) Executive Branch (ii) Prosecution Branch and (iii) Fire Service Branch. only two Branches i.e. (i) Executive Branch (ii) Prosecution Branch as the Fire Service Branch was disbanded in the year 1992 and merged into the Executive Branch. Respondents No.1 to 3 Suresh Kumar 2025.05.29 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2446-2017 (O&M) were in the Prosecution Branch Executive Branch promotion/recruitment 10. As per the Rules of 1994, the post of ASC was to be filled by promotion and in th as under:- (1) 4. Assistant Security Commissioner 11. On 10.10.1997, the pay scale Inspector Grade was merged as concerned, a sum of the post of Inspector Grade Branch, the cadre of Inspector Grade of Inspector Grade much earlier in the Prosecution Branch. From 10.10.1997, the post of 2017 (O&M) were in the Prosecution Branch whereas respondents No.4 to 8 were in the Executive Branch. The Rules of 1994 governed t promotion/recruitment to the posts of ASC. As per the Rules of 1994, the post of ASC was to be filled by and in this regard, the relevant extract of the Rules is reproduced (2) Commissioner A degree of any of the Universities established or incorporated by an Act of the Central or State Legislature in India or other Educational Institutions established by an Act of Parliament or declared to be deemed as a University under Section 3 of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956, or an equivalent qualification. On 10.10.1997, the pay scale Inspector Grade-II were equated by the 5th Pay Commission and pay scale was merged as `6,500-`200-`10,500/-. So far as the a sum of `200/- as special pay was the post of Inspector Grade-I.It has been stated that since in Branch, the cadre of Inspector Grade-I was small in comparison to the cadre of Inspector Grade-I in the Executive Branch, the special pay was earlier in the Prosecution Branch. From 10.10.1997, the post of respondents No.4 to 8 were in the The Rules of 1994 governed the method of As per the Rules of 1994, the post of ASC was to be filled by is regard, the relevant extract of the Rules is reproduced (3) A degree of any of the Universities established or incorporated by an Act of the Central or State Legislature in India or other Educational Institutions established by an Act of Parliament or declared to be deemed as a University under Section 3 of the University Grant Commission Act, 1956, or an equivalent Promotion:- Inspectors Grade-I (Pay Scale Rs.2000-3200) with five years regular service in the grade, failing which Inspectors Grade I with seven years combined regular service as Inspector Grade-I (Rs.2000-3200) and Inspector Grade II (Rs.1640-2900) with a minimum of two years regular service as Inspector Grade I. On 10.10.1997, the pay scales of Inspector Grade-I and Pay Commission and pay scale So far as the Inspector Grade-I are as special pay was granted who were holding I.It has been stated that since in the Prosecution I was small in comparison to the cadre I in the Executive Branch, the special pay was earned earlier in the Prosecution Branch. From 10.10.1997, the post of Suresh Kumar 2025.05.29 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2446-2017 (O&M) Inspector Grade made in the Rules of 1994. 12. On 17.01.2006, 119 posts of Inspector were upgraded to the rank of ASC earmarked as far as 13. In 2006, the Rules were called “Railway Protection Force (Group Inspector General (Railway Commissioner/Senior Security Commissioner and Assistant Security Commissioner Recruitment Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 2006 thereafter gazetted ASC was to be filled by way of selection recruitment and 10% from deputation by re Forces Personnel, failing which, by promotion. 14. The revised pay scale in the grade with a note that where juniors who have completed their qualifying/eligibility service are being considered for p seniors would also be considered provide qualifying/eligibility serve service of two years, whichever is less, and have successfully completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher grade along with their juniors who have already completed such qualifying eligibility service. 2017 (O&M) Inspector Grade-I seized to be a promotional post made in the Rules of 1994. On 17.01.2006, 119 posts of Inspector were upgraded to the rank of ASC (Junior scale) at different place earmarked as far as the Northern Railways is concerned In 2006, the appellants amended the Rules of were called “Railway Protection Force (Group Inspector General (Railway Protection Force) Commissioner/Senior Security Commissioner and Assistant Security Commissioner Recruitment Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2006”. The Rules of 2006 were notified on 16.01.2006 and gazetted on 20.01.2006. As per the new Rules ASC was to be filled by way of selection. 