V.M.Sahai, J. - (1.) The petitioners were initially appointed as constables under the U. P. Police Regulation read with Police Act, 1861. The petitioners have been promoted as Head Constables. The next promotion post of Head Constables is Sub-Inspector. The petitioners claim that a Government Order was issued on 6.8.1995 which provided that 50 per cent vacancies be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining 50 per cent were to be filled by promotion. Out of this 50 per cent which was reserved for rankers 25 per cent vacancies were to be filled in accordance with seniority subject to rejection of unfit and the remaining 25 per cent vacancies were to be filled by departmental examination. The respondents Issued an office memorandum dated 19.5.1998 which provided that 50 per cent vacancies will be filled from the constables and head constables through departmental examination. It is the validity of this order which is under challenge in this petition.
(2.) I have heard Sri C. B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Sabha Jeet Yadav, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that in view of Rule 4 of U. P. Government Servants (Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules. 1994 (in brief Rules 1994), the post of sub-inspector which is a promotional post of constables and head constables could only be filled in accordance with seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Learned counsel further urged that after these rules came into force in 1994, the respondents could not Issue any Government Order or office memorandum providing for making promotion or selection to the post of sub-inspectors by any method other than provided by the aforesaid rule. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in State of U. P. and others v. Shakuntala Shukla, 1999 (3) UPLBEC 1702.;