Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Sri Shailendra.
  • Sri I.S Singh and S.C
Judges
  • Sri A.K Yog, J.
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • Sri Shailendra.
  • Sri I.S Singh and S.C
Judges
  • Sri A.K Yog, J.
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

This writ petition was filed by twenty persons who claim to be working as head constables in various police stations in different districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The petitioners assert they were employed on the pay-scale of Rs. 1,640–2,900 with the designation "head constable" and that this promotional pay-scale is the minimum pay-scale provided for the cadre of Sub-Inspector under the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations.

The petitioners contend that promotions to Sub-Inspector are governed by the Police Regulations which require filling 50% of vacancies by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% by departmental promotion (25% by departmental examination and 25% by seniority subject to unfitness in the next below cadre). They allege irregularities in promotion practice: promotions were made on July 3, 1996 from Batch No. 56 but candidates in Batch Nos. 55 and 56 were not promoted as contemplated, whereas other incumbents (Batch Nos. 57 to 61) were given promotional pay-scales allegedly arbitrarily and illegally.

The petition challenges a Government notification dated 15 September 1997 (Annexure 4) and a consequential departmental order dated 18 September 1997 (Annexure 5). According to the petitioners, these instruments assigned specified investigative duties (normally vested in Sub-Inspectors) to head constables of a particular pay-scale, while denying them the designation or cadre of Sub-Inspector. Annexure 10 is cited as evidence that at least one petitioner was treated as an Assistant Sub-Inspector in practice.

The petitioners also filed a supplementary affidavit and additional correspondence (including a departmental letter dated 30 September 1997) and alleged that more than 8,000 vacancies of Sub-Inspectors existed which were not being filled by promotion as required by the Regulations. The respondents filed a counter-affidavit; in particular para 30 of the counter-affidavit contains a bald remark stating "the contents of Para. 30 of the writ petition need no comments".

The matter was heard by the Court after arguments from counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. The Court reserved analysis and issued directions in its judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Government notification dated 15 September 1997 and the departmental order dated 18 September 1997 effectively create a distinct class or cadre of head constables by vesting them with investigative powers that are ordinarily the duties of Sub-Inspectors.
  2. Whether a head constable may, by general order, be required to perform the duties of investigation that are assigned to Sub-Inspectors under the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations, or whether such duties can be assigned only in limited contingencies as an ad hoc arrangement.
  3. Whether the respondents have failed to give effect to the promotion scheme in the Police Regulations (filling 50% of Sub-Inspector posts by promotion — 25% by departmental examination and 25% by seniority) and thereby denied petitioners their promotion rights.
  4. What remedial direction is appropriate to ensure vacancies for Sub-Inspector are filled in accordance with the Police Regulations and to prevent creation of an impermissible parallel designation or class.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioners' Arguments

  • They are entitled to be considered for promotion to Sub-Inspector according to the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations and have matured their right to promotion through their respective batches.
  • The impugned Government notification (15 September 1997) and the departmental order (18 September 1997) assign investigative duties to head constables in a particular pay-scale without granting them the designation of Sub-Inspector, effectively making them perform the duties of Sub-Inspectors without promotion.
  • The notification and order create, in practice, a distinct class of head constables (vested with investigative powers and entitled to dress/“Star” akin to higher ranks) which is not authorized by the Police Regulations.
  • There were many existing vacancies (alleged more than 8,000) for Sub-Inspectors which the respondents have failed to fill by promotion as required, instead resorting to the impugned notification and orders to get the investigative work done via head constables.
  • Evidence (Annexure 10) indicates at least one petitioner was functioning with the designation A.S.I. and put to investigate major offences (e.g., under the N.D.P.S. Act).

Respondents' Arguments

  • The learned Standing Counsel argued that a joint reading of the Government notification and the departmental letter does not demonstrate that any special class or distinct cadre is being created by conferring additional powers on head constables of a particular pay-scale.
  • Vesting additional duties to head constables that may overlap with duties of Sub-Inspectors does not, according to respondents, by itself confer any special status or constitute illegality.
  • The Standing Counsel relied on departmental correspondence (including a letter dated 30 September 1997 to Senior Superintendents of Police) to justify the administrative approach, though the Court found this justification inadequate on the record.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court's analysis proceeded by close reference to the relevant statutory/regulatory provisions and to the material placed on record by the parties:

