CWP No. 12228 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12228 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 05, 2011 Niranjan Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Dr. S.K. Redhu, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. A.G., Haryana. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This order shall dispose of three set of petitions*, namely, CWP Nos. 12228, 18605 and 18661 of 2010 because the common question of law and facts have been raised. The basic issue raised by the petitioner is that the notification dated 08.09.1992 (P-2) issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 2 and 7 of the Police Act, 1861 (for brevity 'the Act') amending Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for brevity 'the 1934 Rules'), is unconstitutional and is liable to be set aside. Likewise, the other notification dated 28.06.2001 (P-4) once again amending Rule 13.7 of 1934 Rules has been challenged and it is prayed that the aforesaid notification be also set aside. 2. In order to put the controversy in its proper perspective, CWP No. 12228 of 2010 -2- few facts are necessary to be noticed. The petitioner was enrolled as Constable in the respondent-State of Haryana on 10.08.1992, when he was more than 25 years old. The date of birth of the petitioner is 25.06.1967. For promotion to the post of Head Constable, a Constable has to app ear in B-1 test as is envisaged by Rule 13.7 of the 1934 Rules. As per notification dated 08.09.1992 (P-2), the Rule 13.7 of the 1934 Rules required that a constable must have minimum service of 5 years and he must be less than 40 years of age in order to be eligible to appear for B-1 list test. Vide notification dated 29.09.2005 (P-3), the five years period stipulated for eligibility to sit in B-1 list test was increased from 5 to 10 years and the minimum age were also increased from 40 to 50 years by amending Rule 13.7 of the 1934 Rules once again. As the petitioner (s) did not have 10 years of service to his credit, he could not avail the chance of taking B-1 test. Again on 28.06.2001 (P-4), the Rule 13.7 has been amended and eligibility condition of maximum 40 years of age with 5 years of service as Constable was prescribed. It has further been provided that 55% of the seats allotted to a unit in the lower school course were to be filled on the basis of competitive examination, 35% of them on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and 10% on the basis of consistent outstanding performance. Sub-Rule (2) was substituted as under: “(2) (i) All constables irrespective of their educational qualifications shall be eligible to appear for B-1 Test, if they are under the age of 35 years CWP No. 12228 of 2010 -3- and have completed five years of service on the 1st day of January of the year in which selection is made. However, if a constable belonging to reserved category who is recruited after attaining the age of 27 years as per Government instructions/orders then he shall be allowed to appear for minimum three consecutive chances after completion of five years of service even if he has crossed the age of 35 years upto a maximum of 40 years of age. (ii) All constables irrespective of their educational qualifications shall be eligible to be brought on list B-1, seniority-cum-merit basis if they are under the age of 40 years and have completed five years of service on the first day of January of the year in which selection is made. (iii) All constables irrespective of their educational qualification shall be eligible to be brought on list B-1, on the basis of consistent outstanding performance in job/obtaining gold or silver medal in All India Police Games or exceptional display of bravery during the course of performance of official duty if they are under the age of 40 years and have completed 2 years of service on the 1st day of January of the year in which selection is made. Only these constables shall be brought on list B-1 after 2 years of service, but before 5 years of service like Olympics, Asian Games, Commonwealth Games or similar International event. Constables who have won medals in National Games/All India Police Games/Duty Meet and who are being considered for exceptional bravery or consistent outstanding performance shall be considered only CWP No. 12228 of 2010 -4- if, they have put in a minimum 5 years of service.” 3. According to the averments made in para 14 of the writ petition, it is alleged that the amendment in the Rules made in the year 1992, 1995 and 2001, suffers from arbitrariness and would result in favouritism, which is clear from the criteria laid down therein (P-1, 2 and 3). As per the criteria contemplated by 1992 amendment (P-2), all Constables were made eligible to appear for B- 1 test provided they were less than 40 years of age and had completed 5 years of service on the 1st day of July for the year in which selection is made. However, in 1995 amendment (P-3), all constables who were less than 50 years of age and who have completed 10 years of service as on the 1st day of July of the year which immediately precedes the year in which selection is made. However, in 2001 amendment (P-4), all Constables were held eligible to appear for B-1 test, if they were under the age of 35 years and had completed 5 years of service as on 1st day of January of the year in which selection is made. In case of a Constable belonging to reserved category and who is recruited after attaining the age of 27 years as per Government instructions then he was to be allowed to appear for minimum three consecutive chances after completion of five years service even if he has crossed the age of 35 years but maximum age has been prescribed to be 40 years. 