JUDGMENT 1. K. Suri, Member (A).—The petitioner is a police constable presently working as such in Himachal Pradesh Armed Police Battalion No. 1, Junga In this application filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, he challenges the promotion of respondents 5 to 8 as Head Constables by an order, dated 27-5-1987 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Simla. The said order has not been annexed with this petition and only an order, dated 15-10-1987, issued by the Commandant, H. P. Armed Police, Battalion No: 1 adjusting Atma Ram, respondent No 7, as a Head Constable in the said Battalion, consequent to his promotion vide Deputy Inspector Generals order aforesaid of 27-5-1987, has been placed on record as Annexure p-2. The petitioner prays that the promotion of respondents 5 to 8 be quashed and set aside, being illegal and in violation of the existing rules of promotion, and that the respondents be directed to promote the petitioner to the post of Head Con stable with all consequential benefits, 2. The petitioner was enlisted as a Police Constable in 1984. But, being an ex-serviceman, he was given the benefit of his approved military service of 15 years and 25 days under Rule 5(1) of the Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of vacancies in Himachal Pradesh State) (Non Technical) Rules, 1972, and was assigned seniority of 1969 as a police constable. Respondents 5 to 8 were recruited as constables in the year 1971 and 1972. Thus, after counting the military service rendered by him, the petitioner became senior to respondents 5 to 8 though the said respondents had put in much longer periods of service as constables in the Police Department 3. According to Rule 13 8 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules, as applicable in Himachal Pradesh, 85% of the posts of Head Constables are filled from amongst those constables who have qualified the lower school course. The remaining 15% vacancies of Head Constables are reserved for those constables who are otherwise suitable but have not qualified the lower school course. 5% of these vacancies are reserved for constables who have put in a minimum of 30 years of service and have reached the age of 55 years and 10% for others. 4. Respondents 5 to 8 were promoted against the 10% Exemptee quota aforementioned. 5% of these vacancies are reserved for constables who have put in a minimum of 30 years of service and have reached the age of 55 years and 10% for others. 4. Respondents 5 to 8 were promoted against the 10% Exemptee quota aforementioned. The petitioner was initially not considered along-with the said respondents against the said quota but later, on a representation made by him, he was considered by a Departmental Promotion Committee comprising of Deputy Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Simla, as Chairman, S. P. Simla and S. P. (CID), Simla, as members, on 30-12-1987. The D.P.C. did not consider the petitioner suitable for promotion under the Exemptee quota and did not, therefore, recommended him for such promotion. The DPC took this view on certain grounds which are best reproduced in their own words as extracted from the concluding paragraph of the proceedings of the meeting of the DPC; "Constable Vichittar Singh No. 977 was appointed as Constable on 17-2-1987 in the Police Department and is still temporary. He has undergone R.T.C in the term ending 1986/87. He has earned only one Commendation Certificate. The 10% exemptee quota is for those constables who have not passed the lower school course at the Police Training, School but are otherwise suitable for promotion Constable Vichittar Singh has just started his career after qualifying the RTC and has to prove suitability in the department for promotion as Head Constable against 10% exemptee quota under Rule 13.8 (2). He is Matriculate and has completed three years service and is eligible to compete for promotion list B. it to make his way for selection to Lower School Course and promotion to the rank of Head Constable. In view of the above, the DPC did not find him suitable for promotion to the rank of Head Constable against 10% exemptee quota and rejected his case." 5. It is the case of the respondents that the Exemptee quota of pro motion is meant only for those constables who are otherwise suitable for promotion as Head Constables but could not, for one reason or the other, » qualify the lower school course, and that promotion against the Exemptee quota is given not merely on the basis of seniority, but the suitability of the official to hold the post of Head Constable has also to be adjudged. It is stated that the petitioner was not considered suitable for the said promotion against the Exemptee quota in view of his very short tenure of service in the Police Department since he had worked for less than a year as a regular police constable after passing out from the Recruits Training Centre in the session ending March, 1987. It is further stated that the normal channel of promotion to the cadre of Head Constables is from amongst Police Constables who have passed the Lower School Course for which selections are made on the basis of a test held every year and that the petitioner had not even attempted to compete in the said test though he had become eligible to do so in 1988. 6. In our opinion, the view taken by the Departmental Promotion Committee as extracted above is a fair and reasonable view, and we are not inclined to reject it or to interfere with the action taken in consequence thereof, which is untainted by any arbitrariness. We find no substance in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed summarily. 7. Before parting with the case, we may state that it would perhaps be desirable to make a specific provision in the Rules stipulating a minimum period of actual service as constable in the Police Department to acquire eligibility for promotion to the cadre of Head Constable under the Exemptee quota. This would put the matter beyond doubt and leave no scope for grievance we have noticed that much of the litigation in service matters relating to the Police Department can be attributed to various anamolies in the Police Rules, These Rules were framed in 1934, more than 50 years back and much before the Constitution came into force. Many of the provisions of these Rules have become archaic and out dated with the passage of time and have little relevance in the present context. Some may not even be fully in accord with the constitutional provisions and- guarantees. It is time, therefore, that a complete, thorough and well considered review and revision of the Police Rules is undertaken expeditiously and without further delay so as to eliminate unnecessary and avoid able litigation. Perhaps, it may be advisable and expedient to frame a separate set of Recruitment and Promotion Rules for N. G. Os. It is time, therefore, that a complete, thorough and well considered review and revision of the Police Rules is undertaken expeditiously and without further delay so as to eliminate unnecessary and avoid able litigation. Perhaps, it may be advisable and expedient to frame a separate set of Recruitment and Promotion Rules for N. G. Os. under Article 309, leaving the Police Rules to deal only with matters relating to organisation, structure and day-to-day functioning of Police force, and the role of the Police as regards maintenance of law and order, and prevention investigation and detention of crime. Even in the matter of Disciplinary proceedings against N. G. Os., which are presently governed by the Police Rules, the desirability of adopting the Disciplinary and Punishment Rules applicable to other Government employees, with such modifications as may be necessary, keeping in view the special requirements of the Police force needs to be examined. 8. A copy of this order may be sent to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Himachal Pradesh for appropriate action as regards the observations in para 7 supra. Application dismissed.