1. Challenge to range-wise promotion of head constables to Sub-Inspectors of Police as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1964 Supreme(SC) 87
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
16th March, 1964
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S.M. SIKRI, JJ.
Ram Sharan, Petitioner
Versus
The Dy. Inspector General of Police, Ajmer and other, Respondents.
Writ Petn. No. 175 of 1963.
Advocates appeared
Mr. B. D. Sharma Advocate, for Petitioner; Mr. S. V. Gupte, Addl. Solicitor General of India, and Mr. G. K. Kasliwal, Advocate General for the State of Rajasthan (Mr. B. R. G. K. Achar, Advocate, with them), for Respondents.
Advocates:
B.D.SHARMA, B.R.G.K.Achar, G.K.KASLIVAL, S.V.Gupta
B.D.SHARMA, B.R.G.K.Achar, G.K.KASLIVAL, S.V.Gupta
A tiered promotion system in the police force based on administrative ranges is constitutional if designed for administrative efficiency and local knowledge, and cannot be struck down merely because it may be abused or occasionally results in seniority disparities between different ranges.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Police Act, 1861 - Section 2 - Promotion of police personnel - Range-wise promotion system - Administrative efficiency and local knowledge as valid grounds for classification - A system of promotion based on administrative ranges is not inherently violative of equality before law or equal opportunity in employment if evolved for administrative convenience and efficiency. (Para 4)
(B) Abuse of Power - A system cannot be struck down merely on the supposition that it may be abused by authorities. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
A head-constable was reverted from the rank of officiating Sub-Inspector because he was the junior-most approved head-constable in his administrative range, despite there being junior head-constables in other ranges who continued to officiate. The petitioner challenged the range-wise promotion and reversion system as violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, contending that since the police force is deemed one for the whole state, promotions should be conducted on a state-wide basis to avoid inequalities.
Findings of Court:
The three-tier system of promotion—district-wise for head-constables, range-wise for Sub-Inspectors, and state-wise for Inspectors—is designed for administrative efficiency. Local knowledge is conducive to efficiency for ranks that deal directly with the public, justifying the tiered approach. The court found no evidence of a policy of free and frequent inter-range transfers that would render the system discriminatory.
Issues: Whether the practice of confining promotions and reversions of head-constables to Sub-Inspectors within specific administrative ranges violates the right to equality and equal opportunity in public employment under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that administrative convenience and the need for local knowledge justify a tiered promotion system. Such a system does not deny equality before the law, even if it occasionally results in a junior officer in one range being promoted while a senior officer in another range waits. Furthermore, a system cannot be invalidated based on the possibility of abuse of power, provided the system itself is rationally supported and not shown to be routinely abused.
Result: Petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner alleges range-wise promotions cause inequality; State argues the three-tier system is essential for administrative efficiency and local knowledge. (Para 1 , 2 )
3. Administrative subdivision for efficiency and local knowledge justifies range-wise promotions; potential for abuse does not invalidate a rationally designed system. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 )
4. A promotion system based on administrative efficiency and local knowledge does not violate equality before the law despite occasional seniority disparities across units. (Para 4 )
5. Petition dismissed. (Para 6 )
6. Does a range-wise promotion system in a state-wide police force violate the right to equality?
No, if the system is evolved for administrative efficiency and local knowledge. Occasional hardships where a junior in one range is promoted over a senior in another do not render the system unconstitutional. (Para 4 )
7. Can a legal system be struck down solely on the possibility that it may be abused?
No. A system cannot be struck down on the supposition that power may be abused. In cases of wholesale abuse, the specific abuse should be challenged rather than the system itself. (Para 5 )
8. How does the requirement of local knowledge affect the constitutionality of tiered promotions in police services?
Local knowledge is conducive to efficiency for ranks dealing directly with the public. This justifies district-wise and range-wise promotions for lower ranks, whereas supervisory ranks may be promoted state-wide. (Para 4 )
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
