1    

REPORTABLE   

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  

TRANSFERRED CASE (CIVIL) NO(S). 11 OF 2017    

LT. CDR. M. RAMESH            ...PETITIONER(S)    

Versus    

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.           …RESPONDENT(S)    (WITH I.A. NO.132315/2017 – CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION)    

WITH    

T.C. (C) NO. 12 OF 2017  T.C. (C) NO. 13 OF 2017  

T.C. (C) NO. 16-20 OF 2017  T.C. (C) NO. 23 OF 2017  

(WITH I.A. NO.108931/2017-INTERVENTION APPLICATION)  T.C. (C) NO. 46 OF 2017  T.C. (C) NO. 268 OF 2017  T.C. (C) NO. 48 OF 2017  T.C. (C) NO. 50 OF 2017  T.C. (C) NO. 49 OF 2017  

J U D G M E N T    

 Deepak Gupta J.  

1. By this judgment we shall decide whether the decision taken  

by the Union of India not to make appointments to the Indian  

Police Service (for short ‘the IPS’) pursuant to the Limited

2    

Competitive Examination (for short ‘the LCE’) which took place  

from 20.05.2012 to 22.05.2012, is legal and valid.   

2. The facts in brief are that keeping in view the shortage of  

police officials in the Indian Police Service, the Ministry of Home  

Affairs, Union of India set up a Committee headed by Shri Kamal  

Kumar, I.P.S. (Retd.) to make suggestions on various aspects  

including filling up the vacancies.  The Committee, in its report,  

recommended that in addition to the normal modes of recruitment  

i.e. direct recruitment to the IPS through the annual Civil Services  

Examination and promotion from the State Police Services, a third  

method of Limited Competitive Examination should be introduced.   

The directly recruited Deputy Superintendents of Police in the  

State Police Service and their equivalents in the Central Police  

Services with a minimum of 5 years of service were eligible for this  

exam subject to a maximum age limit of 45 years.  It was also  

recommended that not more than 65 officers should be recruited  

in a given year through the LCE and the recruitment through this  

channel may have to be staggered over a period of 7 years.  The  

Government partially accepted the report and by amendment in  

sub-rule (1) of Rule 4 of the Indian Police Service (Recruitment)  

Rules, 1954 introduced a method of recruitment through LCE.

3    

Officers of the State Police Service, Central Police Organisation  

and Army officers fulfilling the eligibility conditions were entitled to  

appear in the LCE.  It would be pertinent to mention that the LCE  

was placed at point (b) below (a) direct recruit through competitive  

examination and above (c) promotion of the members of the State  

Police Services.  Rule 8, as amended, provided that the LCE would  

be held at such intervals as the Central Government, may in  

consultation with the Union Public Service Commission (for short  

‘the UPSC’) from time to time, determine.  At this stage, it would  

be pertinent to mention that in terms of the IPS rules, the  

seniority of IPS officers is determined as per the year of allotment  

and Rule 3 of the Indian Police Service (Regulation of Seniority)  

Rules, 1988 provides that the year of allotment of a direct recruit   

shall be the year following the year in which the competitive  

examination was held.  It is not disputed that for the purposes of  

assigning the year of allotment the persons selected through the  

LCE would be covered by the same rule like the direct recruit.   

Consequently, amongst the officers having the same year  

appointment, the inter se seniority would be determined as  

follows:  

4    

1. Direct recruits  

2. LCE appointees  

3. Promoted State Police Service officers  

 3. The relevant portion of Indian Police Service (Recruitment)  

Amended Rules, 2011 reads as follows:-  

“1.    xxx   xxx  xxx  

 2.In the Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954  

(hereinafter referred to as the principal rules), in rule 4 in  sub-rule(1), for clause (b), the following clauses shall be  substituted, namely:-  

  “(b)  by limited competitive examination;    

      (c) by promotion of members of a State Police                                 Service.”  

xxx   xxx  xxx    

 3.  In the Principal rules, after rule 7, the following rule  

shall be inserted, namely:-     

“8. Recruitment by limited competitive examination –  (1) The limited competitive examination for recruitment to  the service shall be held at such intervals as the Central  

Government may, in consultation with the Commission,  from time to time determine.     

