Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1303 (RAJ)

Manak Mohta v. Jai Kumar Bhadu

2005-05-03

MANAK MOHTA

body2005
Judgment N.N. Mathur, J.-This group of special appeals is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 14th February, 2003. 2. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order, we are of the view that the instant group of special appeals preferred by the State of Rajasthan deserves to be dismissed summarily. 3. The respondents are police constables. In response to the advertisement issued by the appellants for appointment on the post of Constable, the respondents applied for the same. As per the advertisement, 21 years was the upper age limit for recruitment on the post of Constable. However, in case of special qualification as driver, it was 24 years. The respondents were initially recruited as constables in armed police. Subsequently, they were transferred to the civil police. They were confirmed on the post of Constable (Civil Police) by order dated 04.02.1993. Their names appeared in the provisional seniority list of Constables (Civil Police), issued in the year 1998. Their names re-appeared in the seniority list issued in the month of August, 1999. A provisional seniority list of Constable (Driver) of Bikaner Range was also issued on 10.12.1999 and their names did not appear therein. The applications were invited for appointment by promotion on the post of Head-constable (Civil Police). The applications were also invited for appearing at qualifying test for promotion on the post of Head-Constable (Civil Police). However, the respondents were not called for the said qualifying test. Thus, they protested by way of representation in the year 1999. The persons junior to them have promoted on the post of Head-Constable (Civil Police). Thus, they approached to the Court by way of filing separate writ petitions. The appellants took a stand that upper age limit for appointment on the post of Constable (Civil Police) is 21 years. However, in case of Constable (Driver), the upper age limit is 24 years. Thus, the respondents were appointed as Constables (Driver). Their names in the seniority list of Constable (Civil Police) were wrongly mentioned. It is further stated that as per the order issued by the Director General of Police, the respondents have a channel of promotion on the post of Head-Constable (Civil Police). Thus, their names were rightly not included among the persons eligible for promotion on the post of Head-Constable (Civil Police). 4. It is further stated that as per the order issued by the Director General of Police, the respondents have a channel of promotion on the post of Head-Constable (Civil Police). Thus, their names were rightly not included among the persons eligible for promotion on the post of Head-Constable (Civil Police). 4. On consideration of the issue involved, the learned Single Judge found that under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (herein after referred to as the Rules of 1989), there is no post as Constable (Driver) and so as Head-Constable (Civil Police). As regards the upper age limit, the learned Single Judge found that in case of persons knowing driving, the upper age limit was relaxed to 24 years. As the respondents were knowing driving, in their case, the upper age limit was relaxed to 24 years. As regards the instructions issued by the Director General of Police, providing promotion on the post of Head-Constable (Driver), the learned Single Judge held that no post can be created by an administrative order. The Rules of 1989 does not envisage post of Constable (Driver) or Head-Constable (Civil Police). The learned Judge has also found that the names of the respondents have appeared in the seniority list of Constable (Civil), as such, they were being throughout treated as Constables (Civil Police). Thus, in the opinion of the learned Single Judge, the respondents were arbitrarily excluded from the zone of consideration for promotion on the post of Head-Constable (Civil Police) on the ground that they were being non-qualifying. In view of the finding, the learned Judge directed the appellants to hold a qualifying examination for the post of Head-Constable (Civil Police) and, in case, they are found fit and suitable for the post, they may be promoted in accordance with the Rules from the date when the vacancy had occurred after 212.1999. 5. It is contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the upper age limit for the post of Constable (Civil Police) is 21 years, whereas, the upper age limit for the post of Constable (Driver) is 24 years. It clearly shows that there is a separate cadre of Constable (Civil Police). They have a channel of promotion on the post of Head-Constable (Driver) as provided under the instructions issued by the Director General of Police vide Annexure-R/3. 6. It clearly shows that there is a separate cadre of Constable (Civil Police). They have a channel of promotion on the post of Head-Constable (Driver) as provided under the instructions issued by the Director General of Police vide Annexure-R/3. 6. It is further submitted that all the posts have been filled in. The directions of the learned Single Judge cannot be complied with. The relevant Rules have been extracted in the said order. As per Rule 4 of the Rules of 1989, there are four sections of services; Section I of the service contains posts of Armed Police, Civil Police, Intelligence Branch and General Duties Branch of Tele-communication Directorate. Under Rule 11 of the Rules of 1989, the maximum age provided for recruitment on the post of Constable is 21 years. The Rule further provided that the upper age limit for Constable (Driver) shall be 24 years. A fair reading of the Rules shows that in case of person having special qualification of knowing driving, the upper age limit has been relaxed to 24 years. Apart from the correct interpretation of the Rule, taking a rational view simply because a person is having a special qualification, his career cannot be blocked as a Constable (Driver) for the entire life. There is no separate cadre of Constable (Driver) under the Rules. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that no post can be created by an administrative order. Under the Rules of 1989, there is no post like Constable, Driver or Head Constable (Driver). 7. The respondents have filed cross-objections seeking direction to the effect that in the event of success in the qualifying examination to be held as per the directions given by the learned Single Judge, the respondents will be appointed as Head-Constable (Civil Police) to the vacancies in respect of which qualifying examination was held on 212.1999 by creating supernumerary posts and will be entitled to all consequential benefits. 8. In our view, no such direction is required to be given. The directions given by the learned Single Judge shall appropriately be taken care of . The cross-objections filed by the respondents stand rejected. 9. We do not find any justified reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the group of Special Appeals stand dismissed summarily.