Case: Jit Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others

order to be eligible for promotion, the Inspectors should have got six years "continuous" service, including service in an officiating as well as substantive capacity. We are therefore unable to think that an Inspector who had put in six years officiating service was not eligible for promotion as Deputy Superintendent of Police.7. It has next been argued that the requirement of six years service could not be relaxed by the State Government on August 21, 1963, or thereafter in 1965, because Rule 14 of the Rules as it stood until its substitution on Jan. 28, 1969, read as follows, -"Where the Government is satisfied that the operation of any of the rules causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may by order, dispense with or relax the requirement of that rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner, provided that the case is not dealt with in a manner less favourable to the person concerned than provided by the relevant rule."It has therefore been urged that the relaxation contemplated by that rule was restricted by considerations of "undue hardship", in any "particular case", and that it was not permissible for the State Government to reduce the requirement of continuous service from six years to four years for purposes of eligibility for promotion to the Punjab Police Service. The argument is correct because R. 14 as it stood at the relevant period of time when promotions of respondents (Nos. 4 to 37) were made, did not permit any general relaxation of the nature ordered by the State Government in 1963 or 1965. It is true that Rule 14 was amended and a new rule was inserted on January 28, 1969, to the following effect, -"7. General power to relax rules.- Where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category of persons."That was a rule of general application, and it appears that there is justification for the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that it could authorise the kind of relaxation which was made by the State Government in 1963 and in 1965, but the fact remains that it could not avail the State Government as the new rule came into force much later on January 28, 1969. It would thus follow that the respondents were not eligible for promotion because the relaxation which was ordered in 1963 and 1965 was not warranted by the old R. 14 as it stood at that time. The question however remains whether the appellants could possibly succeed in their appeal before us for that reason.8. While examining this aspect of the matter we shall have regard to the requirement of Rule 6, as it stood before its amendment on Jan. 28, 1969 and disregard the relaxation orders of 1963 and 1965 as they were not warranted by the provisions of that rule. And as that rule made a clear provision that only those Inspectors would be eligible for promotion who had got six years continuous service as Inspectors, it would follow that the appellants were not eligible for promotion until May 21, 1969 as they had been appointed only on May 21, 1963. In other words, they were not eligible for inclusion in list G which was prepared under sub-rule (2) of R. 6, as it was prepared in 1966 on the basis of the State Governments recommendations dated Jan. 7, 1966, and Sept., 29, 1966. It may be recalled that the State Government have categorically stated that they did not send any list thereafter, for the Commissions approval. We have made a reference to the facts and circumstances in which the Commission did not find it possible to finalise list G until 1970, but the fact remains that the list contained names up to the year 1966. In other words, the final list G related only to the year 1966, and as the appellants had not put in even four years of service by then, what to say of six years service in terms of Clause (a) of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of R. 6 of the Rules, their names could not possibly be included in that list. When that was so, they could not have promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police because that was the basic requirement of sub-rule (2) of that rule. We have made a reference to the circumstances in which the State Government was driven to the necessity of making some ad hoc or temporary promotions because of the extra-ordinary situation which had developed on the border of the State, and as it was the Public Service Commission which delayed the finalisation of list G, it cannot be said that the ad hoc appointments of the respondents were wilfully made in derogation of the requirement of the Rules, or were meant to run down the appellants. In fact, as has been explained above, the appellants were in any view of the matter, not eligible for promotion as their names were not included in list G as it emerged from the Public Service Commission in 1970. The High Court therefore cannot be blamed if it took the view that as the appellants had not qualified for promotion when list G was drawn up by the State Government in 1966, they could not succeed in their claim in the writ petition. Their names did not appear in list G which was approved by the Commission in 1970, whereas the names of respondents Nos. 4 to 37 appeared in it and it is not in dispute that they had all completed 6 years continuous service much before the appellants. The appellants have not therefore been able to show that they had any legal right for promotion before the respondents.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]A reading of part (a) of the proviso shows however that it cannot be said to restrict the eligibility for promotion only to the substantive holders of the post of Inspector. All that it permits is that, in order to be eligible for promotion, the Inspectors should have got six years "continuous" service, including service in an officiating as well as substantive capacity. We are therefore unable to think that an Inspector who had put in six years officiating service was not eligible for promotion as Deputy Superintendent ofargument is correct because R. 14 as it stood at the relevant period of time when promotions of respondents (Nos. 4 to 37) were made, did not permit any general relaxation of the nature ordered by the State Government in 1963 or 1965. It is true that Rule 14 was amended and a new rule was inserted on January 28, 1969, to the following effect,General power to relax rules.- Where the Government is of the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, it may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax any of the provisions of these rules with respect to any class or category ofwas a rule of general application, and it appears that there is justification for the argument of the learned counsel for the respondents that it could authorise the kind of relaxation which was made by the State Government in 1963 and in 1965, but the fact remains that it could not avail the State Government as the new rule came into force much later on January 28, 1969. It would thus follow that the respondents were not eligible for promotion because the relaxation which was ordered in 1963 and 1965 was not warranted by the old R. 14 as it stood at thathave made a reference to the facts and circumstances in which the Commission did not find it possible to finalise list G until 1970, but the fact remains that the list contained names up to the year 1966. In other words, the final list G related only to the year 1966, and as the appellants had not put in even four years of service by then, what to say of six years service in terms of Clause (a) of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of R. 6 of the Rules, their names could not possibly be included in that list. When that was so, they could not have promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police because that was the basic requirement of sub-rule (2) of that rule. We have made a reference to the circumstances in which the State Government was driven to the necessity of making some ad hoc or temporary promotions because of the extra-ordinary situation which had developed on the border of the State, and as it was the Public Service Commission which delayed the finalisation of list G, it cannot be said that the ad hoc appointments of the respondents were wilfully made in derogation of the requirement of the Rules, or were meant to run down the appellants. In fact, as has been explained above, the appellants were in any view of the matter, not eligible for promotion as their names were not included in list G as it emerged from the Public Service Commission in 1970. The High Court therefore cannot be blamed if it took the view that as the appellants had not qualified for promotion when list G was drawn up by the State Government in 1966, they could not succeed in their claim in the writ petition. Their names did not appear in list G which was approved by the Commission in 1970, whereas the names of respondents Nos. 4 to 37 appeared in it and it is not in dispute that they had all completed 6 years continuous service much before the appellants. The appellants have not therefore been able to show that they had any legal right for promotion before the respondents.