K. Kannan, J. - (1.) ALL the petitioners are Constables who have a grievance that for the only reason that they had not passed the Lower School Course, they were not promoted to Head Constable's post. The petitioners would rely on Rule 13.8 (2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, setting out for a consideration. Rule 13.8 reads as under: - Rule 13.8. List C. Promotion to Head Constables. xxxx (2) Promotions to Head Constable shall be made in accordance with the principle described in sub -rules 13.1 (1) and 2). The date of admission to List C shall not be material, but the order of merit in which examinations have been passed shall be taken into consideration in comparing qualifications. In cases where other qualifications are equal, seniority in the police force shall be the deciding factor. Selection grade constables who have not passed the Lower School Course at the Police Training School but are otherwise considered suitable may, with the approval of the Deputy Inspector General, be promoted to Head Constable upto a maximum of ten percent of vacancies. The petitioners would point out that even the persons who have not passed Lower School Course but who are otherwise considered suitable could be promoted to Head Constable post upto the maximum 10% of vacancies. The petitioners would refer to the fact that they were fully eligible, having been matriculates and as per the Rule 13.7 (2), the petitioners fulfilled the necessary qualifications for being considered for promotion. The petitioners would also contend that no specific criteria had been laid down for bringing Constables on list II and the justification now made that the Deputy Inspector General could exempt persons who are otherwise considered suitable, could not be upheld, so long as no guidelines as to how Deputy Inspector General could assess the persons who were 'otherwise found suitable'. The petitioners would refer to 16 cases who were brought on service subsequently and junior to the petitioners, who had been brought to List CII and promoted further. Reference is also made particularly to two persons, namely, Iqbal Singh and Bhupinder Singh, who were appointed on the same day, they were exempted from pass in Lower School Course, entered in list CII on 1.2.1989, promoted as Head Constable on the same day and also given further promotion as ASI, to one of them on 1.2.1989 and to another on 19.5.1992. The petitioners complain arbitrary manner of selection and inclusion in List CII for consideration and promotion as Head Constables.
(2.) THE State in reply would contend, while adverting to the relevant rules, that the several persons cited by the petitioners who had been brought in List CII and for further promotion were brought on the assumption by the Deputy Inspector General that they were eminent in sports or had done some work in anti -terrorism front. If this was a basis for assessing the Constable in the manner contemplated in 13.8 (2) of the Rules, there ought to be a basis so stipulated somewhere. It cannot be merely a decision by the Deputy Inspector General that a person who had some eminence in sport or who were involved in anti -terrorist front could be taken as suitable with no parameters or bench mark set for such assessment. Then the issue would be whether the petitioners own standing in either of these two activities were ever considered and they were found not so suitable. If there is a policy providing sports as a basis then it should be a policy spelt out clearly and cannot be a matter of assumption by an officer while giving expression to statutory rule like 13.8(2). No such policy is brought before me to test the lawful basis for such contention. It is also contended by the State that the 3rd petitioner was actually in Executive Clerical Cadre and therefore an exemption from the pass in Lower School Course was not permissible. To a specific query as to whether there existed any specific clause that disallowed an exemption to be applied to a person in Executive Clerical Cadre, State counsel is unable to show to me any such specific clause withdrawing exemption in the manner contemplated under Rule 13.8. On the other hand, it has been stated that the 3rd petitioner had been given promotion in 2003. That at least would show that 3rd petitioner was not ineligible for consideration for promotion. The counsel for the State would also contend that the other petitioners themselves were promoted in the year 2001 when some relaxation of conditions was given. The petitioners' grievance cannot be fully redressed by the only fact that they were promoted later when they claimed that they were entitled to consideration under Rule 13.8 (2) the way their juniors were considered. Unless their candidature was rejected because they did not fall within the quota, they could not have been denied the benefit. If there was quota of 10% in the manner the rule provided, that quota ought to have been exhausted in the order of seniority. Any other method of reckoning would lead to arbitrariness that would be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. I find that the petitioners have made out a case of discrimination practiced against them and non -consideration of their case to List CII and for promotion to Head Constable was not justified. The petitioners are entitled to be considered as promoted to the Head Constable post on the date when any one of the twelve persons mentioned in Annexure P/2 who were junior to them were promoted to the Head Constable post and all the consequential monetary benefits shall be computed and given to them within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is allowed with costs, counsel's fee is assessed at Rs. 10,000/ -.;