JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or video quality. 2. The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the validity of Rule 5 of the notification No.252 dated 28.01.2016 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) whereby and whereunder it has been decided that the constable of Jharkhand Armed Police/IRB/SISF/SIRB are not eligible for the restricted competitive examination, 2017 for consideration of their candidature to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. 3. The brief facts of the case which require to be enumerated as per the pleading made in the writ petition are that the writ petitioners are the constable appointed under the Jharkhand Armed Police in the year 2004. It is the contention of the writ petitioners that at the time of process of selection, the writ petitioners although have been allotted the cadre of Jharkhand Armed Police but from the same selection process, some of the candidates have been allotted the cadre of District Police. The writ petitioners are aggrieved with the decision of the Home, Prison and Disaster Management Department, Government of Jharkhand from where a notification was issued being Notification No.252 dated 28.01.2016 by which it was decided that 25 per cent of the post of Sub-Inspector will be filled up by the restricted departmental examination and as per clause 5 of the said notification, constable of Jharkhand Armed Police/IRB/SISF/SIRB are not eligible to participate in the said examination. The Personal, Administrative Reform and Rajbhasa Department, Government of Jharkhand, Ranchi send recommendation to the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, Ranchi on 27.06.2017 for filling up 1544 vacant post of Sub-Inspector of Police through restricted competitive examination. In pursuance thereto, the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, has issued a notification being Advertisement No.09 of 2017 for seeking application from one or the other candidates who are desirous of participating in the restricted competitive examination but in the said advertisement there is no stipulation to the effect that the constable of Jharkhand Armed Police/IRB/SISF/SIRB will participate since they have been held ineligible to participate by virtue of the notification No.252 dated 28.01.2016 which is impugned in this writ petition. The writ petitioners, therefore, are before this Court seeking quashing of the aforesaid rule as contained under Rule 5 of the notification No.252 dated 28.01.2016 on the ground that they are being victimized due to the arbitrary decision of the State authority by making discrimination between the constable working under the District Police and the Jharkhand Armed Police. According to the writ petitioners, on earlier occasion, i.e., in the year 2016, when the advertisement was issued to fill up the post of Steno Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, there was no restriction upon the constable working under the Jharkhand Armed Police but without appreciating the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the advertisement which has been issued being Advertisement No.09 of 2017 is debarring the writ petitioners from participating in the restricted competitive examination, 2017. Further contention of the writ petitioners is that due representation has been filed in this regard before the competent authority but however to no effect, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners has submitted that the Rule 5 of the notification No.252 dated 28.01.2016 is discriminatory and arbitrary because the unreasonable classification has been made in between the constable working under the District/Unit and the constable working under the Jharkhand Armed Police / IRB / SISF / SIRB. 5. According to the learned counsel since the constable either working under the District Police or working under the Jharkhand Armed Police are under the same cadre, therefore, the discrimination in between the constable working under the District/Unit and the constable working under the Jharkhand Armed Police / IRB / SISF / SIRB is not reasonable one, therefore, the same is fit to be struck down. 6. Per contra, Mr. Ashok Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the respondent-State of Jharkhand has submitted on the strength of the counter affidavit filed on their behalf that there is no unreasonable classification rather the classification is reasonable one. 7. It has been contended by making reference of paragraphs-6 & 7 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.3 dated 25.03.2021 that as per the Police Manual Part-I which provides Rule 653 (b) and Rule 659 (a) as per which, 50 per cent of the post on Sub-Inspector in District/Unit is to be filled up by way of promotion from Assistant Sub-Inspector category. In place of that in 50 per cent of the post, 25 per cent are to be filled by means of limited departmental competitive examination. 8. It has further been stated in the said counter affidavit that employees of JAP/IRB/SISF/SIRB have not been included to participate in the limited competitive examination by making out a rule which is impugned in this writ petition taking into consideration the fact that the employees working under JAP/IRB/SISF/SIRB are not working under the District/Unit level because the constable working under these category belong to battalion level and are having their own promotional hierarchy to be promoted as Head Constable/Assistant Sub-Inspector (Armed)/Sub-Inspector (Armed)/Inspector (Armed). 9. It has further been contended that the constable working under these category, i.e., JAP/IRB/SISF/SIRB, are working in the battalion duty, as such, they do not have knowledge about the investigation whereas at District/Unit level the constable are well acquainted and well versed with investigation and it is due to this reason the constable of District/Unit level are included in the limited departmental competitive examination to the extent of 25 per cent by conducting the limited competitive examination. 