Point of Law: Act of 2007 is a citizen centric Act, whereas Rules of 1989, promulgated in exercise of powers under Article 309 of Constitution of India, are substantive provisions dealing with service conditions of police personnel - So far as issue or question relating to service conditions of police personnel, including their transfer is concerned, provisions of Rules of 1989 alone are relevant - Provisions of Act of 2007 cannot be resorted to with respect to questions relating to transfer or other service conditions - In case of conflict, general law, i.e. provisions of Act of 2007 will have to yield to special laws, i.e., provisions of Rules of 1989

JUDGMENT :

(1) Instant writ petition and the writ petitions enlisted in the appended schedule, involve common questions of facts and law and hence, they are being decided conjointly. The facts are almost identical so much so, the order under challenge is also one, issued by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur on 05.08.2021.

(2) The seniority of police personnel, working on the post of Constable and Head Constable is maintained at district level, whereas seniority of Assistant Sub-Inspectors is maintained at range level. In other words, the posts of Constable and Head Constable are district cadre Posts and appointments/promotions to these posts are made on district level; their appointing authority is the Superintendent of Police of concerned district.

(3) Whereas, the post of Head Constable is filled-up 100% by way of promotion from amongst Constables on the basis of their seniority in the district.

(4) The post of Assistant Sub-Inspector is to be filled in 100% by promotion from Head Constables and the same is a range level post. Seniority of ASIs is maintained at range level.

(5) By way of present writ petitions, the petitioners herein, being Constable/Head Constable/Assistant Sub-Inspector working in the Police Department, have challenged their respective transfers affected by the above referred order dated 05.08.2021, inter alia, contending that the same is contrary to Rule 26 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules of 1989’).

(6) It is to be noted that by way of order dated 05.08.2021, various Constables, Head-Constables and Assistant Sub- Inspectors have been transferred out of their range. The basic ground, on which the petitioners have challenged their transfer is, that since the posts of Constable and Head- Constable are district cadre posts, they cannot be transferred out of their cadre/district. Similarly, as the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector is a range cadre post, they (ASIs) cannot be transferred out of their cadre/range.

(7) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners argued that consequent to petitioners’ transfers in the range other than the District/Range they were appointed and working, their seniority will be adversely affected. It was also argued that their transfer will result into change of their appointing authority, which cannot be done by the respondents, except with the consent of the concerned employee.

(8) Inviting Court’s attention towards Rule 26 of the Rules of 1989, learned counsel argued that not only the vacancy for the posts of Constable and Head-Constable is determined district-wise but also the recruitment on such posts is made district-wise. Highlighting that appointment orders of the petitioners, who are Constables/Head-Constables, have been issued by the concerned Superintendent of Police, it was argued that their transfer out of range (obviously, out of district) is contrary to the Rules.

(9) In order to buttress the above argument, Mr. Sidhu, learned counsel for the petitioners, relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court, rendered in the case of Jawahar Lal Nehru University Vs. Dr. K.S. Jawatkar & Ors., reported in 1989 Supp (1) SCC 679 and more particular para No.7 thereof, the same is being reproduced hereunder:-

“7. In this appeal the main contention of the appellant is that the respondent was appointed at the Centre of Post-gradate Sutides. Imphal, and when the Centre was transferred to the Manipur University, his services were automatically transferred to that University, and consequently he could not claim to be an employee of the appellant University. The argument proceeds on the assumption that the Centre of Post-graduate Studies at Imphal was an independent entity which existed by itself and was not a department of the appellant University. The submission proceeds on a fallacy. The Centre of Post-graduate Studies was set up at Imphal as an activity of the appellant University. To give expression to that