(2) The examination shall be conducted by the Commission  in accordance with such regulations as the Central  

Government may from time to time make in consultation  with the Commission and the State Government.  

(3)  xxx   xxx  xxx”  

4. Pursuant to the aforesaid amendment to the Rules, the UPSC  

published an advertisement on 10.03.2012 inviting applications  

for filling up posts in the IPS through LCE as per the amended

5    

rules.  Thereafter, written tests and interviews were conducted but  

till date the results of the same have not been declared.  

 5. The amendments to the rules were challenged in a number of  

petitions.  One petition was filed in the Delhi High Court being WP  

(C) No. 1610 of 2012 titled Zakat Foundation of India v. Union of  

India & Ors.  This petition appears to have been filed in the public  

interest and the contention of the petitioner was that the  

provisions providing for the LCE were arbitrary and  

unconstitutional and the Government should increase the intake  

of the IPS through normal direct recruitment through the UPSC.   

This petition was rejected mainly on the ground that introduction  

of a new method of recruitment through the LCE was a policy  

decision in which the Court could not interfere.  It had been  

argued before the Delhi High Court that many State Governments  

had not been consulted; that the UPSC and other bodies had  

expressed their reservations and therefore, the amendment was  

illegal.  The Delhi High Court observed that it cannot comment  

whether the system introduced by this amendment is the best or  

there could be better alternatives.  It noted that the UPSC had  

initially opposed the amendment.  It had also noted the  

reservation of the Central Police Organisation and the States that

6    

this would result in shortage of police officers, and Paramilitary  

Forces in the State.  However, the Court held that it cannot nullify  

or invalidate the decision of the Government only on the ground  

that it was not a very wise decision and there were better  

alternatives.    

 6. It would also be pertinent to mention that the amended rules  

were challenged before this Court  in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 326  

of 2012 but the same was dismissed by this Court on 27.08.2012  

on the ground that the petitioners could not show how they were  

adversely affected by the amendment to the rules.   

 7. Some police officers of the Assam Police Service filed Original  

Application being O.A.No.112 of 2012 in the Central  

Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the CAT’), Guwahati Bench  

challenging the amendment introducing the LCE mainly on the  

grounds that no consultations had been held with the States; that  

the amendment was arbitrary and unreasonable and the main  

challenge was with regard to the maximum age being fixed at 35  

years whereas the recommendation of the Kamal Kumar  

Committee was 45 years.  The CAT vide its order dated 14.09.2012  

quashed the amended Rules of 2011 as being illegal, having been

7    

made without consulting the State Governments representing the  

Assam-Meghalaya Joint Cadre Authority and also on the ground  

that the promotional avenues of the State police officers stood  

abridged by the amended rules and therefore, the rules were  

violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.  This  

decision of the CAT was challenged by the Union of India before  

the Gauhati High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.4880 of 2012.   

Some persons, who had appeared in the LCE also filed a writ  

petition being Writ Petition (Civil) No. 5337 of 2012 challenging the  

judgment of the CAT.  The Gauhati High Court allowed the writ  

petitions and set aside the order of the CAT and held the amended  

rules to be valid.    

