A departmental qualifying test prescribed by a standing order for drawing up promotion list "d" (women police) is illegal and in conflict with the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 13.9, which prescribes a specific procedure for maintaining promotion list "d" for both men and women police.

( 1 ) LADY Head-Constables Kailash Wati Bajaj, Narinder Kaur, Krishna Kumari and Sumitra Devi belong to the Delhi Police Force. Out of them Shrimati Kailash Wati Bajaj was the senior-most but her name was not included in promotion list "d" approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration), Delhi, on June 4, 1971. The list was prepared in accordance with Standing Order No. 238, issued on February 12, 1971 by the Inspector General of Police, and by it names of Shrimatis Narinder Kaur, Krishna Kumari and Sumitra Devi were included with effect from June 2, 1971. Feeling aggrieved by the non-inclusion of her name in promotion list "d" she filed this writ petition, on August 2,1971, for getting quashed the Standing Order and the order of the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Administration) dated June 4,1971.

( 2 ) THE writ petition was placed for hearing before one of us. As the matter involved was of some general importance it was REFERRED TO to a larger Bench. That is how the case came to be heard by us.

( 3 ) THE petitioner was enlisted as Lady Constable on September 15, 1952. She was promoted as Head-Constable in an officiating capacity from December 3, 1958 and was confirmed in that rank from November 16, 1962. Her confirmation as Head-Constable from the said date, however, did not come through in the normal routine. Shrimati Krishna Kumari (respondent No. 5), though junior to her, was at first confirmed by the authorities with effect from November 16, 1962. She made a representation on which the Delhi Administration issued directions to the Inspector General of Police for confirming her with effect from an appropriate date according to her seniority. Thereon by an order dated November 30, 1964 the confirmation of Shrimati Krishna Kumari as Head-Constable with effect from November 16, 1962 was cancelled and the petitioner was confirmed as Head-Constable from that date. Shrimati Krishna Kumari was, however, confirmed along with Shrimatis Narinder Kaur and Sumitra Devi and two other officiating Lady Head-Constables from October 1, 1964. Undisputedly, therefore, the petitioner became the senior most confirmed Lady Head-Constable.

( 4 ) THE Standing Order (No. 238) issued by the Inspector General of Police on February 6, 1971 lays down the procedure to be adopted for drawing up promotion list "d" for women police. According to the petitioner the Standing Order being directly in conflict with the provisions of rule 13. 9 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (Volume II), as applicable to the Union Territory of Delhi, is illegal. It was also averred in her petition that as she had incurred the wrath of her superiors by making a representation to the Chief Commissioner, Delhi, they had become hostile to her and in order to mar her future career had arbitrarily drawn promotion list "d" by including persons who had been confirmed much later than her. The results of the test held pursuant to the Standing Order (No. 238) were as well alleged to have been manipulated.

( 5 ) ON behalf of the Union of India, the Inspector General of Police and the Deputy Inspector General of Police (respondents I to 3) an affidavit was filed, in opposition to the writ-petition, by Shri I. M. Mahajan, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Delhi. It was admitted that the petitioner is the senior most confirmed Lady Head-Constable but it was denied that by submitting a representation the petitioner had incurred the wrath of her superior officers or that the results of the departmental test held in accordance with standing order No. 238 were in any way manipulated. It was stated that whereas the petitioner failed to qualify in the test Shrimatis Narinder Kaur, Krishna Kumari and Sumitra Devi (respondents 4 to 6) were successful and "notwithstanding the fact that they were previously junior to the petitioner, they were brought on Promotion List "d" . Standing Order No. 238 was urged to be valid and not to be in conflict with rule 13