40% by promotion, 50% by recruitment and 10% from deputation by re Forces Personnel, failing which, by promotion. The channel of promotion was provided from Inspectors with revised pay scale of`6,500-`200-`10,500/- with five years regular service in the grade with a note that where juniors who have completed their qualifying/eligibility service are being considered for p seniors would also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying/eligibility served by more than half of such qualifying/eligibility service of two years, whichever is less, and have successfully completed ation period for promotion to the next higher grade along with their juniors who have already completed such qualifying eligibility service. to be a promotional post, but no amendments were On 17.01.2006, 119 posts of Inspector were upgraded to the different places wherein 8 posts were is concerned. amended the Rules of 1994 and these were called “Railway Protection Force (Group-A) Posts of Deputy Protection Force), Deputy Chief Security Commissioner/Senior Security Commissioner and Assistant Security Commissioner Recruitment Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as “the were notified on 16.01.2006 and 20.01.2006. As per the new Rules of 2006, the post of 40% by promotion, 50% by direct recruitment and 10% from deputation by re-employment by the Armed Forces Personnel, failing which, by promotion. channel of promotion was provided from Inspectors with with five years regular service in the grade with a note that where juniors who have completed their qualifying/eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their they are not short of the requisite by more than half of such qualifying/eligibility service of two years, whichever is less, and have successfully completed ation period for promotion to the next higher grade along with their juniors who have already completed such qualifying eligibility service. Suresh Kumar 2025.05.29 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2446-2017 (O&M) 15. On 16.02.2006, the Railway Protection Force respondents No.4 to 8 to the post of ASC and against the respondents No.1 to 3 March 2006. 16. Vide gazette notification dated 27.01.2007 Protection Force Rules, 1987 69 of the Railway Protection 17. On 28.02.2005 and 10.06.2005, combined seniority lists of all Inspector Grad Representations No.1 to 3 were reject after 01.10.1997 can promotion to the rank of ASC. Contentions of the appellants 18. Learned counsel for Bench has failed to notice that the post of ASC could not have been filled in accordance with the Rules of 1994 as the post of Inspector Grade be a promotional post clarified further vide circular dated 13.01.1999 that on recommendations of the 5th Pay Commission, the seniority list was decided to be maintained of all the Inspectors w.e.f. 04.12.1997 and respondents No. 1 to 3 as Inspector Grade seniority of Inspector Grade the purpose of 2017 (O&M) On 16.02.2006, the Railway Protection Force respondents No.4 to 8 to the post of ASC and against the respondents No.1 to 3 had preferred Writ Petition i.e. Vide gazette notification dated 27.01.2007 Protection Force Rules, 1987 were amended Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 were added On 28.02.2005 and 10.06.2005, combined seniority lists of all Inspector Grade-I and Inspector Grade-II were published respectively. Representations were called for and grievances/objections No.1 to 3 were rejected. It was decided that the .10.1997 cannot be included in the seniority list for the purpose of promotion to the rank of ASC. of the appellants Learned counsel for appellants submits that the learned Single Bench has failed to notice that the post of ASC could not have been filled in accordance with the Rules of 1994 as the post of Inspector Grade be a promotional post of Inspector Grade-II with w.e.f 10. clarified further vide circular dated 13.01.1999 that on recommendations of Pay Commission, the seniority list was decided to be maintained of all the Inspectors w.e.f. 04.12.1997 and respondents No. 1 to 3 r Grade-I, paled into insignificance seniority of Inspector Grade-I prior to 04.12.1997 would only be treated for the purpose of seniority and those who are promoted after 04.12.1997, the On 16.02.2006, the Railway Protection Force has promoted respondents No.4 to 8 to the post of ASC and against the said order, preferred Writ Petition i.e. CWP-4353-2006 in Vide gazette notification dated 27.01.2007, the Railway were amended wherein Rule-1 2(a) and Rule Force Rules, 1987 were added. On 28.02.2005 and 10.06.2005, combined seniority lists of all II were published respectively. grievances/objections of respondents the Inspector Grade-I promoted be included in the seniority list for the purpose of appellants submits that the learned Single Bench has failed to notice that the post of ASC could not have been filled in accordance with the Rules of 1994 as the post of Inspector Grade-I seizes to II with w.e.f 10.10.1997. It was clarified further vide circular dated 13.01.1999 that on recommendations of Pay Commission, the seniority list was decided to be maintained of all the Inspectors w.e.f. 04.12.1997 and respondents No. 