 8. It would be pertinent to mention that neither the judgment of  

the Delhi High Court in Zakat Foundation nor the judgment of the  

Gauhati High Court has been challenged and has thus attained  

finality.  However, the matter does not end here.  Various petitions  

were filed in different High Courts.  It would also not be out of  

place to mention that certain members of the armed forces  

engaged on Short Service Commission were not given permission  

to appear in the examination or interview on the ground that they  

could not leave the armed forces before completing their tenure of

8    

service.  They also filed writ petitions praying that they should be  

permitted to appear in the examination and interview.  Therefore,  

the Union of India filed Transfer Petition (Civil) Nos. 272-287 of  

2015 and Transfer Petition (Civil) No.1555 of 2017 praying for  

transfer of 17 cases pending in different High Courts in the  

country.  Notice was issued for transfer of 17 cases and  

proceedings before the High Courts were stayed.  However, 3 cases  

were not sent by the High Courts on the ground that either they  

have been already disposed of or they had no concern with this  

litigation.  Therefore, 14 transfer petitions have been listed before  

this Court for hearing.  It may be mentioned that as far as  

Transferred Case (Civil) No. 50 of 2017 is concerned, the matter  

has already been disposed of by the Delhi High Court and,  

therefore, it has become infructuous.    

 9. Before this Court, it took a long time to serve the  

respondents and on 12.12.2017, when the matter was taken up  

for hearing the following order was passed:  

“Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Additional Solicitor  

General, seeks some more time for the Ministry of Home  Affairs to take a final call on the stand to be taken on  

the issues raised in these cases.   We direct the Ministry of Home Affairs to finalize its  stand positively within two weeks from today.  

Post these cases on 08.01.2018.

9    

We make it clear that depending on the decision taken  by the Ministry of Home Affairs it will be open to the  

U.P.S.C. to proceed with the process, making it subject  to the result of these Transferred Cases.”  

10. On 08.01.2018, the Union of India sought time to file an  

affidavit.  By this affidavit, filed on 12.01.2018 and affirmed by  

Shri S.K. Rastogi, Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, the  

Court was informed that after considering all aspects referred to in  

the affidavit, the Union of India had taken a decision to scrap the  

LCE held in the year 2012.  The candidates who had appeared in  

the LCE have opposed this decision of the Union of India and at  

this stage, we have heard arguments only on the issue whether  

the decision of the Central Government to cancel the selection  

process is legal or not.   

 11. In support of its decision to scrap the LCE, the Union of India  

has submitted that the main purpose of holding the LCE was to fill  

up a large number of vacancies.  According to the stand of the  

Union of India, when the Kamal Kumar Committee was set up,  

about 30% posts in the IPS were vacant.  The year-wise tabulation  

of the same is as under:  

10    

Year Authorised  Strength  

In  position   

Vacancy  %  

01.01.2012 3277 2536 741 22.61  

01.01.2013 3277 2574 703 21.45  

01.01.2014 3275 2617 658 20.09  

01.01.2015 3293 2685 608 18.46  

01.01.2016 3327 2744 583 17.52  

01.01.2017 3356 2802 554 16.50  

01.01.2018 3423 2887* 536* 15.65  

*Approx  

12. It has been argued by Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned  

senior counsel appearing for the Union of India that the  

percentage of vacancies has gone down.  It has also been  

contended that the candidates who underwent the examination in  

the year 2012 would be placed immediately below the direct  

recruit IPS officers of the same year and that subsequent  

recruitments have been done both by direct recruitment and by  

promotion and this may result in a lot of litigation with regard to  

seniority.  It is also contended that it was contemplated that the  

officers recruited through the process of the LCE would be about  

35 years of age but now with the passage of time even if the result  

is declared, many of them may be more than 40 years of age which  

will hamper their functioning in the Indian Police Service.  The  

main contention of the Union of India is that the petitioners have

11    

no legal right to be appointed and mere selection does not give  

them such a right.  

 13. Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned senior counsel, appearing for  

the persons who have appeared in the LCE, contended that even if  

there is no vested legal right, the said applicants have a legitimate  

expectation to be appointed. He concedes that in certain  

circumstances the Government can cancel a selection process but  

this cancellation can only be done when there is an overriding  

public interest.  His submission is that the affidavit in question  

does not show any such overriding interest.  Mr. R. Venkatramani,  

learned senior counsel appearing for some of the LCE candidates  

submitted that the Government must be fair and just and the  

affidavit fails to disclose what is the public interest or the higher  

purpose served by scrapping the examination.   He further  

submits that the reasons given by the Government in its affidavit  

do not satisfy the test of overriding public interest or higher  

purpose and, as such, the decision of the Government to scrap the  

examination should not be accepted by this Court and the UPSC  

should be directed to declare the result and the Union of India be  

directed to make appointments pursuant to the result.    

