IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, Pankaj Purohit, JJ.
Sh. Satendra Kumar & Others - Petitioners
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition (S/B) No. 297 of 2020
Decided On : 09-10-2023
Promotion - Service Rules - Uttarakhand Police Constable and Head Constable (Civil Police, Intelligence and Armed Police) Service Rules, 2018 - Rule -5 (2), Rule -24 (a) & (b), Rule-25, 25, Schedule - 6 Rule - 1& 7& 8, Schedule - 7 Rule - 1& 7 - Uttarakhand Police Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police and Intelligence) Service Rules, 2018 - Rule 5, Rule 5 A (3) (a) - [Rule -5 (2), Rule -24 (a) & (b), Rule-25, 25, Schedule - 6 Rule - 1& 7& 8, Schedule - 7 Rule - 1& 7, Rule 5, Rule 5 A (3) (a)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Uttarakhand Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2018 and the Uttarakhand Police Sub-Inspector and Inspector Service Rules, 2018, focusing on the eligibility criteria and promotion avenues for constables serving in different branches of the police force. The court emphasized the government's authority to determine the qualifications and conditions for promotion, and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. The judgment upheld the rules, stating that the petitioners' right to be considered for promotion had not been denied.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, serving as Constables in Civil Police and Intelligence Branch, sought to challenge certain provisions of the Service Rules, claiming that their chances of promotion had been reduced after the enforcement of the rules. They argued that the rules treated constables serving in different branches unequally and questioned the parameters for promotion to higher posts.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the government has the authority to unilaterally alter the terms and conditions of its employees and determine the qualifications and conditions for promotion. It emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in such matters and upheld the rules, stating that the petitioners' right to be considered for promotion had not been denied.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioners' claim of reduced promotion opportunities, unequal treatment of constables serving in different branches, and the parameters for promotion to higher posts.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment emphasized the government's authority to determine the qualifications and conditions for promotion, and the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. It highlighted that the petitioners' right to be considered for promotion had not been denied.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed by the court.
JUDGMENT :
Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
By means of this writ petition, petitioners have the sought following reliefs:
ii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari, calling for records and declare/ quash Rule 5, Rule 5 A (3) (a) of Uttarakhand Police Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police and Intelligence) Service Rules, 2018 (ANNEXURE NO.1.) ultra vires to the Constitution of India hence illegal.
iii. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to fill all posts of Head Constable from Constable, only by way of departmental seniority basis of Constables, excluding ineligible candidates (that is to say hundred percent by way of promotion).
iv. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to promote Head-Constable to Sub- Inspector by way of 50% on seniority basis and 50% on open direct entry basis out of the total vacancy.
2. Petitioners are serving as Constable in Civil Police as well as Intelligence Branch. The next promotional post available to Constables is that of Head Constable. Head Constables can be promoted as SubInspectors. Service Rules for Constables, Head Constables and Sub-Inspectors of Police were framed in the year 2018 and earlier appointments were made to these posts as per Executive Instructions issued from time to time.
3. According to petitioners, their chance of promotion have been reduced after enforcement of Service Rules, therefore, they have prayed that relevant provisions of Service Rules be declared ultra vires to the Constitution. One of their grievance is that under the Rules, Constables serving in Civil Police and Intelligence Branch, are not treated as eligible for promotion against the post of Head Constable/Sub-Inspector in Armed Police. They have also questioned the parameters for physical efficiency test laid down for promotion to the post of Head Constable in Armed Police. According to them, Constables serving in Armed Police have more chance of promotion compared to Constables serving in Civil Police and Intelligence Branch.
4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 2 & 3, it is stated that before enforcement of 2018 Service Rules also, the post of Head Constable and Sub-Inspector in Armed Police were available for promotion only to personnel serving in Armed Police; members of Civil Police and Intelligence Branch were not eligible for promotion in Armed Police. It is further stated that chance of promotion is not an incidence of service and a Government servant has a right to be considered for promotion only which has not been denied to the petitioners. It is further stated that for promotion to the post of Head Constable in Armed Police, a Constable must have Standard Level Training of Drill Musketry, which is possessed by Constable in Armed Police only, as they participate in Drill Musketry in routine manner. Para 16 to 21 of the counter affidavit are reproduced below for ready reference:-
State of Uttarakhand & others vs S.K. Singh & others
The State of Jammu & Kashmir vs Shri Triloki Nath Khosa & others
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....
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 Const....
The amendment mandating a Bachelor's Degree for certain promotions was constitutionally valid, emphasizing the employer's prerogative to set qualification standards related to job responsibilities.
Court directs committee to review constable-to-head constable promotions flawed by high merit-test quota, irregularity, stagnation, and sub-cadre discrimination, ensuring fair avenues despite state p....
The judgment establishes the principle of reasonable classification and the need for a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by a statute in determining the compliance with Article 14 of....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.