1 to 3, being senior significance right from 04.12.1997.The I prior to 04.12.1997 would only be treated for seniority and those who are promoted after 04.12.1997, the Suresh Kumar 2025.05.29 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2446-2017 (O&M) seniority will be maintained from Grade respondent Nos. 4 to 8 had been appointed as Inspector Grade earlier point of time Inspector Grade in view of the benefit of ACP scheme, they had become entitled for promotion on 19. Learned counsel for the appellant General, Railway Protection Force se seniority of the officials if the Act is silent. The Inspector Grade the Inspector Grade Inspector Grade were revised i.e.10.10.1997. Respondents No.1 to 3 claim themselves to be senior to the Inspectors of the Executive Branch who were holding the upgraded. 20. It the Executive Branch and therefore, the officials working as Executive Branch. The promotion, therefore, did not deserve to be disturbed. Contentions of the respondents 21. Per contra submits that the Rules 2017 (O&M) seniority will be maintained from Grade respondent Nos. 4 to 8 had been appointed as Inspector Grade earlier point of time than respondents No. 1 to 3 Inspector Grade-II on 01.04.1983 and were also drawing pay scale of ASC in view of the benefit of ACP scheme, they had become entitled for on the upgraded post under the old Rules Learned counsel for the appellant General, Railway Protection Force alone has the power to decide the seniority of the officials if the Act is silent. The Inspector Grade-II was, therefore, to be taken into consideration amongst all the Inspector Grade-I and Grade-II after the merger of both the posts Inspector Grade-I and Grade-II, with effect from the were revised i.e.10.10.1997. Respondents No.1 to 3 claim themselves to be senior to the Inspectors of the Executive Branch who were holding the pay scale of Inspector Grade It is further submitted that upgradation of 119 posts was from the Executive Branch and therefore, the appellants officials working as Inspectors Inspector Grade Executive Branch. The promotion, therefore, did not deserve to be Contentions of the respondents No.1 to 3 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Rules provide that the position seniority will be maintained from Grade-II promotion. Since, the respondent Nos. 4 to 8 had been appointed as Inspector Grade-II much respondents No. 1 to 3 and had been working as and were also drawing pay scale of ASC, in view of the benefit of ACP scheme, they had become entitled for old Rules. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the Director has the power to decide the inter seniority of the officials if the Act is silent. The inter se seniority of therefore, to be taken into consideration amongst all after the merger of both the posts with effect from the pay of both the posts were revised i.e.10.10.1997. Respondents No.1 to 3, therefore, could not claim themselves to be senior to the Inspectors of the Executive Branch, Inspector Grade-II till their scale was is further submitted that upgradation of 119 posts was from appellants had rightly promoted the Inspectors Inspector Grade-I and Grade-II in the Executive Branch. The promotion, therefore, did not deserve to be , learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 the position prior to merger of Inspector Suresh Kumar 2025.05.29 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2446-2017 (O&M) Grade-I and Inspector Grade Inspector Grade Inspector Grade Inspectors has come into force only on 27.01.2007 by the amendment Rules, 2006. no actual merger. 22. It is submitted that respondents respondents No.4 to 8 post of Inspector Grade post of Inspector Grade w.e.f. 10.10.1997 equivalent to and therefore, merely because of the upgradation of their pay scale could not be said to be holding the same posts as respondents No. 1 to 3 on the day when the 23. Learned that although the principle laid down in the case of Others (Supra) would have no application to the present case as the same judgment itself given because 27.01.2007 i.e. the date of publication in the was found only w.e.f. the said date of the common cadre could not be made on the basis of the new Rules. 2017 (O&M) I and Inspector Grade-II was Sub-Inspector to Inspector Grade Inspector Grade-I and thereafter to the ASC. Grade-I and Inspector Grade-II and the has come into force only on 27.01.2007 by the amendment Rules, 2006. Thus, on the day when the promotions were made no actual merger. It is submitted that respondents No.4 to 8 under the old Rules as they ha post of Inspector Grade-I, while the respondent post of Inspector Grade-II. When the revised pay scale w.e.f. 10.10.1997, the pay scale of the respondents that of respondents No. 1 to 3, but there was no actual merger and therefore, merely because of the upgradation of their pay scale said to be holding the same posts as respondents No. 1 to 3 on when the impugned promotion order was passed. Learned counsel for the respondents that