- (1.) Petitioner, a constable presently posted at Police Station, Panchkula through present petition filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks a writ in the nature of certiorari so as to quash the notification dated September 8,1992 (Annexure P-1) vide which Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 was amended.
(2.) The two points that have been raised endeavouring to show that the rule is invalid or unconstitutional are that (i) the amended rule runs contrary to the dictum laid down by this Court in Sardul Singh Head Constable vs. Inspector General of Police, Punjab and others, 1970 SLR 505 and (ii) in absence of criteria or guidelines for issuance of commendation certificate and sending constables to various courses and yet to include marks for these two matters which have been provided in the amended Rule 13.7 is arbitrary. Before the points as pleaded and so canvassed by learned counsel appearing for petitioner are discussed any further, it shall be useful to see unamended as also amended Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Rules: "Unamended Rule 13.7:- List of selection for admission to promotion course B for constables at the Police Training College (i) List B Form 13.7 shall be maintained by each Superintendent of Police. It will include the names of all Constables selected for admission to the promotion course for Constable at the Police Training College. Selection will be made in the month of January each year and will be limited to the number of seats allotted to the districts for the year with a twenty per cent reserve. Names will be entered in the list in order of merit determined by the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted by the Inspector General of Police on the basis of tests in parade, general law (Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Evidence Act and Local and Special Laws), interview and examination of records." xx xx xx xx "Amended Rule 13.7:- Selection of candidates for admission to courses at the Police Training College:- List B (In Form 13.7) shall be maintained by each Superintendent of Police. It shall include the names of all Constables selected for admission to the Lower School Course to be held at the Police Training College. Selection to the list shall be made in the month of January each year and shall be limited to the number of seats allotted to the district for the year. For reasons to be recorded, the number of seats can be increased by 20 per cent. Allotment of seats to each district shall be done on the basis of existing vacancies and the number of vacancies which are likely to occur during the next one year. Names shall be entered in the list in the order of merit, determined by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of tests in (i) Parade (ii) written test in general law (Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Evidence Act and such other local and Special Laws as may be specified) and (ii) examination of service records." xxxxxxxx
(3.) This Court in Sardul Singh's case was mainly concerned in dealing with Rules 13.7 and 13.9 Rule 13.9 deals with the cases of Head Constables who have been sent to Lower School Course and Intermediate School Course at Police Training Centres whereas Rule 13.7 deals with the cases of constables for bringing them on list B. It is admitted position that a constable is first to be brought on list-B so as to send him to Lower School Course. Once a constable has done the Lower School Course, he is brought on list-C in accordance with rule 13.8 he is considered for promotion to the post of Head constable. While dealing with rule 13.7, the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case held,"Out of the constables whose names are brought on list 'A' selection has to be made of those Constables who are considered suitable as candidates for the Lower School Course are entered in list 'B' with the approval of the Deputy Inspector General of the Range. It is thus clear from this provision that every constable brought on list A' has no right to go for the Lower School Course. A method of selection has been provided for sending the Constables on list A' for that Course, that is the suitability of each Constable on list 'A has to be seen by the Superintendent of Police of the district under whom he is working and has to be approved by the Deputy Inspector General of the Range. In that case the provision for selection has been made in the rule at stage of sending for Lower School Course. Those constables who successfully pass the Lower School course and are considered eligible for promotion as Head Constables will be admitted to list 'C under rule 13.8. It is thus evidence that the second selection for being admitted to list 'C starts after a constable on list 'B' passes the Lower School Course." The portion of the judgment quoted above would clearly suggest that even in the unamended rule 13.7, there was a method of selection for constables to be brought on list 'B\ By virtue of amendment only an elaborate method has been provided by which selection of the Constables has to be made so as to bring them on list 'B'. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, relies upon the interpretation of rule 13.9 done by the Full Bench but in my considered view that is not relevant for determining the validity of rule 13.7. It shall further be seen that whereas method of selection to be brought on list 'B' of a constable is provided in the rules itself, no such method of selection to be brought on list 'D' has been provided in the rules. It is for this precise reason that the instructions issued on that behalf were struck down by the Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab vs. Kirpal Singh, 1970 SLR 239.;