Promotion policies in police forces must adhere to established rules and seniority systems, without imposing state-level seniority absent a common selection process.

ORDER :

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents and perused the records.

2. The case of the petitioner in brief is that the respondents are considering range wise seniority for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police from the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police/Head Constable which is the feeder category for granting promotion instead of having a State Level Seniority.

3. The grievance of the petitioner is that on account of the respondents adopting range wise seniority, at the stage of granting promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, from entry level i.e., Grade-II Police Constable to Grade -I Police Constable and similarly from Grade – I Police Constable to Head Constable/Special Sub Inspector of Police, promotions are being granted district wise depending on the vacancy in the concerned district; that the post of Head Constable/Special Sub Inspector of Police is the feeder post to the promotional post of Sub Inspector of Police; that on account of adopting district wise promotion to fill up the vacancies in the level of Grade – I Police Constable and Head Constable/Special Sub Inspector of Police, juniors working in a particular district of a range are becoming eligible for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police having been promoted to the post of Head Constable/Special Sub Inspector of Police against the vacancies arising in the district; that on account of promotion being granted on the basis of District wise vacancy in feeder category posts, some of the candidates in a particular district, where there are no vacancies, even though got selected and appointed as Grade – II Police Constable at the same time or earlier, are not getting promotion. It is thus, contended that the same is leading to stagnation in the same post, apart from, they having required to work under their juniors, thereby having demoralizing effect.

4. Petitioner further contended that though the respondents while considering the promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, consider the entire range consisting of all districts as one unit, since, promotion in feeder category is effected on the basis of district wise vacancies, such promotion is resulting in anomaly.

5. It is the further case of the petitioner that though there are time bound promotions from Grade – II Police Constable to Grade – I Police Constable and thereafter, to the post of Head Constable/Special Sub Inspector of Police, as there is no fixed time limit from the post of Special Sub Inspector of Police for further upgradation by getting promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Police; that the promotions in other ranges are also not being done in uniformly; that on certain occasions on account of non-existence of vacancies in a particular district in a range, the employees who have joined the service as Grade-II Police Constable and securing time bound upgradation as Grade-I Police Constable after 10 years of service and to the post of the Head Constable/Special Sub Inspector of Police after five years of service, are not getting promotions to the next level; and that only if a State wise seniority list is maintained for effecting promotions, based on such seniority, the Head Constable/Special Sub Inspector of Police working in a range would become eligible for being promoted as Sub Inspector of Police, irrespective of there exists vacancies in a particular range or not in a given year.

6. On behalf of the petitioner, it is also contended that since, the police force is one for the entire State, the respondents ought to have adopted