THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No.9185 OF 2011 O R D E R: This writ petition has been instituted by a Head Constable (Ministerial) serving the Central Reserve Police Force of the Union. He challenges the proceeding dated 10th March 2011 issued by the Director General of the Force, Central Government Offices Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, requiring the cases of qualified departmental examination candidates to be considered for promotion to the post of the Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial), irrespective of the length of service which they have put in in the feeder post. For the purpose of deciding this lis, it is not necessary to advert to in great detail the fact situation. Suffice it to notice that the writ petitioner appears to be a Graduate and he has been promoted as a Head Constable (Ministerial) on 11th March 2006. The Government of India has framed Central Reserve Police Force (Combatised Group ‘C” Ministerial posts) Recruitment Rules, 2010, henceforth referred to as Rules. These Rules have been framed in exercise of the power conferred under Section 18 of Central Reserve Police Force Act, 1949 and consequently, they have statutory force. These rules have been brought into force from the date they were gazetted namely 31st January 2011. Rule 3 dealt with the number of posts, classification, pay band and grade pay or pay scale etc., Rule 4 dealt with method of recruitment, age-limit, qualification, etc., Rule 5 dealt with disqualifications. For convenience, all these details have been incorporated in the schedule appended to these rules. There are 2010 posts of Assistant Sub-Inspectors (Ministerial) and this number was subject to variation depending upon workload up to 2338. These posts are classified as selection posts. Column 11 of the schedule specified that 75% of the posts are required to be filled in by way of promotion while the balance 25% by departmental examination failing which by promotion. Column 12 specified the feeder category as Head Constables (Ministerial) who have rendered not less than 5 years regular service in the grade in the Central Reserve Police Force subject to medical category SHAPE-I. There are two notes appended in column 12 of the schedule and since they will have a bearing upon the controversy, I therefore, consider it appropriate to extract the same. “Note I: For the purpose of computing the minimum qualifying service for promotion, the service rendered on a regular basis by an officer prior to the 1st January, 2006 or the date from which the revised pay structure based on the six Central Pay Commission recommendations has been extended, shall be deemed to be service rendered in the corresponding grade pay or pay scale extended based on the recommendations of the Commission. Note 2: Where juniors who have completed their qualifying or eligibility service are being considered for promotion, their seniors should also be considered provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying or eligibility service by more than half of such qualifying or eligibility service or two years whichever is less, and have successfully completed their probation period for promotion to the next higher grade along with their juniors who have already completed such qualifying or eligibility service. Departmental Examination:- officers of the Central Reserve Police Force having three years of regular service in the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) in the Pay Band-I Rs.5200-20200 with Grade Pay of Rs.2400.” Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner would submit that even for promotion against the 25% Departmental examination quota all those candidates who seek promotion should have rendered minimum of 5 years service. Through the impugned order, the Director General of the Force has clearly erred in asking for the candidature of such Head Constables (Ministerial), who have not completed that five years service also to be taken up. According to the learned counsel for the writ petitioner whether a candidate, who competes for the 75% quota or for the 25% departmental quota, for both the streams the minimum length of service required is five years. I am afraid this construction placed on the rule by the learned counsel is not correct. Column 12 has indicated that for promotion from amongst Head Constables (Ministerial), one should have rendered not less than five years regular service in the grade. What the rule making authority has conveyed was that a candidate must put in five years of service as Head Constable (Ministerial) i.e., the feeder cadre before his case can be considered or taken up for promotion. However, for appearing at the departmental examination, the rule making authority has specifically set out that a minimum of three years regular service in the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) is sufficient and adequate. Therefore, there is a clear distinction drawn between these two sources. Obviously, 25% of the vacancies have been set apart by the rule making authority for encouraging the efficient in service employees to be promoted to the rank of Assistant Sub- Inspector on a fast track basis. Therefore, 25% of vacancies are thrown open for all such in-service employees who prove their general merit by satisfactorily passing the departmental examination. Obviously, the departmental examination is of such a standard as that is expected of an Assistant Sub-Inspector. Therefore, a minimum three years of service alone in the feeder category is prescribed to make one eligible to appear at this departmental examination. If one proves his merit by appearing for this departmental examination and clearing the same, he stands a chance for being considered for promotion against the 25% of the quota set apart for that source. Even for this 25% quota, the same criteria of selection have to be followed. When once the rule making authority has classified the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) as a selection post, it is obvious that the inter se merit of the candidates will have predominance in the matter of selection than the inter se seniority alone. Where perhaps the inter se merit ranking of two competing candidates is considered to be approximately equal then their inter se seniority will play a role for ultimately tilting the balance in favour of the senior candidate. In other words, if a junior candidate is considered to be exceptionally good or even very good while the senior candidate is only treated as good, in such circumstances, a junior candidate is entitled to be selected by frog leapings his seniors. Further, where two candidates are treated as very good and only one of them is required to be selected, between the two, the senior very good officer will be picked up in preference to the junior who is also a very good officer. These are the criteria for selection. The same criteria will be adopted even while filling up the 25% fast track quota for departmental examinees. However, note 2, extracted supra, clearly makes out that if the candidature of any person is taken up for consideration for promotion, all his seniors’ cases are also required to be considered. Provided they are not short of the requisite qualifying or eligible service by more than half of such qualifying or eligibility service or two years whichever is less. To my mind, note 2 appended in column 12 of the recruitment rules knocks the bottom out of the theory propounded by Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar. Logically extending the contention of Sri P.S.P.Suresh Kumar, if the candidates who compete against 75% as well as those, who compete against 25% are required to put in minimum of five years uniformly, then in such cases the question of invoking note 2 would never arise. Obviously, no part of a rule should be read as without any meaning or without any purpose. If the candidates appearing under both the streams were to put in minimum of five years service compulsorily, then the question of shortage of length of qualifying service would never arise. Hence, note 2 will never spring into operation. Since it is a fundamental principle not to treat any part of a rule as useless, I reject the contention canvassed by Sri P.S.P. Suresh Kumar, that candidates who compete under the departmental examination 25% quota are also required to put in a minimum of five years of service. Incidentally they may even put even five or even more number of years of service, but, it is enough if they put in three years of service by the qualifying date, to render them eligible for appearing at the departmental examination. Looked at from that perspective, the impugned order passed by the Director General of the Force requiring the candidates without five years length of service also to be considered cannot be faulted. I, therefore, do not see any merit in this writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed at the admission stage. No costs. Sri A. Radha Krishna, learned Standing Counsel for Central Government takes notice on behalf of the respondents. --------------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 7th April 2011 bud