  1. The Court examined the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations in detail, specifically Regulation 51 (duties of a Sub-Inspector), Regulation 55 (duties of a head constable, including 55(8)), Regulation 57 (situations when a head constable may be required to make investigation under S.157 Cr.P.C.), and Paragraph 191 of the Police Manual dealing with ad hoc/officiating arrangements.
  2. The Court interpreted these provisions to mean that investigative powers and duties are principally allocated to Sub-Inspectors (Regulation 51), and that a head constable may be required to perform investigative duties only in specified contingencies as an ad hoc arrangement (Regulations 55 and 57 and Para. 191). Regulation 55(8) and Regulation 57 were relied upon to show the regulatory scheme limits the circumstances in which head constables may investigate.
  3. On the factual matrix, the Court accepted the petitioners' averment (uncontroverted in the material) that head constables were being allowed to investigate serious offences (e.g., N.D.P.S. matters) and that departmental correspondence and orders treated some head constables as if they belonged to a different designation (reference to the use of "A.S.I." in correspondence and entitlement to a "Star" in dress regulations akin to a Deputy Inspector as indicative of distinct status).
  4. The Court was troubled by the absence of any evidence or justification on record from respondents showing why regular promotions to fill Sub-Inspector vacancies (which the petitioners alleged to be over 8,000) were not being carried out as required by the Regulations. The Court emphasized that if regular promotions were made there would generally be no need for such general notifications or orders except in exceptional circumstances.
  5. On policy grounds implicit in statutory design, the Court noted that allowing head constables generally to perform investigative duties assigned to Sub-Inspectors undermines the rationale for having distinct cadres and pay-scales, and may adversely affect the quality of investigations.
  6. Applying the regulatory language and the facts, the Court concluded that the impugned notification and departmental order could not lawfully be employed as a general measure to vest head constables (in a particular pay-scale) with the investigative powers of Sub-Inspectors or to create a distinct cadre or class by designation; the notification itself acknowledges it "shall not be implemented as a general rule," and the Court held that to this extent the departmental order (Annexure 5) shall not be given effect to create a different cadre.
  7. As remedial direction flowing from the analysis, the Court ordered that the respondents must first fill existing vacancies of Sub-Inspectors by promotion to the extent of 50% (25% by departmental examination and 25% on the basis of seniority subject to unfitness), and only after completing the prescribed promotions should direct recruitment for the remaining posts be undertaken. The Court imposed a timeline for completion and directions for communication of the judgment.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition is allowed partly. The Court directed that the respondents shall forthwith proceed to fill all existing vacancies of Sub-Inspectors by making promotions to the extent of 50% (25% by departmental examination and 25% on the basis of seniority subject to unfitness) and, only after completing those promotions, undertake direct recruitment for Sub-Inspector posts. This promotion process must be completed within four months from the date the respondents receive a certified copy of the judgment; the learned Standing Counsel must communicate the order to concerned authorities within three weeks. The Court further held that the impugned Government notification dated 15 September 1997 and the departmental order dated 18 September 1997 shall not be given effect to the extent that they seek to create a distinct cadre/class or confer investigative duties on head constables as a general measure.

Implications:

  • Direct effect on the parties: Respondents are required to carry out promotions to Sub-Inspector (50% of vacancies by specified modes) within the court-prescribed timeline; the challenged notification and departmental order cannot be used to create a distinct class of investigative head constables or to circumvent promotion rules.
  • Administrative consequence: The judgment compels the respondents to follow the promotion scheme set out in the Police Regulations before resorting to direct recruitment, and restricts the use of general orders to assign investigative duties to head constables.
  • Precedential note: The opinion does not cite any judicial precedents and the Court did not state that it was laying down a binding new principle of law beyond resolving the statutory interpretation and factual disputes in this case. The decision's effect is immediate on the parties and directed to departmental practice; no distinct claim of establishing a novel judicial precedent was articulated in the text of the opinion.
  • Costs: There will be no order as to costs.

This summary is prepared exclusively from the text of the provided opinion. No information beyond that text has been added or inferred.

Show full summary ...

    Ranbir Singh And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others

    1. It is a petition by 20 persons, who claim to have been working as head constables in various police stations in different districts of the State of Uttar Pradesh.

    2. Petitioners claim that they were working on the date of filing of petition in the pay-scale of Rs. 1,640-2,900 having their designation as head constables. According to the petitioners, this promotional pay-scale in the cadre of head constable is the minimum m the pay-scale provided for a cadre of Sub-Inspector. Relevant details have been given in Paras. 2 and 3 of the writ petition as well as chart filed as Annexure 1 to the writ petition. Petitioners claim that respective duties assigned to different cadres and officers have been provided in the Police Regulations. Regulations 55 to 57 provide for duties of head constable.

