Back
1970 Supreme(P&H) 91
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Mehar Singh, Harbans Singh and Bal Raj Tuli JJ.
Sardul Singh, Head Constable
Versus
Inspector General Of Police
Civil Writ No. 1692 of 1969,
Decided On : MAY 5, 1970
The process of selection for promotion of a Head Constable to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police starts after the Head Constable qualifies in the Intermediate School Course, not when he is to be sent for that course.
Headnote:
POLICE RULES - Rule 13.9 - Head Constables - Right to be sent for Intermediate School Course - Selection for promotion - Stage at which it starts - Rule 13.1 - Scope and ambit of Article 16 of the Constitution - Rule 19.1 - Importance of training - Rule 13.8 - Determination of seniority - Rule 13.18 - Confirmation of Head Constables - Rule 13.10 - Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police - Right to be sent for Upper School Course - Instructions issued by Inspector General of Police - Validity - Reversion of Head Constables promoted as officiating Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police - Legality.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police, challenged the orders of the respondents denying them the right to be sent for Intermediate School Course and Upper School Course, respectively, and the reversion of some Head Constables to their substantive ranks after being promoted as officiating Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police.
Finding of the Court:
1. The process of selection for promotion of a Head Constable to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police starts after the Head Constable qualifies in the Intermediate School Course, not when he is to be sent for that course. 2. Every Head Constable on list C has the right to be deputed for the Intermediate School Course on his turn and no obstacle can be placed in his way by any of the authorities because it is a necessary qualification prescribed by Rule 13.9 and there is no other institution from where this qualification can be acquired. 3. The selection for the Intermediate School Course does not form part of the process of promotion of a Head Constable to the rank of an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police which process starts only from the stage when the names are considered for entry in list D under Rule 13.9 and that stage is reached only after a Head Constable has passed the Lower School Course and the Intermediate School Course. 4. The instructions issued by the Inspector General of Police in memos dated September 16, 1933, and August 25, 1964, regarding the selection of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police for the Upper School Course are void and of no effect as they were not issued by the State Government which alone had the right to make rules under the Police Act, 5 of 1861. 5. The order of reversion of the petitioners from the officiating posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police to their substantive ranks was legal as they were not found unsuitable for the post and their reversion was not by way of punishment or cast any stigma on them.
Issues: 1. Whether the process of selection for promotion of a Head Constable to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police starts when the Head Constable is to be sent for the Intermediate School Course or after he qualifies in that course? 2. Whether every Head Constable on list C has the right to be deputed for the Intermediate School Course and whether any obstacle can be placed in his way by the authorities? 3. Whether the selection for the Intermediate School Course forms part of the process of promotion of a Head Constable to the rank of an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police? 4. Whether the instructions issued by the Inspector General of Police in memos dated September 16, 1933, and August 25, 1964, regarding the selection of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police for the Upper School Course are valid? 5. Whether the order of reversion of the petitioners from the officiating posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police to their substantive ranks was legal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The process of selection for promotion of a Head Constable to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police starts after the Head Constable qualifies in the Intermediate School Course, not when he is to be sent for that course. This is because the Intermediate School Course is a necessary qualification prescribed by Rule 13.9 for admission to list D, which is the list of Head Constables eligible for promotion to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. 2. Every Head Constable on list C has the right to be deputed for the Intermediate School Course on his turn and no obstacle can be placed in his way by any of the authorities because it is a necessary qualification prescribed by Rule 13.9 and there is no other institution from where this qualification can be acquired. 3. The selection for the Intermediate School Course does not form part of the process of promotion of a Head Constable to the rank of an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police which process starts only from the stage when the names are considered for entry in list D under Rule 13.9 and that stage is reached only after a Head Constable has passed the Lower School Course and the Intermediate School Course. 4. The instructions issued by the Inspector General of Police in memos dated September 16, 1933, and August 25, 1964, regarding the selection of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police for the Upper School Course are void and of no effect as they were not issued by the State Government which alone had the right to make rules under the Police Act, 5 of 1861. 5. The order of reversion of the petitioners from the officiating posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police to their substantive ranks was legal as they were not found unsuitable for the post and their reversion was not by way of punishment or cast any stigma on them.
