N.Madhu v. Union Of India And ORS.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTION WRIT JURISDICTION [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR] PRESENT: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA AND THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL) WP.CT/24/2025 N. MADHU ... PETITIONER VS.
THE UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS ... RESPONDENTS For the petitioner : Mr. Rajinder Singh Ms. Archana Devi For the respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Reserved on : December 09, 2025 Judgment on : December 11, 2025 HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated February 19, 2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata Circuit sitting at Port Blair ( for short "the Tribunal") in OA/351/00114/2017. By the order impugned, the original application was dismissed by holding that the same is devoid of merit.
2.
The petitioner was initially appointed as Head Constable (Mechanical) in the Fire Service Department vide order dated July 15, 1999. He was promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub Inspector (Mechanical) vide order dated November 22, 2004. He was thereafter promoted to the rank of Sub Inspector (Fire Service Work Shop) vide order dated September 19, 2014. Petitioner submitted a representation praying for promotion to the post of Inspector (Workshop). Such representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondent authorities on the ground that there was no post of Inspector (Workshop) and he is not eligible to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector (Workshop, Stores & Provisions). Challenging the order rejecting his prayer for promotion to the post of Inspector (Workshop), the petitioner filed the Original Application being OA/351/00114/2017/ AN . 3.
The Original Application was dismissed by the impugned order. Being aggrieved, the applicant before the Tribunal has approached this Court.
4.
The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that one post of Inspector Fire Service (Workshop, Stores & Provisions) was transferred from the strength of A & N Fire Service to Police Motor Transport (for short "PMT") vide Administration Order dated September 26, 2011. Against the said
post, one Shri Parbhakar Singh, Sub Inspector (Transport) was promoted to the rank of Inspector, PMT. He further contended that the said post of Inspector (Workshop, Stores & Provisions) was transferred back to the Fire Service. He further contended that two posts of Inspector Fire Brigade, one each for Fire Service Training Centre and other for Fire service (Workshop, Stores & Provisions) were created but those two posts have been merged with the existing five posts of Inspector.
5.
The learned advocate for the petitioner further contended that, as per the Recruitment Rules notified on September 10, 2014, only Sub Inspectors (Fire Brigade) were eligible for promotion as Inspectors and the said rules resulted in denial of consideration for promotion of Sub Inspector (Workshop) to the rank of Inspector. He concluded by submitting that a separate Recruitment Rules for the purpose of promotion from the post of Sub Inspector (Workshop) to the post of Inspector should be framed.
6.
Learned advocate appearing for the respondents contended that two posts of Inspector (Training) and Inspector (Workshop, Stores & Provisions) were filled up in terms of the Recruitment Rules dated September 10, 2014 from amongst the Sub Inspectors (Station Officers) of Fire Brigade who have completed five years of
regular service in the grade and passed the Advanced Diploma Certificate (Divisional Officer's Course) from National Fire Service College, Nagpur.
7.
Learned advocate for the respondent further contended that the petitioner neither possessed the required qualification nor completed five years of regular service in the rank of Sub Inspector ( Workshop) and for which the petitioner was not eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector (Workshop, Stores & Provisions). He further contended that question of amending the existing Recruitment Rules as sought for by the petitioner does not and cannot arise.
8.
Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the material placed.
9.
In the application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, being OA No.351/1147/2017/AN, the petitioner prayed for a direction upon the respondent authorities to frame a separate Recruitment Rules for the post of Inspector (Workshop, Stores and Provisions) and Inspector (Training) and for a declaration that the merging of one post of Inspector (Training) and one post of Inspector (Workshop, Stores & Provisions) with five posts of Inspectors Fire Brigade as null and void being arbitrary and discriminatory. The petitioner
also prayed for considering his case for promotion to the post of Inspector (Workshop, Stores and Provisions) in accordance with Rules that may be framed pursuant to the relief claimed by the petitioner.
10.
From the reliefs claimed in the Original Application, it is evident that the prayer of the petitioner to be considered for promotion to the post of Inspector (Workshop, Stores & Provisions) is dependent upon the framing of Recruitment Rules as sought for by the petitioner in the original application. 11.
It is now well settled that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued to the legislature to enact a particular legislation or the executive to exercise the power to frame rules, which are in the nature of subordinate legislation ( see State of Jammu and Kashmir vs A.R. Zakki and others, reported at 1992 Supp (1) SCC 548).
12.
By applying the proposition of law laid down in A.R. Zakki (supra), this Court holds that an employee cannot seek a writ of mandamus to command the employer to frame Recruitment Rules or to amend the existing Rules in a particular manner for the benefit of such employee.
