Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(Guj) 323

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
VIKRAM NATH, ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, JJ.
Govindbhai Hirabhai Parmar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1373 of 2019 In R/Special Civil Application No. 927 of 2016 With Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2019, Civil Application (For Direction) No. 2 of 2019, R/Letters Patent Appeal No. 1374 of 2019, Special Civil Application No. 302 of 2016
Decided on : 24-03-2020

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :MR GM JOSHI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WTH MR VYOM H SHAH
For the Respondent: MR DM DEVNANI, Adv

Point of Law:
There are no posts of Police Sub-Inspector (Armed) under the Gujarat Police Act, 1951 and the posts exist only under the Gujarat State Reserve Police Force Act, 1951 which statement is supported by the Rules framed under that Act and the posting/promotion orders placed by me on record of this case that makes it absolutely clear that the appointment/promotion/posting are given only under the State Reserve Police Force Act and not under the Gujarat Police Act.

Headnote:
Gujarat State Reserve Police Act, 1951 - Bombay Police Act, 1951 - State Reserve Police Force Act, 1959 - Appeals have been preferred by unsuccessful petitioners assailing correctness of judgment and order - Petitioners-appellants are claiming participation in selection process of Police Sub Inspector by way of promotion to an advertisement from Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Head Constables even though petitioners appellants were holding post of Assistant Sub- Inspector and Head Constables - One of grounds for claiming relief was that eligibility for selection to entry level post of Constables and same in both set of Rules of and consequently that there were no promotional avenues in cadre of Armed Force there were further promotional avenues in cadre of Unarmed Force - Aggrieved by judgment of Judge present two Letters Patent Appeals had been preferred by two groups of Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Home Guards of Armed Cadre - Held, Court is clear that as of date there were no rules earmarking posts of Police Sub-Inspectors in State Police - Directions of this Court passed in another case State is now in process of framing rules which are at stage of finalization and being notified - Specific stand has been taken by Government giving details of posts earmarked for Police Sub-Inspectors to be filled up by Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors by way of promotion and other modes - Court may also be noted that earlier Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors were granted promotions although against posts of State Reserve Police Force establishment - Court is also apparent that after framing of rules as noted above Government would immediately start with process to fill up vacant posts of Police Sub- Inspectors in accordance with rules ventilating and remedying grievances of appellants - Appeal dismissed (Para 20)
Facts of the Case:
Petitioners-appellants are claiming participation in the selection process of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed), by way of promotion, pursuant to an advertisement dated 3.12.2015 from the Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Head Constables (Unarmed), even though the petitioners-appellants were holding the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector (Armed) and Head Constables (Armed). One of the grounds for claiming such relief was that the eligibility for selection to the entry level post of Constables(Armed) and Constables (Unarmed) was the same in both the set of Rules of 1993 and consequently, that there were no promotional avenues in the cadre of the Armed Force (Cadre) whereas there were further promotional avenues in the cadre of Unarmed Force(Cadre).
Finding of the Court:
Court is clear that as of date there were no rules earmarking posts of Police Sub-Inspectors in State Police - Directions of this Court passed in another case State is now in process of framing rules which are at stage of finalization and being notified - Specific stand has been taken by Government giving details of posts earmarked for Police Sub-Inspectors to be filled up by Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors by way of promotion and other modes - Court may also be noted that earlier Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors were granted promotions although against posts of State Reserve Police Force establishment - Court is also apparent that after framing of rules as noted above Government would immediately start with process to fill up vacant posts of Police Sub- Inspectors in accordance with rules ventilating and remedying grievances of appellants.
Result: Appeal dismissed

JUDGMENT :

VIKRAM NATH, J.

1. The above two Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the unsuccessful petitioners assailing the correctness of the judgment and order dated 18.4.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.927 of 2016, Special Civil Application No.302 of 2016 and Special Civil Application No.21056 of 2015 whereby all the writ petitions were dismissed.

2. To put in simple words, the petitioners-appellants are claiming participation in the selection process of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed), by way of promotion, pursuant to an advertisement dated 3.12.2015 from the Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Head Constables (Unarmed), even though the petitioners-appellants were holding the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector (Armed) and Head Constables (Armed). One of the grounds for claiming such relief was that the eligibility for selection to the entry level post of Constables(Armed) and Constables (Unarmed) was the same in both the set of Rules of 1993 and consequently, that there were no promotional avenues in the cadre of the Armed Force (Cadre) whereas there were further promotional avenues in the cadre of Unarmed Force(Cadre).

3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the claim and rightly so on the finding that once there are different set of Recruitment Rules of 1993 for the Armed and the Unarmed Constabulary of the Gujarat Police, Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Head Constables from the Armed Cadre could not claim to join in the Unarmed Cadre. The learned Single Judge has relied upon two Division Bench judgments also wherein somewhat similar issues relating to Unarmed and Armed Cadres had been discussed and it had been held that the same are separate and distinct.

4. Aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the present two Letters Patent Appeals had been preferred by two groups of Assistant Sub-Inspectors and Home Guards of the Armed Cadre.

5. We have heard Shri Gautam M. Joshi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vyom H. Shah, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri D.M.Devnani, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State respondents, in both these appeals.

6. According to Shri Joshi, the discrimination by the State insofar as the Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors of the Armed Cadre is concerned, is writ large inasmuch as similarly placed Head Constables and Assistant Sub- Inspectors of the Unarmed Cadre in their hierarchy of posts are entitled to promotion to the post of Police Sub-Inspectors and to further higher posts, whereas with regard to the Armed Cadre, everything stops at the stage of Assistant Sub-Inspectors. He further submitted that as qualifications and eligibility for entry level recruitment under both the Rules has throughout been the same as such Constables, Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors of the Armed Cadre, were fully eligible and qualified to be considered for promotion even in the cadre of the unarmed Police Sub-Inspectors.

7. It was further submitted that it is completely arbitrary and unreasonable on the part of the State in depriving the Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors of the Police Department of the Armed Cadre from not being provided any further promotional avenues and thereby stagnating them to remain Head Constables or Assistant Sub-Inspectors throughout their service.

8. It is also submitted that there is no distinction in the duties assigned and service rendered by the officials of both the cadres, Unarmed and Armed. Reference has also been made to Clause 38 of the Bombay Police Manual, Volume III, which does not draw any distinction in so far as duties are assigned, between the two cadres.

9. Lastly, he submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration all these aspects of the matter and as such, the present appeals may be allowed, order of the learned Single Judge be set aside and the reliefs as claimed in the writ petitions be granted.

10. On the other hand, Shri D.M.Devnani, learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document