Randhir Singh Etc. v. State Of Hy.
C.Randhir Singh and others Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana and another ... Respondents AND !"
Joginder Singh Constable and others Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
Date of Decision: #$%&"
' ()
***+
) ()
* **
Present: " Mr.Bikramjit Singh Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP"1122"2002.
None for the petitioners in CWP"7968"2005.
Ms.Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana for the respondents. ""
** & This judgment shall dispose of two writ petitions i.e. CWP Nos.1122 of 2002 and 7968 of 2005, as common questions of law are involved in these cases. For decision, the facts are being taken from CWP No.1122 of 2002.
Prayer is for quashing the amended Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short `PPR') as substituted by
Punjab Police (Haryana Amendment) Rules, 2001. The petitioners No.1 to 39 are Constables in Haryana Police. Petitioner No.40 is the Haryana Police Constables and Head Constables Association. It is stated that Petitioners No.1 to 39 have been discharging duties in the State of Haryana for about 15 to 20 years. Most of them are stagnating on the post of Constable despite having served for almost two decades. Some have been promoted as exemptee Head Constables by orders of Superintendents of Police of various districts. Exemptee Head Constables have no power of investigation under the Code of Criminal Procedure.
The grievance of the petitioners against the amended Rule is that the unamended Rule 13.7 did not envisage any test to be passed by a constable for being deputed to the Lower School Course. Constables were deputed to the Lower School Course on the basis of their seniority subject to some marks being allocated for educational qualifications, training courses and commendation certificates. But as per the amended Rule 55% of the seats are to be filled on the basis of a competitive examination, 35% on the basis of seniority and 10% for consistent outstanding performance in job or sports or exceptional display of bravery etc. It is argued that this selection process before being deputed for the Lower School Course is contrary to a Full Bench decision in
!"#$ %&
'
& (
" )$*+
, -./0 Before proceeding further the existing and amended Rule 13.7 of the PPR may be referred to :
,--./01/23 #$-4 506-7 #2859 $/:-57%525
/701;-2<;-21 #$-0& "'
! "
"# $
%
"
&
"
"
' #( # "
"
#
" ( " "
"#)*$ +
("
" ,
-
" -
& .#
,
# /"
"# 0$
" -
!
+
" $
-
1
" "
%( # 2*# -
$ *# -
% # '#
#& #$ #(
&
3 05;-2<-<9% #2859 $/:-57%525;-2<;-21
#$-0&'
0
!
! "
"# $
%
"
&
"
"
' # # "
"
4 "
&
#"
" ,
-
-
.#
" &
#
$
-
225
&
"
" $
- ,
25
"
#
*5
"
$
6 "7 "
8 - 9
+ % 87 0 # 9 7/
8 , $
$# "-#
$
#
$
225
&
"
"
"# 0$
" :
!;,
- <
! $
-
%
!
(:
!<
"!& $
$ & .(
!
- &(
)!
! +
" $
-
1
" "
$$
# 2# - $ 2# - % # ' # #
&
= &-(
" "
- &
)#$8 -
7 " &
$$
- $
-# - 2#$
, >*#
! +
" $
-
1
" "
""
(
#
" #
>*# $ 2# -
# ' # #
&
! +
" $
-
1
" "
""
"
$
6 "7 "
8 - 9
+ % 870 # 9 7/
%
8 , $
$# "-#
$
# # >*# - $ &
# -
% # ' # #
&
#
" ""
)# - ( " " 2# - & -&
%
$ - . #$ (+ 8(
& %
-
" & - &
/
87+ % 870 #9 & "
, $
"-#
$ "
# ( #- $
2# -
! 0$
%
7"
"
"# 0
8
. $
& . 0$ #$
&
"
"
0$
"
# )> " ,
$.
- #
&
$ "2*5 #
"&
- "
2*5."
&
$$ #"
- &"#
(
.
- &"*3 In the written statement filed by the respondents, the amended Rule has been sought to be justified as being necessary in the interest of the police force as it provides fair and equal chance to young, energetic and better qualified constables to compete for the B"I test and become good and efficient investigating officers at a younger age. It ensures efficiency and competency in the higher ranks. It has been stated that over the years, the Rule has been amended from time to time keeping in view the needs and exigencies of the police force. From 1980 to 1994 selection of the candidates for List B"I was made on the basis of written test
in general of law (Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Evidence Act and such other local and special Laws as may be specified.) As per this Rule all the constables who were under the age of 35 years and had completed three years of service on the first day of July for the year in which selection was made were eligible for B"I test. The Rule was amended in September, 1992 vide which the age and service of the candidate for appearance in B"I test had been extended to under the age of 40 years and 5 years of service was substituted in place of three years of service on the first day of January of the year. In the year 1995 Rule 13.7 of PPR was amended providing for selection for candidates for list B"I to be on the basis of seniority"cum" fitness.
As per amended Rule in 1995 all constables irrespective of their educational qualification would be eligible for admission in list B"I if they were under the age of 50 years and had completed 10 years of service on the Ist day of the July of the year in which the selection is made. But owing to the limited chances which a constable has for promotion to the post of Head Constable due to many factors such as overage, low qualifications and also lack of vacancies, the State Govt. decided to promote all such constables to the post of Head Constables who had completed more than 16 years of qualified service subject to certain conditions e.g. their record being in order like there being no criminal case etc. registered against the constable concerned.