4. The claim of the petitioner(s) is that on account of repeated amendment made in the Rules, he has become overage and is no longer eligible to sit in B-1 test because he has completed CWP No. 12228 of 2010 -5- 40 years of age although he has 17 years of service to his credit. The petitioner has further alleged that the vacancies for promotion have been reduced because 55% of the seats have been allotted to be filled on the basis of competitive examination; 35% on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and 10% of the seats have been left to be filled on the basis of consistent outstanding performance in the job. It has been asserted that the notification dated 29.09.1995 (P-3) is against spirit of law as also the notification dated 28.06.2001 (P-4) suffers from voice of arbitrariness. Both the notifications are contrary to Rule 13.1 of the 1934 Rules which provide for promotion from one rank to another and from one grade to another in the same rank, which is to be made by selection tempered with seniority, efficiency and honesty. Before a Constable becomes eligible to the post of Head Constable he has to pass lower school course, which is conducted at Police Training College, Madhuban. Under Rule 13.7 of the 1934 Rules, list known as list List B is required to be maintained by the Superintendent of Police, which includes the names of Constables selected for admission to the promotion course (Lower School Course), it is after a Constable is brought on List-B only then he becomes eligible to be sent to the lower school course. In accordance with Rule 13.8, all Constables who have successfully passed the lower school course and who are to be considered eligible for consideration for promotion as Head Constable are admitted to list-C and it is from that list alone further promotions are made to the post of Head Constable. CWP No. 12228 of 2010 -6- 5. In nutshell, the grievance of the petitioner(s) is that he has completed more than 17 years of continuous regular service in the Haryana Police and despite that he has not been allowed to sit in B-1 test for the reasons that he has crossed the age of 40 years and therefore, the notifications dated 29.09.1995 (P-3) and 28.06.2001 (P-4) are violative of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution and are, thus, liable to the set aside. 6. The stand of the respondents in the written statement filed by them is that the petitioner(s) has availed the benefit of promotion. As per standing order No. 76/2000 (P-5), a Constable who has completed 16 years of service with clean reputation but has not been able to earn promotion for whatever reason, has been held eligible for promotion on the basis of seniority. Such Constables who are given promotions under the standing order are known as Exemptee Head Constables who fulfill the various conditions given in para 2 (a) and (b) and other conditions given in paras 3 to 11. The respondents further clarified that there is no rule or notification which may warrant relaxation of age in favour of the petitioner for deputing him to the lower school course. The petitioner is found to be 43 years of age and as per amended Punjab Police Rules, the maximum age prescribed for deputing to B-1 test is 40 years. The petitioner has been granted rank of Exemptee Head Constable on 01.09.2008 and ORP/ EASI vide order dated 26.06.2009. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and are of the view that on 28.06.2001 (P-4), when the amendment was made CWP No. 12228 of 2010 -7- the petitioner(s) was less than 40 years of age and had completed 5 years of service on 1st day of January. However, on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, he was not considered for B-1 test. Dr. S.K. Redhu, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has preferred to argue that the amendment made on 28.06.2001 (P-4) is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution because the petitioner(s) has lost every chance of promotion on the post of Head Constable. The aforesaid argument is without any substance because firstly on the date of amendment, the petitioner(s) was eligible to be considered and secondly mere reduction in the quota for promotion cannot be regarded as arbitrary since it reduces the chances of promotion. It does not deny the promotion to already eligible candidate from the post of Constable to that of Head Constable. It is well settled that the Rules can be amended any time and the quota of various categories for promotion can be regulated in accordance with the requirement of the cadre. It can thus be reduced also. The amendment has merely affected the chances of promotion which would not amount to denial of equal opportunity or denying the employees equality before the law. Moreover, the petitioner(s) has been given promotion as Exemptee Head Constable in pursuance to standing order No. 76/2000 (P-5) w.e.f. 01.09.2008 and ORP/ EASI vide order dated 26.06.2009. There are hardly any argument raised to seriously dispute the constitutional validity of amendment made in Rule 13.7 of the 1934 Rules on 28.06.2001 (P-4). Accordingly, we are of the view that the petition CWP No. 12228 of 2010 -8- does not merit admission and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. 8. For the reasons aforementioned, these set of petitions fail and the same are dismissed. 9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE July 05, 2011 Atul * 1 CWP No. 12228 of 2010 Niranjan Singh v. State of Haryana and others 2 CWP No. 18605 of 2010 Paras Singh v. State of Haryana and others 3 CWP No. 18661 of 2010 Prem Babu and another v. State of Haryana and others (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE July 05, 2011 Atul