A requirement of a test for assessing the efficiency of candidates for promotion is valid if it is a suitable method of judging the efficiency and is implied in the power conferred by the statutory rule on the confirming authority.

V. S. Deshpande, J.

( 1 ) THE respondent, Hans Raj, was a confirmed Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, whose name was placed in list e maintained under the Punjab Police Rule 13-10 and who was given an officiating promotion as a Sub-Inspector of Police. On 14-9-1957, the Assistant Inspector General of Police issued a circular laying down that all confirmed Assistant Subinspectors of Police and all oficiating sub-inspectors of Police and those who have been promoted on probation would be required to take the e List (Clerical) Test. Those who failed to qualify in the examination would be reverted to their substantive rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. The respondent did net appear in the test at all and was, therefore, reverted to his substantive rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police and his name was also removed from the e List. He thereupon filed a suit for declaration that the order of his reversion dated 3-2-1958 was bad mainly for the following reasons. The reversion being contrary to the Punjab Police Rules was a reduction in rank contrary to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and the reduction in rank was also discriminatory against the respondent contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The defence was that the imposition of the test was in consonance with Punjab Police Rule 13-1 inasmuch as it was only a method of judging the efficiency and selection of proper men. Regarding the allegation of discrimination it was stated that the persons who received substantive promotions or confirmation without passing the test were those who were probationers. The respondent was not a probationer and, therefore, those precedents were of no help to the respondent.

( 2 ) THE trial court held that when the respondent was appointed to officiate as a Sub-Inspector of Police, the test was not a term of the service Rules. It considered Punjab Police Rule 13-l (l) to mean that a test could be prescribed as a method of selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, but it could not be made a condition precedent for confirmation in that rank of a person who had already been promoted by previous selection. The pre. scription of the test, therefore, amounted to changing the conditions of service, which was not legally permissible. Further, the requirement of passing the test was not equally applied to all the persons concerned. Some of the persons, who had failed to qualify in the test were allowed to continue to officiate as Subinspectors of Police, while the respondent was reverted. The order of reversion was, thus, bad both because it amounted to punishment without affording an opportunity to the respondent contemplated by Article 311 (2) of the Constitution and also because there respondent was discriminated against in implementing the consequences of not taking the test. The lower appellate court confirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence this second appeal by the Union of India.

( 3 ) THE questions for decision, therefore, are:-

(1) Whether the order of reversion of the respondent amounted to reduction in rank contrary to the procedure laid down in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution; and (2) Whether the reduction in rank or alternatively the reversion was contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as being discriminatory against the respondent. (1) In dealing with the first point, it is necessary to carefully understand the provisions of Chapter XIII of the Punjab Police Rules dealing with promotions. The most important thing which has been overlooked not only by both the learned lower courts, but also in the various decisions cited in support of the respondents case is that the promotion under Chapter XIII is of two kinds, viz. (a) an officiating promotion and (b) a substantive promotion. Admittedly, the respondent had received only an officiating promotion. This was governed by the provisions of Rules 13-10 and 13-12. The substantive promotion of the respondent which would have meant is con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document