Final Decision: 1. The petitions of the Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police were allowed. 2. The respondents were directed to consider the cases of the petitioners for being sent for the Intermediate School Course and Upper School Course, respectively, in order of seniority. 3. The parties were left to bear their own costs.
Bal Raj Tuli, J.
1. These 92 writ petitions have been placed for hearing before this Bench in pursuance of the order of reference recorded by a Division Bench of this Court on April 16, 1970. These cases can be grouped in three categories. In the first category are placed 62 writ petitions (C. W. Nos. 979, 1562 to 1569. 1613, 1614, 1632, 1641. 1642, 1653 to 1659, 1669 to 1671, 1692, 1694, 1710 to 1719, 1740, 1742, 1746 to 1748, 1758, 1793, 1832 to 1837, 1890, 1891, 1844, 1917. 1971, 2011, 2012, 2113, 2157, 2183 and 2821, 2823 and 2824 of 1909), which relate to Head Constables who claim the right to be sent for Intermediate School Course at the Police Training College, Phillaur, and the relevant rule for consideration is Rule 13.9 of the Police Rules, 1934 .
2. The second category consists of 3 cases (C. W. Nos. 489, 2755 and 2822 of 1969) which relate to Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police who claim the right to be sent for the Upper School Course at the Police Training College, Phillaur, and the relevant rule for consideration is Rule 13.10 of the Police Rules, 1934 .
3. The third category consists of 27 petitions (C. W. Nos. 1824. 2064, 2459 to 2461, 2550 to 2558, 2674 to 2676, 2802 to 2808. 2825 and 2974 of 1969), in which the petitioners had been promoted as officiating Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police without passing the Intermediate School Course and have been reverted to their substantive posts of Head Constables on the ground that, they are untrained persons while trained persons have become available. The legality of that order is being challenged and it has also been prayed in some of them that they are entitled to he sent for the Intermediate School Course.
4. In the first two categories, most of the arguments are common and, therefore, they will be dealt with together.
5. In order to appreciate the points of law involved in the first category of cases, it is enough to state the facts of one of these cases. Before us the facts of C W. 1692 of 1969, H.C. Sardul Singh v. I. G. Police, Chandigarh and others, were read out and we proceed to state the same.
6. The petitioner passed his F. A. Examination in 1955 and joined the Punjab Police Force as Foot Constable on August 18, 1956. He passed the Police Recruits Training Course in 1957 standing first in his class and was awarded a baton of honour and Class II certificate with a cash reward of Rs. 20/- by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Jullundur Range. He was deputed to undergo Lower School Course at the Police Training School, Phillaur, in October, 1961, which he successfully completed by standing first in his class and Was awarded a cup as well as Class III certificate with a cash reward of Rs. 30/-. The Superintendent of Police sent him a letter of congratulations on this distinction. His name was brought on list C on April 12, 1962, and he was promoted as officiating Head Constable with effect from the same date. He worked as Moharrir Head Constable at Police Station Saddar, Batala, from January 23, 1963 to October 4, 1964, and as investigating Head Constable at Police Station. Kalanaur, from October 25, 1964 to March 28, 1966. In 1964, Shri Ashwini Kumar, Deputy Inspector-General, Border Range, visited Gurdaspur district and the petitioner along with other Head Constables of the district appeared before him. The Superintendent of Police read out the last entry in the character roll of the petitioner which was to the effect" that the petitioner was an excellent Moharrir Head Constable. In appreciation of his work, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police directed the Superintendent of Police to recommend the petitioners name for provisional list D. In the return, it has been admitted that an entry exists in the petitioners confidential service card under the signatures, of Shri Ashwini Kumar. I.P.S., Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Border Range, dated February 26, 1964, reading "to be recommended for D list". The petitioner had been awarded 16 comm