although the principle laid down in the case of (Supra) would have no application to the present case as the same itself has been overruled as on the day when the promotions were because, since the new Rules had not .01.2007 i.e. the date of publication in the was found only w.e.f. the said date. Promotions of the common cadre could not be made on the basis of the new Rules. Inspector to Inspector Grade-II to I and thereafter to the ASC. The merger of cadres of II and the formation of cadre of has come into force only on 27.01.2007 by the amendment , on the day when the promotions were made, there was It is submitted that respondents No.1 to 3 were seniors to they had been promoted on the while the respondents No. 4 to 8 were holding the When the revised pay scales came into force the respondents No.4 to 8 was made but there was no actual merger and therefore, merely because of the upgradation of their pay scales, they said to be holding the same posts as respondents No. 1 to 3 on was passed. respondents No.1 to 3 frankly submits that although the principle laid down in the case of Y.V. Rangaiha and (Supra) would have no application to the present case as the same on the day when the promotions were s had not come into force w.e.f. .01.2007 i.e. the date of publication in the gazette and the common cadre . Promotions given prior to the formation of the common cadre could not be made on the basis of the new Rules. Suresh Kumar 2025.05.29 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2446-2017 (O&M) 24. It has been further submitted that as per Rules of amended in 2006 too, the respondents No. 4 to 8 could not have been trea respondents No. 1 to 3 as per note made in the and respondent No.1 to 3 holding the posts of Inspector Grade Findings of the Court 25. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. 26. At the outset we find that the reliance made by the learned Single Bench to the ju impugned order is wholly required to be taken into consideration as the same has been overruled by the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar and Others under:- Rangaiah would demonstrate that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that have a direct bearing Rangaiah are as under: 2017 (O&M) It has been further submitted that as per Rules of amended in 2006, if applied to the promotions made on 16.02.2006 the respondents No. 4 to 8 could not have been trea respondents No. 1 to 3 as per note made in the and respondent No.1 to 3 were required to be first considered being already holding the posts of Inspector Grade-I. Findings of the Court We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties. At the outset we find that the reliance made by the learned Single Bench to the judgment of Y.V. Rangaiha and Others impugned order is wholly irrelevant and unjustified and the to be taken into consideration as the same has been overruled by pex Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Raj Kumar and Others; (2023) SCC 773 “36. A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished Rangaiah would demonstrate that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that have a direct bearing on the proposition formulated by Rangaiah are as under: 1. There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah’s case must be understood in the con rules involved therein. 2. It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules, which implies the "rule in force" as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be cons It has been further submitted that as per Rules of 1994 as , if applied to the promotions made on 16.02.2006, then the respondents No. 4 to 8 could not have been treated as senior to respondents No. 1 to 3 as per note made in the amendment in the pay scale were required to be first considered being already We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for At the outset we find that the reliance made by the learned Y.V. Rangaiha and Others (Supra) in the and unjustified and the same is not to be taken into consideration as the same has been overruled by State of Himachal Pradesh and Others Vs. wherein it has been held as 36. A review of the fifteen cases that have distinguished Rangaiah would demonstrate that this Court has been consistently carving out exceptions to the broad proposition formulated in Rangaiah. The findings in these judgments, that on the proposition formulated by There is no rule of universal application that vacancies must be necessarily filled on the basis of the law which existed on the date when they arose, Rangaiah’s case must be understood in the context of the It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate has a right to be considered in the light of the existed rules, which implies the "rule in force" as on the date consideration takes place. The right to be considered Suresh Kumar 2025.05.29 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2446-2017 (O&M) decisions that hav that the wide principle enunciated therein is substantially watered Rangaiah hold that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must law that that decision in Rangaiah is confined to the facts of that case. 27. The Commissioner (ASC) under the amended Rule of 2006, reads as under: Name of the post 1 Assistant Security Commissioner 2017 (O&M) for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the eligible candidates. 