Patna High Court: Amendments Cannot Invalidate Lawful Appointments—Quashes Orders Rejecting Petitioners’ Inclusion in Driver Constable Cadre and Directs Reinstatement with Full Benefits

Court’s Decision:

The court decided to set aside the impugned orders passed by the Director General of Police, Bihar Military Police, and the Deputy Inspector General of Police, rejecting the petitioners’ request for inclusion in the cadre of Driver Constables. The court held that the petitioners are entitled to be considered for inclusion as Driver Constables in accordance with the pre-amendment Rule 1186 of the Bihar Police Manual. It further directed the respondents to ensure that the petitioners’ cases are reviewed in light of the applicable rules and relevant legal precedents.

Facts:

1. The petitioners were initially appointed as General Constables under the Home (Police) Department of Bihar.
2. Following the decision of the State Government in 2000 to create a Special Task Force (STF) to tackle organized crime and other offenses, they were deputed to STF as Driver Constables.
3. The petitioners received appropriate training and were later included in the cadre of Driver Constables as per Rule 1186 of the Bihar Police Manual, 1978.
4. In 2016, an issue arose when the Director General of Police, Bihar Military Police, clarified that personnel posted under STF would not have their original cadre changed.
5. Subsequently, the names of petitioners were not included in the seniority list of Driver Constables, and various orders were passed to revert them back to their original cadre.
6. This led to a series of writ petitions challenging the orders and claiming their right to be included in the Driver Constable cadre.

Issues:

1. Whether the amendment of Rule 1186 of the Bihar Police Manual in 2011 could retroactively affect the petitioners’ right to be included in the cadre of Driver Constables.
2. Whether the petitioners, having been appointed and trained as Driver Constables under the unamended provisions of Rule 1186, could be reverted to their original cadre of General Constables.
3. Whether the orders rejecting the petitioners’ claim were valid in light of the previous decisions by the court and the legal provisions in force.

Petitioner’s Arguments:

1. The petitioners contended that they were appointed as Driver Constables in accordance with the then-applicable Rule 1186 of the Bihar Police Manual and had served as such for several years.
2. They argued that they were entitled to continue in the cadre of Driver Constables, as they had undergone the required training and had been formally appointed under the existing rules.
3. The petitioners asserted that the amendment of Rule 1186 in 2011 should not apply retrospectively to alter their status as Driver Constables.
4. They pointed out that previous judicial orders had directed the respondents to include them in the cadre of Driver Constables and that the rejection of their claims was contrary to the court’s directives.

Respondent’s Arguments:

1. The respondents argued that Rule 1186 was amended in 2011, introducing higher educational qualifications and other requirements for Driver Constables.
2. They contended that the petitioners could not be regularized as Driver Constables under the amended rule, as they did not meet the new criteria.
3. The respondents further asserted that the inclusion of petitioners in the cadre of Driver Constables would exceed the permissible limit for such appointments in the STF, which could not be justified under the Bihar Police Driver Cadre Rules, 2017.
4. They maintained that the orders rejecting the petitioners’ claims were consistent with the amended rules and relevant policies.

Analysis of the Law:

1. The primary legal question was whether the amendment to Rule 1186 of the Bihar Police Manual in 2011 could invalidate appointments made under the unamended rule.
2. The court noted that, under the unamended Rule 1186, the petitioners were appointed and trained as Driver Constables and had been serving in that capacity for several years.
3. It was observed that the amendment could not operate retroactively to take away vested rights, especially since the petitioners were appointed and functioning in their respective capacities as per the law in force at that time.
4. The court analyzed the applicability of the Bihar Police Driver Cadre Rules, 2017, and concluded that these rules could not be used to justify the rejection of claims based on appointments made prior to the amendment.

Precedent Analysis:

1. The court referred to the decision in L.P.A. No. 1670 of 2018, where it was held that appointments made under unamended provisions should be honored unless there is explicit legal provision to the contrary.
2. It also considered other cases where retrospective application of rules to alter the status of employees had been struck down by the courts.

Court’s Reasoning:

1. The court emphasized that the petitioners were lawfully appointed as Driver Constables under the unamended Rule 1186 and had been serving in that capacity for an extended period.
2. It held that the amended Rule 1186 could not invalidate the petitioners’ appointments, as doing so would result in arbitrary deprivation of their vested rights.
3. The court reasoned that the orders rejecting the petitioners’ claims failed to take into account the distinction between appointments made under the unamended rule and those made after the amendment.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the impugned orders and directed the respondents to include the petitioners in the cadre of Driver Constables, in line with the pre-amendment Rule 1186 of the Bihar Police Manual. It further directed the respondents to provide the necessary consequential benefits to the petitioners.

Implications:

1. The decision reaffirms the principle that amendments to service rules cannot operate retroactively to the detriment of employees whose appointments were made under the unamended rules.
2. It also clarifies that vested rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily through subsequent policy changes.
3. The judgment could have broader implications for similar cases where amendments to service rules are sought to be applied retroactively.

Also Read – Kerala High Court Sets Aside Tribunal’s Order for Fresh Driving Test: “Personal Difficulty of Candidate Cannot Undermine a Standardized Selection Process”