Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI, HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM, J.
F. Lalhminglina & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
The State of Mizoram, Rep. by the Chief Secretary to the Govt. of Mizoram, Aizawl, Mizoram & Ors. - Respondents
WP(C) No. 2986 of 2017
Decided On : 08-08-2024
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners, serving as Inspectors in the Armed Branch of the Mizoram Police, challenged the proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 2008, claiming it was unconstitutional and discriminatory as it limited their promotional opportunities to only 8 posts of Assistant Commandant, unlike their counterparts in the Unarmed Branch.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2008 was inconsistent with the main provision, which aimed to provide equal promotional opportunities to all Inspectors, regardless of their branch. The court determined that the proviso unfairly restricted the Inspectors of the Armed Branch and violated the principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Issues: Whether the proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 2008, is unconstitutional for discriminating against Inspectors of the Armed Branch in terms of promotional opportunities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proviso to Rule 6(1) created an unjust distinction between the Armed and Unarmed Branch Inspectors, violating the constitutional principles of equality. The court emphasized that service rules should promote equality and not restrict opportunities based on arbitrary classifications.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, reading down the proviso to Rule 6(1) to ensure that Inspectors of the Armed Branch are considered for promotions to all Junior Grade posts, alongside their Unarmed Branch counterparts, provided they meet the eligibility criteria.
JUDGMENT :
Suman Shyam, J.
Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. N. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. Dev, learned Advocate General, Mizoram assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, learned Addl. Advocate General, Mizoram appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the private respondent Nos. 6 to 11.
2. The four writ petitioners, who are serving as Inspector (Armed Branch) under the Mizoram Police, have approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition challenging the proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 2008 on the ground that the same is ultra vires the constitution.
3. The conditions of services of the Inspectors serving under the Mizoram Police used to be governed by the provisions of the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1997) framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 6 of the Rules of 1997 laid down the procedure for filling up the substantive vacancies in the Junior Grade of Mizoram Police Service. Rules 6 of the Rules of 1997 is reproduced here-in-below for ready reference:-
(1) 50% of the substantive vacancies in the Junior Grade of the Service which occur from time to time shall be filled up by Selection from amongst the officers who have served in the cadre of Inspector of Police under the Government of Mizoram not less than 5 (five) years in the Grade, provided that out of this percentage, one post of Assistant Commandant from each Mizoram Armed Police Battalion/ Indian Reserve Battalion shall be exclusively earmarked as the promotional posts of Inspectors of Mizoram Armed Police Battalion/ Indian Reserve Battalion. Promotions shall be made by Selection from Inspectors of MAP Battalion/ Indian Reserve Battalion who have served not less than 5 (five) years in the Grade.
(2) 50% of another substantive vacancies shall be filled up by direct recruitment through Competitive Examinations as provided in these Rules.”
4. The Rules of 1997 was replaced by the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 2008) framed under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. In the amended provision of Rules 6(1) of the Rules of 2008, a proviso has been added. According to the writ petitioners, proviso to Rule 6(1) has been added with a view to restrict the promotional avenue of Inspectors of the Armed Branch of the Mizoram Police only to the 08 (eight) posts of Assistant Commandant pertaining to the Mizoram Armed Police Battalion/ Indian Reserve Battalion. The provisions of Rules 6(1) of the Rules of 2008 are reproduced herein below for ready reference:-
(1) 50% of the total sanctioned strength of the posts in the Junior Grade of the Service shall be filled up by selection from amongst the officers who have served in the cadre of Inspector of Police under the Government of Mizoram for not less than 5(five) years regular service in the Grade, provided that out of this percentage, one post of Assistant Commandant from each Mizoram Armed Police Battalion/ India Reserve Battalion shall be the promotional posts of Inspectors of Mizoram Armed Police Battalion/ India Reserve Battalion. Promotion shall be made by Selection from Inspector of Mizoram Armed Police Battalion/ India Reserve Battalion who have served not less than 5(five) years in the Grade.
(2) The other 50% of the total sanctioned strength of the posts in the Junior Grade of the Service shall be filled up by direct recruitment through Competitive Examination as provided in these Rules.”
5. According to the petitioners, although there are more than 54 posts of Assistant Commandants in the Junior Grade, yet, after the introduction of Rule
The court established that service rules must uphold the principles of equality and non-discrimination, ensuring equal promotional opportunities for all members of a composite cadre.
(1) Promotion to post of Police Inspector – Selection grades are in nature of promotional scale and criteria provided for promotion to selection grade can very well be taken as criteria for further p....
The government has the authority to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of its employees and determine the qualifications and conditions for promotion, with a limited scope of judicial review....
The petitioners, after their re-designation and upgradation, were no longer holding their original posts, which were feeder posts for promotion to the Junior Grade of the MF&AS under the Rules of 200....
It is a trite law that unless and until the Rules are not under challenge the statutory effect of the Rules cannot be given a goby and further Courts are not in a position to modify or substitute the....
The power of relaxation of recruitment rules can be invoked to meet a particular hardship even in an individual case, provided it is exercised for justifiable reasons and not arbitrarily, and the cou....
Promotion among employees recruited through a common selection process must be governed by state-wide seniority based on the date of enlistment. Region-based seniority lists that result in arbitrary ....
The right to consideration for promotion is governed by the rules in effect at the time of consideration, not those in place when vacancies arose.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