10. It has further been contended that District Police and the Special Battalion (JAP/IRB/SISF/SIRB) are separate cadre and there is no provision in the Police Manual read alongwith Police Act, 1861 for crossover of Special Armed Police Personnel into District Police. 11. Mr. Yadav, learned counsel on the basis of the said contention having been raised in the supplementary counter affidavit submits that the contention raised by the writ petitioners about the ground of unreasonable classification is not at all correct in view of the stand agitated in the counter affidavit, therefore, the insertion made under Rule 5 is by way of policy decision by the State Government by taking into consideration the cadre position of both the categories, therefore, it cannot be said that the rule as contained under notification No.252 suffers from unreasonableness and arbitrariness, therefore, the instant petition is fit to be dismissed. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. The admitted fact as per the pleading made on behalf of the parties is that the writ petitioners are claiming to be the member of constable under the Jharkhand Armed Police. 12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. The admitted fact as per the pleading made on behalf of the parties is that the writ petitioners are claiming to be the member of constable under the Jharkhand Armed Police. They are aggrieved with the provision of rule as contained under notification No.252 dated 28.01.2016 by which under the eligibility criteria members working under the JAP/IRB/SISF/SIRB have been debarred from participating in the limited competitive examination making it reserved for constable working at the level of District/Unit. 13. The cause of action of the writ petitioners who are working in Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP) arose after the issuance of the advertisement being Advertisement No.09 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the writ petitioners have been deprived from participating in the process of selection, i.e., on the backdrop of Rule 5 as contained under Notification No.252 dated 28.01.2016, therefore, the instant writ petition has been filed. 14. The plea of the writ petitioners is that the rule as contained under Notification No.252 is based upon the principle of unreasonable classification, therefore, hits Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 15. We have proceeded to examine the contention of the learned counsel for the writ petitioners as above but before that, we deem it fit and proper to discuss about the principle of Article 14 of the Constitution as to under which situation the Article 14 can be said to be violated. 16. This Court, in order to demonstrate the said issue, has considered the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India, 1983 AIR 130, wherein their Lordships have been pleased to hold that Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation but the classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being found on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The thrust of Article is that the citizen is entitled to equality before law and equal protection of the law. The thrust of Article is that the citizen is entitled to equality before law and equal protection of the law. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India & Ors., AIR 1979 SC 1628 , it has been observed that a discriminatory action of the Government is liable to be struck down, unless it can be shown by the Government that the departure was not arbitrary, but was based on some valid principle which in itself was not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. 17. It is evident from the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court that if the decision of the State authority is based upon reasonable classification then certainly there will be no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India but admittedly if the classification is unreasonable then the decision will be said to be in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 18. We have proceeded to examine the fact of the instant case on the basis of the aforesaid decision of law. 19. This Court has considered the reasons assigned by the State authority in the counter affidavit, in particular the paragraphs-6&7 therein stating that the cadre of constable working under the Jharkhand Armed Police/IRB/SISF/SIRB is different to that of the cadre of constable working under the District or at Unit level. It has been stated therein that the constable working under Jharkhand Armed Police/IRB/SISF/SIRB are having separate promotional hierarchy, i.e., they can be promoted as Head Constable / Assistant Sub-Inspector (Armed) / Sub-Inspector (Armed) / Inspector (Armed). It has also been stated at paragraph-6 about the provision of Police Manual as under Rule 653 (b) and 659 (a). The aforesaid provision speaks about filling up of the vacancies to the post of the Assistant Sub-Inspector by way of promotion by which 50 per cent of the vacancies in the rank of Sub-Inspector shall be filled by selection from the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector who have at least done a minimum of five years of service. Only selected officers who have shown exceptional merit while serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector will be promoted. 20. The constable, as per the provision as provided under Rule 661(a), will perform office duties and conduct routine business of the police station in the absence of the Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors. Only selected officers who have shown exceptional merit while serving as Assistant Sub-Inspector will be promoted. 