12    

14. The first issue that arises is whether the petitioners have any  

vested right to claim that the result must be declared and if the  

petitioners are selected, they should be appointed.  This Court in  

Jai Singh Dalal v. State of Haryana1  held that merely because  

the Government had sent a requisition to the UPSC to select the  

candidates for appointments, did not create any vested right in the  

candidate called for the interview to be appointed.  It was also held  

that the authority which has the power to specify the method of  

recruitment must be deemed to have the power to revise and  

substitute the same.  The Court, however, also laid down that at  

best the Government may be required to justify its action on the  

touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution.  This view has been  

followed in a large number of cases.  In Vijay Kumar Mishra v.  

High Court of Judicature at Patna2, this Court held that there  

is a distinction  between  selection  and appointment.  It  was held   

that a person, who is successful in the selection process, does not  

acquire any right to be appointed automatically.  Such a person  

has no indefeasible right of appointment.   

  15. It is, thus, well settled that merely because a person has  

been selected, does not give that person an indefeasible right of                                                              1 1993 Supp.(2) SCC 600  2 (2016) 9 SCC 313

13    

claiming appointment.  As far as the present cases are concerned,  

results have not been declared and even the selection process is  

not complete.  As such, there is no manner of doubt that the  

petitioners have no enforceable right to claim that the result  

should be declared or that they should be appointed if found  

meritorious.  

 16. Having held so, we must also note that the law is well settled  

that even though the candidates may not have a vested right of  

appointment and the State is not under any duty or obligation to  

fill up the vacancies, the State has to act fairly and it cannot act in  

an arbitrary manner.  The decision, not to fill up the vacancies  

pursuant to the selection process, must be taken bona fide and for  

justifiable and appropriate reasons.  In this regard, we may make  

reference to the case of Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India3.  

 17. On behalf of the candidates, who have appeared in the  

examination, a feeble attempt was made to invoke the principle of  

promissory estoppel.  In our view, the said principle is not at all  

applicable to the present case.  It is well settled law that the  

principle of promissory estoppel can only be invoked by a person  

                                                           3 (1991) 3 SCC 47

14    

who has changed his position to his detriment on the basis of the  

promise held out to him.  This is not the position in the present  

cases.  All the candidates are serving in the State Police or the  

Central Police Organisation or in the Army.  Their position has not  

been adversely affected by the selection process and therefore, the  

principle of promissory estoppel is not applicable.  

 18.   The main attack against the decision of the Government is  

on the ground that the candidates had a legitimate expectation  

that pursuant to the written test and interview, their result would  

be declared and if found successful, they would be appointed.  It is  

a well settled law that even if there is no vested right, the principle  

of legitimate expectation can be invoked.  Legitimate expectation  

arises when the citizens expect that they will be benefitted under  

some policy or decision, announced by the State.  At the same  

time, the law is well settled that the Legislature and the Executive  

can change any policy for good reasons.  These good reasons must  

be such which are not arbitrary, which are not mala fide and the  

decision has been taken in the public interest.  If the decision to  

change the policy is arbitrary or capricious then it may be     

struck down.    

15    

19. Applying the aforesaid principle, we may test whether the  

action of the Government in deciding to scrap the recruitment  

process by the LCE is an arbitrary decision or not.  The reasons  

given by the Government in support of its decision are as follows:  

1. percentage of vacancies has gone down;  

2. the selection process has been delayed by many years which  

will mean that the persons selected will be at least 5 years  

older than as expected;   

3. that many petitions are still pending and the matter has not  

been finally decided, which could lead to further delay; and  

4. it is apprehended that there would be a surfeit of litigation  

between candidates, if any, appointed through LCE and  

those who are recruited by direct recruitment or promotion  

during the years 2012 to 2018.  