This was done vide DGPs Standing No.76/2000 . However, the constables so promoted on the basis of seniority alone i.e. completion of 16 years of qualified service, were not entitled to be made investigating Officer.
In the written statement it is further stated that the main object behind the present amendment in Rule 13.7 of PPR was to give fair and equal chance to young, energetic and better qualified constables to compete in the B"I test and become good and efficient Investigating Officers rather than waiting up to the age of 45 to 50 years for promotion as Head Constable. Such officers were required by the police force. The earlier policy of promotion only on seniority"cum"merit basis bred inefficiency resulting in most of the Investigating Officers being in the age group of 45 to 50 years. To remedy this, it was decided by the State Government to induct young and well qualified constables to compete in the B"I test as the age for the test is upto 35 years and there are separate marks for persons with higher qualifications. Thus, these constables being young, energetic and well qualified would become better Investigating Officers after passing the Lower School Course and the Investigation would be carried out in a fair, just and proper manner, which is the need of the hour.
It is further stated that the amended Rule would bring efficiency and competency in higher rank of Police force besides providing a fair representation to each category.
According to amended Rule 13.7, 55% seats are to be allotted on the basis of competitive examination, 35% seats on the basis of of seniority"cum"fitness and 10% on the basis of performance in sports and bravery etc. As per the Rule the age limit for those who are to be admitted to list B"I on the basis of seniority"cum" fitness, is upto 40 years of age, as opposed to 35 years in the case of those who have completed in the competitive test. Thus those who have not been able to make it upto the age of 35 years in the test still have a chance upto 40 years of age on the basis of seniority"cum"basis. Additionally, at as per standing order No.76/2000 every constable who has completed 16 years of service shall be eligible to be promoted as Head Constable if they meet the criteria/conditions given therein. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and find that there is no merit in the petition.
The argument of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner based on
!"1 case (supra) that there can be no selection test for being deputed to the Lower School Course cannot be accepted. In that case, the Court was interpreting Rule 13.9 of the PPR which deals with promotion from the post of Head Constables to Assistant Sub" Inspectors. Accordingly, the question that was posed in that case was as under: * + & - "
-(
1
"
&
$
$
=
"
. + "% $
=
"1
%
$$
&
" 3 Analysing Rule 13.9 the Hon'ble Court observed : &
$$
?0@ $
. + "% $
=
" " "
& -$
&
%
# 1 ( #-
"
"
=
" 1 "# $
"
( $ " 0$ # % $
8 "
"
?0@
#
# $
&
-
(
"
&
"
-$
. + "% $
9# " =
" $ %
- "
?0@ #$
(
#1 "
?0@ % & $$ & =
" $ %
(#
"
#
"
" =
"
#=& " " "
"
?0@& &
$ &#
"$
.
"
-+ "% $
%
" $
& "
(& "
%
("
#$$
"
1 #
,
" - $#
%
& =
"
-
=
"
.$
, .3 Accordingly it was concluded as under:
A ( ( $
B
"& -# =
"
?@
" $ %
" "$
&#"# #
"
# 1
$ ""#
& 1
" 1 3 While holding that as per Rule 13.9, no selection process has been envisaged for deputing Head Constables for the intermediate school course, the Hon'ble Court referring to Rule 13.7, as then existing, held that in Rule 13.7 a method of selection has been provided for sending of constables in List A for the Lower School Course , that is suitability of each constable on List A has to be seen by the Superintendent of Police of the District concerned and the same has to be approved by the Deputy Inspector General of the Range. It was held that as there
was no provision for selection in the Rule at the stage of sending of Head Constables for the Intermediate School Course, hence the most appropriate course would be that the Head Constables be sent for the Intermediate School Course in order of seniority as determined in accordance with Rule 13.8. Thus, this judgment is of no help to the petitioner as it has been clearly held therein in the context of the then existing Rule 13.7, that it envisages a process of selection for being deputed to the Lower School Course. By the impugned amendment the Rule making authority has only elaborated and provided for different percentages for selection in different categories. The question is, can this process of selection be said to be arbitrary and unconstitutional? To our mind, the answer is in the negative.
As explained in the written statement, in the amended Rule three categories have been carved out and a fair representation has been given to each category. The test has been introduced to give a chance to young, energetic and capable persons to move ahead and thereby enhance the efficiency and competency at the higher ranks of the police force. It is in the interest of the police force to have competent, young, energetic officers. Besides the 55% to be filled on the basis of competitive test, there is a fair percentage of 35% seats fixed on the basis of seniority"cum"fitness and 10% seats are for those who have outstanding performance in sports, bravery
, etc.
It is well settled that questions relating to prescription of qualifications and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion are in the exclusive discretion of the executive and that it is open to the State to alter, amend the existing Rules subject only to safeguarding rights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time. Reference may be made to 23 " #4&&
'
) -,. ,'
5 A - #
"
" "
$
C
( $
(
$ ( ( (
7"
( $ $
1
-
- $
" $
$
$ # &
, -
6
( "6 ( (
-
%
# " ( # (
-
- $
"
#
- $
$
"#"
- &
#(
& $ &
$ #
- -#"#
7"
1
( "
#
-
- $
(
(
0
-,
#
.& ( "#$$ $
$ "
$
$
"# .
( "
&
$
7 - (#"1
"# "
,
7$
& 7$
#$ #
-
- " -
& - $$ , $
"
# ( 1 $
$
( - -
#
( "
&
- ,
- 3 Accordingly, we do not find any merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed.
**+
) **
#$%&"
Atul