    3. Regulation 51 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations lays down duties assigned to a person working on the post of Sub-Inspector. It is contended that the duties as contemplated under relevant paragraphs of the Police Regulations provide for duties of the head constable, which do not include investigation of cases. The petitioners further contended that the appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector is to be effected by filling 50 per cent vacancy through direct recruitment and rest 50 per cent through promotion (25 per cent of which by departmental examination and the rest 25 per cent to be filled solely on the basis of seniority subject to unfit in the next below cadre, that is, from head constables). It has been stated in Para. 11 of the writ petition that following the procedure contemplated in the Police Regulations, promotions were made on July 3, 1996 to the post of Sub-Inspector from Batch No. 56. Petitioners allege that no departmental promotion or through seniority, as contemplated under the Police Regulations has been made from the candidates belonging to Batch Nos. 55 and 56. Petitioners claim that the other incumbents belonging to Batch Nos. 57 to 61 cadre, who matured their right, have been given promotional pay-scale arbitrarily and illegally and the petitioners have been thus denied regular promotion and designation as Sub-Inspector.

    4. According to the petitioners, who belong to Batch Nos. 58 to 61 have been claiming their right of being considered for promotion in accordance with the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations to the post of Sub-Inspector, but the Government, instead of paying heed to their legitimate claim, has resorted to a novel device by issuing notification, dated 15 September, 1997 (copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ petition) which seeks to assign certain duties of investigation (to be discharged by Sub-Inspector) but denies them the designation and cadre of Sub-Inspectors. A copy of letter, dated 18 September, 1997, purported to have been issued by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Uttar Pradesh., Lucknow, has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition.

    5. The petitioners have filed another copy of the demi official letter, dated 30 September, 1997, purported to have been written by Rameshwar Dayal, Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Personnel), Allahabad, addressed to all the Senior Superintendents of Police and all other Circle Officers in charge and therein it was directed that seniority list of all the constables be prepared for considering the question of promotion on the posts of Deputy Inspector.

    6. The petitioners have further alleged that there is no post like Assistant Sub-Inspector as is mentioned in the order, dated 18 September, 1997.

    7. The contention of the petitioners is that since the Government notification, dated 15 September, 1997 and the consequential order, dated 18 September, 1997 (Annexure 5 to the petition) contemplate that a head constable in a particular pay-scale (Rs. 1,640-2,900) can be conferred with additional rights and powers by the “station incharge” for investigating criminal case of particular nature, as contemplated in the said Government notification (Annexure 4), the conferment of such power is with respect to a distinct class. Said notification, dated 15 September 1997, contemplates that such additional rights and powers shall be conferred upon head constables of particular pay-scales and who may be assigned additional duties of investigation by the Station incharge. Reading of this notification clearly shows that the head constables, who have been vested with powers to make investigation under the said notification in criminal cases of specified nature, they shall act as officers of distinct class. This interpretation of the notification is further borne out from a perusal of the letter, dated 18 September, 1997 (Annexure 5) which provides that such special class of head constable who are being vested with additional powers to investigate specified nature of cases shall be entitled to “Star” as contemplated in Para. 16 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Dress Regulation. The said order further shows that the said dress shall be which is prescribed for Deputy Inspector. A bare perusal of the said order, dated 18 September, 1997, leaves no doubt about intention. A copy of the said letters is filed as Annexures 4 and 5 to the petition, in Para. 2 of the order, dated 18 September, 1997, it is clearly mentioned that such head constables who have been vested with the power to investigate criminal cases (as specified in Government notification, dated 15 September, 1997) shall have the designation/nomenclature as head constable (promotional pay-scale).

    8. The petitioners' grievance in short appears to be that under impugned Government notification and order, they are required to perform additional duties by conferring additional powers, which are attached to the post of Sub-Inspector under Uttar Pradesh Police Regulation, they are being asked to perform practically the duties of Sub-Inspector without their being promoted even though they are entitled under law.

    9. The petitioners, in Para. 30 of the petition, have made a categorical averment to the effect that the petitioners are being allowed investigation in major offence like N.D.P.S Act and in support of their contention, they have filed a copy of an order purporting to Suresh Chand, petitioner 20 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition). This Para. 30 has not been denied by the respondents in their counter-affidavit. In Para. 30 of the counter-affidavit, there is a bald denial. Paragraph 30 of the counter-affidavit reads thus:

    “30. That the contents of Para. 30 of the writ petition need no comments”.

    10. Heard Sri Shailendra, advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri I.S Singh, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

    11. The duties pertaining to the head constable are provided vide regulation 55 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations and the duties and functions of Sub-Inspector have been mentioned in regulation 51 of the said Regulations. These provisions have been quoted in Paras. 5 and 6 of the writ petition. Regulation 55(8) of the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations lays down that a head constable can be required to perform duties mentioned in Para. 51 except those mentioned in Para. 51(4) when there is no second officer. This shows that a head constable is not supposed to undertake investigation. Regulation 57 lays down that when a head constable is in charge of the police station and has to make investigation under S. 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he shall be required to make over his clerical duties and if he leaves the station, the charge of the station shall be given to the next senior literate head constable or constable. In that contingency, such a constable shall carry on investigation until he is relieved by Sub-Inspector or the work is finished. The said regulation provides, “On no other occasion may a head constable (other than an investigation head constable) make an investigation”. Paragraph 191 of the Police Manual provides for ad/hoc/stop-gap and make shift arrangement by making ad hoc/officiating promotion of head constable only.

