Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1012 (MP)

Satyendra Pratap Singh v. State of M. P.

2010-10-05

ALOK ARADHE, S.R.ALAM

body2010
ORDER S.R. Alam, C.J. 1. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. In the instant writ petition, the Petitioners who are working as Head Constables, have challenged the vires of the GOP order dated 7.6.2008 issued in exercise of powers under Section 12 of the Police Act, 1961. 3. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy are that Petitioners are Head Constables working in Special Armed Force (Home) Police Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. According to the old policy formulated for making promotion from the post of Head Constable to the post of Assistant Platoon Commander vide GOP-75/97, 90% posts of Assistant Platoon Commander are to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-merit by promotion and rest 10% posts are to be filled up by persons having outstanding record under Regulation 56(3) of Police Regulations. However, under the old policy, the Head Constable who had put in three years of service, could take part in the examination which was held for promotion to the post of Assistant Platoon Commander. The list of the candidates was prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the aforesaid examination. The Petitioners had passed the Pre-promotional Examination. However, by another GOP dated 7.1.2008 contained in Annexure-P/3, promotion policy for the post of Constables, Company Commanders, Platoon Commanders was changed. Under the new policy it was provided that promotion from the post of Head Constable to Assistant Platoon Commander shall be made 100% by promotion. It was provided that 90% posts shall be reserved for promotion, out of which 60% will be filled in by promotion by the candidates who have passed the Departmental Cadre Examination which will be placed in Group A. 30% posts are to be filled in by promotion of Head Constables who have completed 45 years of age on the basis of seniority-cum-merit after evaluating their service record, who will be placed in Group B. The Petitioners, who had qualified the Pre-promotional Examination and were empanelled for being sent for Pre-promotional Training were excluded from the list because of the age factor prescribed in the new GOP dated 7.6.2008. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid new policy, the Petitioners have challenged the validity of the same in the instant writ petition. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid new policy, the Petitioners have challenged the validity of the same in the instant writ petition. 4. The Respondents have filed the return inter alia contending that under the old policy for promotion to the post of Assistant Platoon Commander from the post of Head Constable, there existed only one seniority list and the criteria was seniority-cum-merit. However, more meritorious and efficient persons who could be deployed in the field work were deprived of promotion because they being juniors were placed below in the seniority list. Physical efficiency was considered to be the main issue to provide promotion to the youngsters so that their services could be utilized in a better way. Thus, in order to provide promotion to youngsters, the GOP dated 7.6.2008 was issued and the eligible candidates were splitted in two groups for the purpose of promotion. The GOP was amended with an object to promote the Head Constable below 45 years in age by taking into account the physical efficiency and ability. It was further pleaded that before incorporating the proposed amendment, a committee was constituted which invited suggestions. The suggestions were placed in the meeting of the high officials of Special Armed Forces including nine officers of Indian Police Service. The proposals were duly considered and thereafter the GOP was amended. The amendment in the GOP has been formulated on the basis of report of expert body. It has further been stated that Assistant Platoon Commander is leader of section who needs to be intelligent, efficient and full of energy as Special Armed Force personnel are deployed in Naxalite/dacoit affected areas and have to perform onerous duties. 5. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. Shri K.K. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that right accrued to the Petitioners under the old policy of promotion cannot be taken away by issuing the new GOP dated 7.6.2008. It has further been contended that the GOP dated 7.6.2008 has been given retrospective effect as the Petitioners' names have been directed to be removed from the list of Head Constables who have qualified the cadre examination only on the basis of age factor. The new policy of promotion framed by GOP dated 7.6.2008 cannot be given retrospective operation. The Petitioners would be deprived of the benefit of promotion. The new policy of promotion framed by GOP dated 7.6.2008 cannot be given retrospective operation. The Petitioners would be deprived of the benefit of promotion. It was further submitted that GOP dated 7.6.2008 has no reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved and the same is discriminatory and arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 6. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate while opposing the submissions made by learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that new GOP has been issued with an object of betterment of the force and is in public interest. The Head Constables have been put in two separate groups for the purposes of promotion, only to ensure that Head Constables who are below the age of 45 years are promoted on account of their physical efficiency and ability so that maximum utilization of their services can be made. It has further been submitted that before issuing new GOP, the objections and suggestions were invited which are duly considered in the meeting of high officials of Special Armed Force including nine officers of Indian Police Services. Learned Government Advocate in support of his submissions has placed reliance on decision of Supreme Court in Indravadan H. Shah v. State of Gujrat and Anr. AIR 1986 SC 1035 . 