13.
The respondent authorities in the reply filed before the Tribunal took a specific stand that Fire Workshop is not a large enough unit to require an officer of the rank of Inspector exclusively looking after it and the Inspectors in the Department are assigned duties that require supervision of Fire Fighting activities. It is further case of the respondents before the Tribunal that the Inspectors are looking after other works such as Training or maintenance workshop etc. and the duties of Inspectors in the Fire Department are supervisory in nature and do not require detailed technical knowledge related to the functioning of the workshop. The respondent authorities specifically stated in the affidavit before the Tribunal that an Inspector may be posted to look after the Fire Fighting activities, if the need arises and earmarking of a post of Inspector exclusively for workshop will affect the supervision of core activity of the department which is Fire Fighting.
14.
Creation of posts as well as merger of posts is a part of administrative policy. Fire fighting is a specialized activity. The employer is in the best position to take a decision as to creation and/or merger of posts according to its own requirement. Framing of Recruitment Rules and fixing the eligibility criteria for promotion to certain post(s) is also part of the administrative policy. Policy decision fall within the exclusive domain of the executive.
15.
Recruitment to a particular post whether by direct appointment or by promotion or a combination of both is regulated by statutory rules. It is well settled that merger or bifurcation of a cadre is an executive act. It is entirely a matter to be considered by the authorities whether to have different cadre or one integrated cadre in its service. That is a matter of policy which does not attract the quality clause. (See 1995 Suppl(4) SCC 44 (Association for the Officers of the W.B.Audit & Accounts Service & others vs. W. B. Audit & Association Accounts Service Association and others).
16.
It is well settled that Courts in exercise of their power of judicial review do not ordinarily interfere with the policy decisions of the executive unless the policy can be faulted on the grounds of malafide, unreasonableness, arbitrariness or unfairness etc. 17.
Petitioners failed to demonstrate that the policy decision of the respondent authorities either by way of merging of one post of Inspector (Training) and one post of Inspector (Workshop, Stores and Provisions) with 5 posts of Inspector (Fire Brigade) or fixing the eligibly criteria etc in the Recruitment Rules suffer from arbitrariness, unreasonableness or unfairness. On the contrary, petitioner prayed for a direction upon the authorities to frame
Recruitment Rules for the benefit of the petitioner, which is impermissible in law as observed hereinbefore. 18.
As observed herein before fixing the eligibility criteria for promotion to certain posts is a part of administrative policy. The authorities thought it fit that it is essential that an Inspector possess a certificate in Divisional Officer's Course from the National Fire Service College. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the eligibility criteria fixed by the authorities for promotion to the post in question.
19.
From the Recruitment Rules notified on September 10, 2014, it appears that the Recruitment for the post of Inspector (Assistant Divisional Officer) of A & N Police Fire Service would be only by promotion from amongst the Sub Inspector (Fire Brigade) (Station Officer) in PB-2 Rs.9300-34800 + G.P Rs.4200/- with five years of regular service in the grade and possessing Advance Diploma Certificate (Divisional Officer's Course) from the National Fire Services College, Nagpur.
20.
It is not the case of the petitioner that he is possessing the Advance Diploma Certificate (Divisional Officer's Course) from National Fire Services College, Nagpur. That apart, the learned Tribunal recorded a factual finding that the petitioner did not complete the requisite period of regular service in the rank of Sub
Inspector (Workshop) at the relevant point of time. This Court, therefore, holds that the petitioner failed to satisfy the essential qualifications for promotion to the post of Inspector (Assistant Divisional Officer) of A & N Police Fire Service. 21.
The petitioner has failed to substantiate by producing relevant materials that the police vehicle workshop and fire workshop have similar nature and volume of work. Thus, merely because of the fact that one Parbhakar Singh, who had a B.E Degree in Mechanical Engineering was posted as Inspector in Police Workshop, this Court is not inclined to accept the contention of the petitioner that the Workshop requires a post of Inspector and also that the incumbent to the post of Inspector should have technical qualification.
22.
To the mind of this Court, the learned Tribunal was right in not interfering with the policy decision taken by the respondent authorities and by not allowing the prayer of the petitioner seeking framing of the Recruitment Rules in a particular manner. Learned Tribunal assigned cogent reasons in support of its ultimate conclusion.
23.
For all the reasons as aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned.
24.
Accordingly, WP.CT/24/2025 stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
25.
Urgent Photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, shall be granted to the parties as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance of all formalities.
( HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, J. ) I agree.
( SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J. )