Wanchoo, J. - (1.) This petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution challenges the system prevailing in the State of Rajasthan for the purpose of promotion of head-constables to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police as violative of Arts. 134 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner was a head constable in the former State of Ajmer and was duly included in the approved list of head constables to be promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspectors of Police in 1955 and was appointed on July 14, 1956 as officiating Sub Inspector of Police. On November 1, 1956, the former State of Ajmer merged in the State of Rajasthan under the States Reorganisation Act. The petitioner was absorbed in the police service of the State of Rajasthan and a fresh order posting him as officiating Sub-Inspector in Rajasthan was passed on November 1, 1956. According to the petitioner, the practice of Police administration in Rajasthan is that the whole police force of the State is generally under the administrative control of the Inspector General of Police, who is assisted by six Deputy Inspector General of Police, each Deputy Inspector General of Police being in charge of administration in one of the six ranges in which the whole State has been divided for administrative convenience. The petitioner however contends that though the State of Rajasthan is divided into six ranges, the Sub Inspectors in different ranges belong to one cadre and one service and are governed by the same rules and regulations and the same conditions of service as regards pay, leave pension, promotion, disciplinary action etc. The Sub Inspectors of Police are also transferable from one range to another. It is usual for the Inspector General of Police to pass orders of transfer from one range to another of three or four Sub-Inspectors everyday on an average and thus the Sub-Inspectors in the different ranges are similarly situate and similarly circumstanced in all respects. The same is the case with head-constables serving in different ranges of the State. The petitioner further contends that even though the police force is one for the entire State in view of S. 2 of the Police Act, No. 5 of 1861, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a practice grew up in the State of Rajasthan of treating the members of police force serving at a particular point of time in each range as a separate and distinct unit for purposes of making promotions and reversions. In consequence of this practice, if a vacancy in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors of Police arose in one range, only the seniormost head-constables in that range were considered for promotion to that vacancy, even though there might be more senior head-constables in other ranges who had also been approved for promotion. These head-constables of other ranges, were not considered and promotion was made on the basis of the head-constables in the particular range where the vacancy occurred. Similar was the case where reversion had to be made on account of exigency of public service. In view of this practice, the petitioner was reverted in April 1957 when a permanent Sub-Inspector returned to the range as he was the juniormost approved head-constable in the Ajmer range, though in other ranges there were many approved head-constables who were junior to him but they continued to officiate as Sub-Inspectors. The petitioner's grievance is that if the whole State had been treated as one unit for purpose of promotion to and reversion from the rank of Sub-Inspectors, the petitioner would not have been reverted. He contends that the whole police force being one, the practice of promotion of head-constables to officiate as Sub-Inspectors rangewise amounts to denial of equal opportunity before the law and is hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. It is contended that the practice of confining promotions and reversions to officers serving at a particular point of time in one particular range (i.e. where the vacancy or the surplusage of posts actually occurred) and at the same time making inter-range transfers freely and frequently and as a matter of official routine is bound to produce serious inequalities in promotions and reversions and also very haphazard changes in seniority amongst the officers inter se. The practice according to the petitioner allowing free transfers produces results which are violative of the equal protection of law and of equal opportunity to public servants in the matter of employment and thus violates Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
(2.) The Petition has been opposed on behalf of the State and the system of promotion within the range is justified on the basis of the administrative organisation of the police force in the State and efficiency of administration for police purposes. The organisation of the police force in the State is that the whole force is under an Inspector General of Police; but for administrative efficiency the entire area of the State is divided into four ranges each under one Deputy Inspector General of Police. Besides these four ranges there are two other units of the force which are separate administrative units, each under the charge of a Deputy Inspector General of Police, though they are not ranges. These two units are (1) Criminal Intelligence Department and Intelligence Branch, and (2) Railways and Crime Branch. Under the four ranges are the various district organisations of Police under Superintendents of Police. The initial recruitment to the Police force is made within a district in the rank of constable. These constables are posted in their respective districts after training. This is done with a view to administrative efficiency, as such constables are well acquainted with the conditions, topography, fairs, festivals and customs of their districts. From these constables approved lists are prepared for promotion to head-constable and these lists are prepared districtwise by the Superintendent of Police, who has the power to promote a constable to a head-constable within his district. Once a constable has been confirmed as a head-constable, his further promotion as a Sub-Inspector is by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. For this purpose, all the head-constables in the range consisting of a number of districts of which the Deputy Inspector General of Police is the administrative head are considered as one group for promotion to the rank of Sub Inspectors. Consequently the Deputy Inspector General of Police prepares an approved list of head-constables on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Whenever a vacancy occurs in the range, the Deputy Inspector General of Police concerned makes promotion from this approved list according to seniority and if reversion is to take place it is the junior-most head-constable officiating as a Sub Inspector who reverts. The Inspector General of Police only keeps a list of confirmed Sub Inspectors as he is the officer who has the power to promote Sub Inspectors to the rank of Inspectors. Thus, according to the State, this three tier system has always been prevalent in the State; promotion from constable to head-constable is made by the Superintendent of Police and is confined to the district, promotion from head-constable to Sub Inspector is made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police and is confined to the range, or, as the case may be, within the two units already referred to, and finally promotion from the rank of Sub Inspector to the rank of Inspector is on a State-wise basis made by the Inspector General of Police. The case of the State is that this system has been evolved for administrative efficiency and there is in the circumstances no inequality before the law and no denial of equality in the matter of employment of members of the Police force of this description. It is also contended on behalf of the State that this system is necessary not only in the interest of good administration but also in the interest of efficiency as there are about 20,000 constables, 3,000 head-constables and 1000 Sub Inspectors of Police in the whole of the State. It is therefore an extremely difficult job for the Inspector General of Police to order promotion of a constable to the rank of head-constable, and thereafter promote a head-constable to the rank of Sub-Inspector. Apart from that, it is averred that officers on the spot, like the Superintendent of Police who promotes a constable to the rank of head-constable within his district, and the Deputy Inspector General of Police who promotes a head-constable to the rank of a Sub Inspector within his range, or within the two units, know the staff and that is why the rules have provided that promotions would be made either by the Superintendent of Police or the Deputy Inspector General of Police as the case may be.
(3.) It is not denied that sometimes on account of administrative reasons or exigencies of service, transfers are made from one district to another or from one range to another, but it is urged that these are rare. The State has emphatically denied the statement of the petitioner that three or four Sub Inspectors on an average are transferred everyday from one range to another. It is said that the policy of the Government is that transfers of subordinate staff even from one district to another should be rare. In that connection, the State has referred to the Government order issued to all Heads of Departments in March 1955 in which it was said that it had come to the notice of the Government that officers were generally transferred outside their home districts, and sometimes even outside their divisions, thereby causing great hardship to the low paid employees. The Government had therefore decided to order that all officers drawing less than Rs. 250/- p.m. may not ordinarily be transferred outside their home districts, and if the transfer is unavoidable it should, as far as possible, be confined to the division. It may be mentioned that the revenue division would ordinarily be of the same extent as a police range, though not necessarily so. The State therefore contends that transfers of subordinate staff are not freely made as alleged by the petitioner from one district to another or from one range to another, and therefore the system of promotion of head constables rangewise does not ordinarily result in any hardship due to promotion being confined from head-constables to Sub-Inspectors within the range and does not result in any inequality before the law or the denial of equal opportunity in the matter of employment in the service of the State.;