 20. Both Mr. Dave and Mr. Venkatramani have attacked each  

ground invoked by the Union individually but we are of the view  

that it is the combined effect of all the grounds which will have to  

be taken into consideration.  There is no manner of doubt that it  

was expected that the result would be declared in the year 2013  

and the officers would be sent for training in the same year.  We  

are in the year 2018 and some of the matters which have been

16    

transferred to this Court are still to be heard.  It was urged that  

the dispute stands decided by the Gauhati High Court and the  

Delhi High Court.  It may be true that these two Courts have  

upheld the validity of the rules and the Union of India did not  

challenge the decisions in these two cases, but we cannot lose  

sight of the fact that there are various other petitions pending and  

neither this Court nor the other High Courts are bound by the  

decision rendered by the Gauhati High Court or the Delhi High  

Court.  These cases will have to be decided, if we are not to accept  

the stand of the Central Government.  This could delay the matter  

even further.    

 21. The officers, who may have been selected in the year 2013 at  

the upper age limit of 35 years or 36 years would now be 5 years  

older.  No doubt, they are members of the State Police Service or  

the Central Police Organisation, but their induction or recruitment  

in the IPS is delayed by more than 5 years.  When the Government  

laid down a policy that upper age limit was 35 years, it must have  

had some reason for fixing the upper age limit.  That purpose is  

now defeated.    

17    

22. We cannot be oblivious to the fact that if the Union is  

compelled to make the appointments, this will lead to a plethora of  

litigation where the persons recruited to the IPS between 2013 and  

2018 will claim seniority over the persons, who appear in the LCE.  

We are not going into the merits of the issue but, we can easily  

visualise the huge amount of litigation which will in all probability  

ensue, where members of the IPS would be litigating against each  

other.  Such litigation would not be in public good and will achieve  

no higher purpose.  In fact, such litigation may also affect the  

morale of the officers in the IPS.    

 23. The Union has also taken up a plea that though the fall in  

vacancies, when taken numerically, may not be much but when  

taken on percentage basis, there is a fairly large fall in the  

vacancies.  At the time when the Kamal Kumar Committee was set  

up and till its report, 30% of the posts in the IPS were lying  

vacant. When the rules were introduced, 22.61% posts were  

vacant.  As on 01.01.2018, 15.65% posts are vacant and,  

therefore, definitely there is a fall in the percentage of vacancies.   

It was urged that even now there are large number of vacancies  

and, therefore, the decision of the Government is irrational.  We  

cannot accept this submission.  One cannot lose sight of the fact

18    

that the induction through LCE is mainly limited to persons  

belonging to the State Police Services and the Central Police  

Organisation. Any such induction would lead to a consequential  

shortage in these organisations.  The gain, if any, in the IPS,  

would be set off by a consequent shortage in the State Police  

Services and the Central Police Organisation.   

 24. When we examine the decision taken by the Central  

Government in a holistic manner, we have no doubt that the  

decision to scrap the LCE recruitment has been taken in the larger  

public interest.  The decision is definitely not mala fide.  It is not  

actuated by extraneous reasons.  It cannot be said that the  

decision is arbitrary.  

  25.  In view of the foregoing reasons, the decision of the  

Government to scrap the process of recruitment to the IPS through  

the LCE cannot be termed to be arbitrary, discriminatory or  

capricious.  The decision is a reasonable one in the facts and  

circumstances of the case.    

26. In view of the above, all the transferred cases have been rendered  

infructuous and are disposed of accordingly.  Applications for

19    

clarification/direction as well as intervention are rejected.   

Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.  

…………………………J.  (Madan B. Lokur)  

…………………………J.  (Kurian Joseph)  

…………………………J.  (Deepak Gupta)  

New Delhi  April 17, 2018