3. The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. acquire any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view of the policy decision taken by the Government. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuri cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit.61 The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of 4. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts immediately. 5. When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to consider the cases. 37.1 The above-referred observations made in the fifteen decisions that have distinguished Rangaiah’s case demonstrate that the wide principle enunciated therein is substantially watered-down. Almost all the decisions that distinguished Rangaiah hold that there is no rule of universal application to the effect that vacancies must necessarily be filled on the basis of law that existed on the date when they arose. This only implies that decision in Rangaiah is confined to the facts of that case. The method of recruitment to the post of Assistant Security Commissioner (ASC) under the amended Rule of 2006, reads as under: No. of posts Classification Scale of Pay 2 3 152* (2006) Subject to variation dependent on work lod General Central Service Group- A Gazette No. ministerial `8000-275 for promotion occurs on the date of consideration of the The Government is entitled to take a conscious policy decision not to fill up the vacancies arising prior to the amendment of the rules. The employee does not any vested right to being considered for promotion in accordance with the repealed rules in view policy decision taken by the Government. There is no obligation for the Government to make appointments as per the old rules in the event of restructuring of the cadre is intended for efficient working of the unit.61 The only requirement is that the policy decisions of the Government must be fair and reasonable and must be justified on the touchstone of Article 14. The principle in Rangaiah need not be applied merely because posts were created, as it is not obligatory for the appointing authority to fill up the posts When there is no statutory duty cast upon the State to consider appointments to vacancies that existed prior to the amendment, the State cannot be directed to referred observations made in the fifteen e distinguished Rangaiah’s case demonstrate that the wide principle enunciated therein is substantially down. Almost all the decisions that distinguished Rangaiah hold that there is no rule of universal application to necessarily be filled on the basis of existed on the date when they arose. This only implies that decision in Rangaiah is confined to the facts of that case.” method of recruitment to the post of Assistant Security Commissioner (ASC) under the amended Rule of 2006, reads as under:- Scale of Pay Whether selection post or non- selection post Whether benefit of added years of service admissible 4 5 6 275-13,500 Selection Non applicable added years of Suresh Kumar 2025.05.29 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2446-2017 (O&M) Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/absorption and percentage of the post to be filled by various methods 40% promotion 50% direct recruitment 10% by deputation Re-employment of armed forces personal, failing which, by promotion 28. From the perusal of the above, it is apparent seniority list of the prepared on the adv the amendment in 2006. Merely because pay scale of Inspector Grade both the posts which comes into force only upon appropriate the Rules. The till publication of the amendment Rules respondents No.1 to 3, who were could not have been equated to the respondents No.4 to 8, who were holding the post of Inspector Grade 29. We notice that merely because the post of Inspectors upgraded from the Executive Branch to the post of ASC No. 1 to 3 have not is not a case where respondents No.1 to 3 have been even considered for promotion. The seniority list of 2005 2017 (O&M) Method of recruitment whether by direct recruitment or by promotion or by deputation/absorption and percentage of the post to be filled by various methods In case of recruitment absorption grade from which promotion/ deputation/ absorption to be made. 11 50% direct recruitment employment of armed forces personal, failing which, by promotion Promotion Inspectors with revised pay scale of with five years regular service in the grade. Note:- qualifying/eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provide they qualifying/eligibility serve by more than half of such qualifying/eligibility service of two years, whichever is less, and have successfully completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher grade along with their juniors who have already completed such qualifying eligibility service. From the perusal of the above, it is apparent seniority list of the Inspectors Grade-I and Grade on the advice of the Director General only after coming into force the amendment in 2006. Merely because, the pay scale Rules equated the of Inspector Grade-II to Inspector Grade the posts had been merged. Merger of posts is an administrative fe which comes into force only upon appropriate the Rules. The cadre of Inspectors Grade-I and Grade till publication of the amendment Rules of respondents No.1 to 3, who were holding the post of Inspector Grade could not have been equated to the respondents No.4 to 8, who were holding the post of Inspector Grade-II. We notice that merely because the post of Inspectors upgraded from the Executive Branch to the post of ASC have not been considered, who were in is not a case where respondents No.1 to 3 have been even considered for The seniority list of 2005, as has been placed In case of recruitment by promotion/ deputation/ absorption grade from which promotion/ deputation/ absorption to be made. 12 Promotion Inspectors with revised pay scale of `6500-`10,500 with five years regular service in the grade. juniors who have completed their qualifying/eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered provide they are not short of the requisite qualifying/eligibility serve by more than half of such qualifying/eligibility service of two years, whichever is less, and have successfully completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher grade along their juniors who have already completed such qualifying eligibility service. From the perusal of the above, it is apparent that the combined I and Grade-II could have been General only after coming into force the pay scale Rules equated the Grade-I, it would not mean that merged. Merger of posts is an administrative feat which comes into force only upon appropriate amendments being made in I and Grade-II continue to operate of 2006 i.e. till 27.01.2007. The holding the post of Inspector Grade-I, could not have been equated to the respondents No.4 to 8, who were We notice that merely because the post of Inspectors was upgraded from the Executive Branch to the post of ASC, the respondents who were in the Prosecution Branch. It is not a case where respondents No.1 to 3 have been even considered for has been placed on record with the by promotion/ deputation/ absorption grade from which promotion/ deputation/ 10,500 juniors who have completed their qualifying/eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors would also be considered are not short of the requisite qualifying/eligibility serve by more than half of such qualifying/eligibility service of two years, whichever is less, and have successfully completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher grade along their juniors who have already completed such Suresh Kumar 2025.05.29 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-2446-2017 (O&M) Appeal, would hereinabove and promotion to the post of ASC. The allowed though been assigned by the learned Single Bench as the reliance made by the learned Single Bench to the judg (Supra) has been overruled by the A Conclusion 30. In view thereto, the Appeal stands extent and the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Single substituted herein above. 31. Al accordingly. May 29, 2025 Ess Kay Whether speaking / reasoned Whether Reportable 2017 (O&M) would, therefore, be void ab initio in view of what we have stated hereinabove and could not have been made as promotion to the post of ASC. The Writ Petition therefore, deserves to be allowed though, for the reasons as above instead of the r been assigned by the learned Single Bench as the reliance made by the earned Single Bench to the judgment of has been overruled by the Apex Court. In view thereto, the Appeal stands extent and the Writ Petition is allowed and the order passed by the learned Single substituted herein above. All pending applications in this [SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA [DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA , 2025 Whether speaking / reasoned : Whether Reportable : in view of what we have stated could not have been made as a source of making Writ Petition therefore, deserves to be for the reasons as above instead of the reasons which have been assigned by the learned Single Bench as the reliance made by the ment of Y.V. Rangaiha and Others pex Court. In view thereto, the Appeal stands dismissed to the aforesaid extent and the Writ Petition is allowed and the operative part of the order passed by the learned Single is upheld for the reasons as pending applications in this case are disposed of SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA] JUDGE : Yes : Yes Suresh Kumar 2025.05.29 17:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document