Judgement

WANCHOO, J. : This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the system prevailing in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of promotion of head-constables to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police as violative of Arts. 134 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner was a head constable in the former State of Ajmer and was duly included in the approved list of head constables to be promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspectors of Police in 1955 and was appointed on July 14, 1956 as officiating Sub Inspector of Police. On November 1, 1956, the former State of Ajmer merged in the State of Rajasthan under the States Reorganisation Act. The petitioner was absorbed in the police service of the State of Rajasthan and a fresh order posting him as officiating Sub-Inspector in Rajasthan was passed on November 1, 1956. According to the petitioner, the practice of Police administration in Rajasthan is that the whole police force of the State is generally under the administrative control of the Inspector General of Police, who is assisted by six Deputy Inspector General of Police, each Deputy Inspector General of Police being in charge of administration in one of the six ranges in which the whole State has been divided for administrative convenience. The petitioner however contends that though the State of Rajasthan is divided into six ranges, the Sub Inspectors in different ranges belong to one cadre and one service and are governed by the same rules and regulations and the same conditions of service as regards pay, leave pension, promotion, disciplinary action etc. The Sub Inspectors of Police are also transferable from one range to another. It is usual for the Inspector General of Police to pass orders of transfer from one range to another of three or four Sub-Inspectors everyday on an average and thus the Sub-Inspectors in the different ranges are similarly situate and similarly circumstanced in all respects. The same is the case with head-constables serving in different ranges of the State. The petitioner further contends that even though the police force is one for the entire State in view of S. 2 of the Police Act, No. 5 of 1861, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a practice grew up in the State of Rajasthan of treating the members of police force serving at a particular point of time in each range as a separate and distinct unit for purposes of making promotions and reversions. In consequence of this practice, if a vacancy in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors of Police arose in one range, only the seniormost head-constables in that range were considered for promotion to that vacancy, even though there might be more senior head-constables in other ranges who had also been approved for promotion. These head-constables of other ranges, were not considered and promotion was made on the basis of the head-constables in the particular range where the vacancy occurred. Similar was the case where reversion had to be made on account of exigency of public service. In view of this practice, the petitioner was reverted in April 1957 when a permanent Sub-Inspector returned to the range as he was the juniormost approved head-constable in the Ajmer range, though in other ranges there were many approved head-constables who were junior to him but they continued to officiate as Sub-Inspectors. The petitioner s grievance is that if the whole State had been treated as one unit for purpose of promotion to and reversion from the rank of Sub-Inspectors, the petitioner would not have been reverted. He contends that the whole police force being one, the practice of promotion of head-constables to officiate as Sub-Inspectors rangewise amounts to denial of equal opportunity before the law and is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is contended that the practice of confining promotions and reversions to officers serving at a particular point of time in one particular range (i.e. where the vacancy or the surplusage of posts actually o