20. The constable, as per the provision as provided under Rule 661(a), will perform office duties and conduct routine business of the police station in the absence of the Sub-Inspectors and Assistant Sub-Inspectors. He shall be appointed by District Superintendent of Police for which a list will be prepared by the selection board duly constituted for the purpose. 21. Organizational structure of the Jharkhand Police suggests that it is divided into Field Posting and Non-Field Postings. The Field Postings are divided into 24 district police units in the State. The Head of the Jharkhand Police is the Director General of Police and under him are the different departments, i.e., (i) Special Branch; (ii) Criminal Investigation Department (CID); (iii) Headquarters; (iv) Modernisation; (v) Jharkhand Armed Police (JAP); (vi) Law and Order These departments are headed by IPS Officers of the Additional Director General of Police rank. They are assisted by officers of the ranks of Inspector Generals of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police, Superintendent of Police and other subordinate ranks. 22. Thus, it is evident from the statement made at paragraph-7 to the counter affidavit dated 25.03.2021 wherein it has been stated that the employees of JAP/IRB/SISF/SIRB are not taken into work at District/Unit level in the rank of Sub-Inspector because they belong to battalion level and are promoted as Head Constable / Assistant Sub-Inspector (Armed) / Sub-Inspector (Armed) / Inspector (Armed). 23. The aforesaid statement suggests that the employees working under the Jharkhand Armed Police is having different cadre structure having its own promotional hierarchy. 24. 23. The aforesaid statement suggests that the employees working under the Jharkhand Armed Police is having different cadre structure having its own promotional hierarchy. 24. It requires to refer herein that no response to the counter affidavit has been filed by the writ petitioners, therefore, this Court after taking into consideration the organizational structure of the Jharkhand Armed Police alongwith the provision of Police Manual 661(a) as also the Jharkhand Armed Police is treated to be a different department and also taking into consideration the statement made at paragraph-7 to the counter affidavit showing therein that the provision of Jharkhand Armed Police are having different promotional hierarchy, therefore, this Court, on the basis of the aforesaid fact, is of the view that if the noting has been given in the impugned Rule restricting the members of the Jharkhand Armed Police to participate in the limited competitive examination for fulfillment of post to the extent of 25 per cent to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, it cannot be said that the said provision is based upon unreasonable classification. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court, is of the view that there is no question of violation of principle of Article 14 of the Constitution of India since we have come to the conclusion that as there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution there is no question of unreasonableness and arbitrariness on the part of the authority and if such condition is not available, this Court refrains itself in interfering with the vires of the aforesaid provision by taking into consideration the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in State of T.N. and Another v. P. Krishnamurthy and Others [ (2006) 4 SCC 517 ] which lays down the proposition to interfere in the matter of constitutionality/validity of the statute. Paragraphs 15 and 16 of the said judgment read as hereunder:- “15. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality or validity of a subordinate legislation and the burden is upon him who attacks it to show that it is invalid. It is also well recognised that a subordinate legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds: (a) Lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate legislation. (b) Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. (c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India. It is also well recognised that a subordinate legislation can be challenged under any of the following grounds: (a) Lack of legislative competence to make the subordinate legislation. (b) Violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of India. (c) Violation of any provision of the Constitution of India. (d) Failure to conform to the statute under which it is made or exceeding the limits of authority conferred by the enabling Act. (e) Repugnancy to the laws of the land, that is, any enactment. (f) Manifest arbitrariness/unreasonableness (to an extent where the court might well say that the legislature never intended to give authority to make such rules). 16. The court considering the validity of a subordinate legislation, will have to consider the nature, object and scheme of the enabling Act, and also the area over which power has been delegated under the Act and then decide whether the subordinate legislation conforms to the parent statute. Where a rule is directly inconsistent with a mandatory provision of the statute, then, of course, the task of the court is simple and easy. But where the contention is that the inconsistency or non-conformity of the rule is not with reference to any specific provision of the enabling Act, but with the object and scheme of the parent Act, the court should proceed with caution before declaring invalidity.” This Court finds that none of the condition is attracted as has been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of T.N. and Another v. P. Krishnamurthy and Others (supra). 25. In the result, we find no merit in this writ petition, accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and stands dismissed. 26. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.