SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
Subodh Kumar and Others – Appellants
Versus
Commissioner of Police and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2047 of 2020, SLP (Civil) No. 30192 of 2017
Decided On : 17-03-2020
Service law - Recruitment - Prescribing any age limit for a given post, as also deciding the extent to which any relaxation can be given are essentially the matters of policy - Such policy cannot be termed arbitrary or unreasonable - Candidates have right to be considered as per rules in force at relevant time - There is no rule that vacancies are to be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the vacancy arises. (Para 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The grievance of the appellants is that the amendments which has been made under Rule 7 and Rule 27A of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 vide notification dated 13th March, 2013 have deprived and made them ineligible to participate against 10% out of the 50% quota reserved for direct recruitment to be filled up from the serving personnel (constables, head constables and ASI) is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
OA was dismissed by CAT as also the appeal thereagaisnt by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
Prescribing any age limit for a given post, as also deciding the extent to which any relaxation can be given are essentially the matters of policy. Such policy cannot be termed arbitrary or unreasonable.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
AJAY RASTOGI, J.
1. The appellants are the Constables/Head Constables (Male) serving in Delhi Police and are members of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter being referred to as Rules, 1980). Some of them later got promoted to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector during pendency of the appeal.
2. The grievance of the appellants is that the amendments which has been made under Rule 7 and Rule 27A of the Rules, 1980 vide notification dated 13th March, 2013 have deprived and made them ineligible to participate against 10% out of the 50% quota reserved for direct recruitment to be filled up from the serving personnel (constables, head constables and ASI) is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
3. The controversy was raised in reference to the amendment made under Rule 7 and Rule 27A of the Rules, 1980 against 10% out of 50% quota reserved for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspectors (Executive)-Male. Indisputedly, either of the appellant was not eligible to participate in the selection process which was initiated by the respondents pursuant to an advertisement dated 16th March, 2013 followed with Corrigendum dated 9th April, 2013 held for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive) but few of them were permitted to participate under the interim order of the Tribunal.
4. Rule 7 and Rule 27A of the Rules, 1980 as in force prior to the amendment dated 13th March, 2013 are as under:-
“7. Recruitment of Sub-Inspectors (Executives) - Fifty per cent of vacancies in the rank of Sub-Inspector (Executive) shall be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion out of 50% direct quota, 10% of the post shall be filled by limited department competitive tests from amongst constables, Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspectors with minimum 5 years of service who shall not be more than 35 years (40 years of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes candidates) of age on the first day of January of the year if the examination is held in the first half of the year and on the first day of July of the year if the examination is held in the later half of the year. The educational qualifications and other physical standards for the test shall be the same as prescribed in the Rules for direct recruitment to such posts. The unfilled vacancies reserved for the department candidates will be carried forward for 3 recruitment years as in the case of vacancies for the scheduled tribe candidates whether the unfilled vacancies will be filled by direct recruitment.
27-A. Relaxation of upper age limit for departmental candidate - Relaxation of upper age limit of all departmental candidates for direct recruitment against Group C and D posts of Police Department shall be as follows:-
“40 years in the case of general candidate and 45 years in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Candidates.”
5. Rule 7 and Rule 27A of the Rules, 1980 post amendment dated 13th March, 2013 are as under:-
“7. Recruitment of Sub-Inspectors (Executive) - Male - 50% of vacancies in the rank of Sub-Inspector (Exe.) - Male shall be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. Out of 50% direct quota, 10% of the post shall be filled from amongst serving Constables, Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors enlisted in Delhi Police with a minimum of 3 years continuous service, who shall not be more than 30 years (33 years of OBC and 35 years for SC/ST candidates) of age on the first day of January of the year, if the examination is held in the first half of the year and on the first day of August of that year, if the examination is held in the later half of the year. The educational qualifications, physical standards and other requirements for the post shall be the same as prescribed in the rules for direct recruitments to such posts.
27-A. Relaxation of upper age limit for all departmental candidates - Relaxation of upper age limit of all departmental candidates for direct recruitment aga
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.