7. We have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. The Legislature has enacted an Act namely Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Shastra Bal Adhiniyam, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In exercise of powers under Section 27 of the Act, the State government has framed rules which are known as Madhya Pradesh Vishesh Shastra Bal Niyam, 1973. The aforesaid rules provide for the recruitment as well as manner of recruitment in Special Armed Force. Rule 23 of the said Rule specifically provides that recruitment to the rank of Company Commander, Platoon Commander, Head Constable and Constable of Special Armed Force shall be made either by direct recruitment or recruitment by personnel from the police force or promotion. Rule 23(2) of the Rules provides that method and procedure of recruitment and selection shall be specified by the State Government from time to time. Rule 56 deals with promotion and examination. A policy of promotion was formulated by issuing GOP in exercise of powers conferred under Section 12 of the Police Act, 1861 namely GOP 75/97. Rule 23(2) of the Rules provides that method and procedure of recruitment and selection shall be specified by the State Government from time to time. Rule 56 deals with promotion and examination. A policy of promotion was formulated by issuing GOP in exercise of powers conferred under Section 12 of the Police Act, 1861 namely GOP 75/97. In view of the aforesaid policy, a Head Constable who had put in three years of service could take part in the examination which was to be conducted by an committee on the basis of the aforesaid examination, a list of selected candidates was to be prepared and the selected candidates were required to undergo Pre-promotional Training and thereafter they were promoted to post of Assistant Platoon Commander. 8. The general order of police is issued by the Director General of Police on the basis of recommendations of the committee, it was observed that under the old policy of promotion to the post of Assistant Platoon Commander from the post of Head Constable, there existed only one seniority list and the criteria fixed for promotion was seniority-cum-merit. Therefore, more meritorious and efficient persons who could be deployed in the field work were being deprived of promotion because they were junior in the seniority list. Physical efficiency was considered to be main factor to provide promotion to youngsters whose services could be utilized in a better way in the field and, therefore, an amendment in the policy for promotion was contemplated. The committee in its meeting held on 18.3.2008 proposed certain amendments in GOP. Thereafter, the committee invited suggestions. After consideration of the suggestions, the committee prepared the draft and the same was forwarded to the Additional Dy. Director General. The draft was considered in the meeting of high officials of Special Armed force including nine officers of Indian Police Service. After due deliberation of the proposal, a new policy of promotion vide GOP dated 7.6.2008 was issued. Thus, the GOP has been formulated after due deliberations and on the basis of recommendation of an expert body. 9. Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation but does not forbid reasonable classification. Classification in order to be reasonable must be founded on intelligible differentia and that differentia must have rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. 9. Article 14 of the Constitution of India forbids class legislation but does not forbid reasonable classification. Classification in order to be reasonable must be founded on intelligible differentia and that differentia must have rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Object of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution is to ensure equality to all those who are similarly situated. The State has the power to qualify persons in different groups for legitimate purposes. The classification so made should have the reasonable nexus with the object to be achieved. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal proposition, challenge made by the Petitioners to GOP dated 7.6.2008 may be examined. 10. The purpose for introducing the new GOP is to promote efficient and energetic persons who are normally supposed to be deployed in the field and are able to perform their duties efficiently even in the adverse situations. The Assistant Platoon Commander is a leader of section who needs to be intelligent, efficient and full of energy as Special Armed Force personnel are always deployed in the Naxalite/dacoit affected areas and they have to perform anti Naxlite, anti dacoit and anti terrorist operations and have to deal with in difficult law and order situations. If the new policy of promotion which was introduced by GOP dated 7.6.2008 is examined, it is apparent that the aforesaid policy has been introduced with the object of betterment of the force and to promote energetic persons who can deal with in the difficult law and order situations on the field. The aforesaid classification has been made by taking into account the factor of physical efficiency, ability and the nature of duties which are required to be performed by the Assistant Platoon Commander. Thus, the aforesaid classification can neither be said to be arbitrary nor unreasonable. The classification which been made has a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved i.e. to promote young and energetic Head Constables and Platoon Commanders so that they can effectively perform their duties in Naxalldacoit affected areas and deal with in difficult law and order situations. Such a criteria for promotion which is based on age limit can be prescribed in the public interest in order to ensure that a candidate who has excellent service record and is efficient, is promoted. Such a criteria for promotion which is based on age limit can be prescribed in the public interest in order to ensure that a candidate who has excellent service record and is efficient, is promoted. Reference in this connection can be made by the decision of Supreme Court in AIR 1986 SC 1035 (supra). For the aforementioned reasons, the challenge to GOP on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, must fail. 11. So far as the contention of the Petitioner that their vested right is being taken away by the amendment in the GOP is concerned, suffice to say that no employees has a fundamental right to claim promotion. It is equally well settled legal proposition that an employee has no fundamental right of promotion. He only has a right to be considered for promotion. Even reduction in chances of promotion does not affect right of an employee. Reference in this connection may be made to the decision of Supreme Court in Director, Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. and Ors. v. Pravat Kiran Mohanty and Ors. (1991)2 SCC 295 . 12. However, since under the old policy of promotion as well as new policy of promotion which has been framed by the GOP dated 7.6.2008, the Head Constables who are not promoted on account of expiry of select list, shall have right to be placed at the top of the new selection list which is prepared. Therefore, in the facts and circumstance of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioners for promotion as per the provisions of the new policy against the quota of 30% of the Head Constables, who have crossed the age bar. 13. With the aforesaid direction, the petition is disposed of.