Rule 19.14 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which provides for the selection of Constables for the Lower School Course on the basis of a competitive test, is not violative of Article 16 of the Constitution.

M.R.SHARMA, J.

1. The petitioners were recruited as Constables in the Union Territory of Chandigarh on the various dates mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition. By virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, their conditions of service were governed by the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). On January 30, 1973, the Union Territory Administration issued a standing order laying down that the Constables should be deputed for the Lower School Course on the basis of a competitive test. Petitioners Nos. 5 to 7 filed Civil Writ Petn. No. 1812 of 1976, which came up before R. N. Mittal, J. who disposed it of on 10.09.1976 in the following terms :-

"The learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the petitioners shall be considered for sending to the Lower School Course which is to commence in April, 1977 in accordance with the Punjab Police Rules in force at that time without taking into consideration the order dated 18th August, 1973 and that the respondents shall not promote any of the persons mentioned in Annexure- P-1 to the post of Head Constable till October, 1977. In view of the aforesaid undertaking, the learned counsel for the petitioners does not press the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs." Thereafter, petitioners Nos. 1 to 4, 6, 8, 11, 12 and 13 filed another Civil Writ Petn. No. 7709 of 1976 in which the action of respondent No. 2 for deputing the Constables to the Lower School Course on the basis of a test introduced under the executive instructions was challenged. This petition came up for hearing before me and my learned brother S. S. Sidhu, J., on 8.12.1976. In accordance with the rule laid down in Sardul Singh V/s. Inspector General of Police, Punjab, 1970 0 ServLR 505 we ordered that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioners for being sent to Lower School Course strictly in accordance with the rules and would not insist upon them to pass the test which has been provided under the executive instructions. The grievance of the petitioners is that whereas they were expecting that they would be considered and sent for the Lower School Course commencing on 1.04.1977, on the basis of their seniority and record of service, respondent No. 2 issued an order on March, 13, 1977 directing that the petitioners should, along with others, join the Refresher Course organised in the Police Lines with effect from 17.03.1977. It is submitted that R. 19.14 of the Rules, which allows the authority to call upon the Constables at least 3 months before the admissions are made at the Police Training School for a Refresher Course of Drill and Instruction, at the end of which they have to be examined in competition, is violative of Art. 16 of the Constitution. It is also submitted that since the selection has not been made prior to 1.01.1977, i. e. 3 months before the date of admission to the Police Training School, the respondents, "cannot now force the petitioners to go through the odium of competitive test especially when they have not been given the requisite training."

2. In the return filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it has been submitted that they have acted strictly in compliance with rules 13.1, 13.7 and 19.14 of the Rules. It is further submitted that the provisions of rule 19.14 of the Rules regarding the date, time and duration of the Refresher Course and the test are mandatory in the sense that the schedule has to be observed in chronometric exactitude and if due to some emergent and important pre-occupations of the Administration, action could not be taken earlier, the duration and time schedule of the Refresher Course could be varied after consulting the Principal of the Police Training College, Phillaur, which had been done in the instant case.

3. Mr. J. L. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that it is open to this Court to determine the philo