    12. In view of the averments contained in Para. 25 of the writ petition, petitioners contend that more than 8,000 vacancies of the post of Sub-Inspectors were existing, the petitioners have matured their rights for being considered by way of promotion under the relevant regulation, but still the respondents, instead of making regular promotion, have taken recourse to get the work done by passing the impugned notification and Government order (Annexures 4 and 5 referred to above).

    13. A supplementary affidavit has been filed today and a copy of the same has been served on standing counsel today, i.e (19th April 1999). Petitioners have filed a photo copy of the letter of Senior Superintendent of Police, Saharanpur, dated 26 March, 1999, and on behalf of the petitioners, it is contended that the respondents are proceeding with the direct selection and appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector. The facts sought to be brought on record by means of the supplementary affidavit are only in respect of contention of the petitioners already made in the writ petition vide Paras. 25 and 26 of the writ petition.

    14. Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondents contended that reading of the Government notification, dated 15 September, 1997 (Annexure 4 to the petition) does not indicate that any special class is being created by conferring additional powers on head constables in a particular pay-scale. The thrust of argument of learned Standing Counsel is based upon the joint reading of the said notification along with letter, dated 18 September, 1997 (Annexure 5), but learned Standing Counsel submits that by requiring head constables to perform additional duties of investigation though they may be subject-matter of the duties of Sub-Inspector, vesting additional right and powers does not confer any special status or a special class and hence, there is no illegality in issuance of the said notification and the Government order. Learned Standing Counsel, however, failed to point out as to how the department had addressed Suresh Chand (petitioner 2) as A.S.I (probably it refers to the designation — Assistant Sub-Inspector). The language employed in the Government order, dated 15 September, 1997, the letter, dated 18 September, 1997, and the subsequent correspondence at the behest of respondent 6 (particularly Annexure 10 to the writ petition wherein Suresh Chand, petitioner 20 has been addressed as A.S.I) leaves no room for doubt is left and there can be no inference except that head constable in particular pay-scale, if conferred additional powers and rights for carrying on investigation in specified cases as mentioned in the said Government notification (Annexure 4) they were distinguished by another designation.

    15. Having considered the respective contentions of the parties, one thing constantly troubles this Court and the Court expresses its regret that the respondents have made no effort to bring on record and justify as to why the vacant posts of Sub-Inspectors, which are required to be filled by departmental examination and on the basis of seniority to the extent of 50 per cent are not filled up. In case regular promotions are made and posts are filled, there may not arise question of making any act hoc arrangement except in exceptional cases and further no such notification shall be necessary by issuing a general notification and the order (Annexures 4 and 5). A genuine apprehension arises that the respondents may not resort to the regular promotion and deny legitimate right of the petitioners for being considered for promotion (which is a valuable and a legitimate expectation of a person serving in a Government department or for that matter in service) and, on the other hand, got the work done through head constables which is otherwise required to be performed by the Sub-Inspector. The other question which immediately emerges is that if such a procedure is permitted as a general course, it is bound to affect quality of investigation — the head constable cannot be equated in general with the Sub-Inspectors as otherwise there is no idea in having two different cadres providing different pay-scales. Vacancies on the post of Sub-Inspectors must be filled year to year. But no material has been brought on record to show that any effort has been made at the behest of the respondents to fill up the posts of Sub-Inspectors on regular basis. Learned Standing Counsel refers to Annexure 6, which is letter, dated 30 September, 1997, addressed to Senior Superintendent of Police which seeks to justify his stand on its basis. The stand taken by the Standing Counsel is wholly misconceived. The said letter does not indicate that any serious effort was made at the right stage and even if this letter was issued, mere is nothing on record to show that all possible efforts were made for making appointments on the post of Sub-Inspectors.

    16. In view of the statutory provision of Police Regulations, particularly Para. 51, which lays down that the powers and duties to investigate cases are that of Sub-Inspector and regulations 50, 55(a) and 55 (d), which provide that only in a specified contingency and subject to exception of regulation 51(4) a head constable may be required, as an ad hoc arrangement to perform duties of investigation as Investigating Officer. This leaves in no doubt that the duties of investigation cannot be conferred upon the head constable by a general order as is being done and sought through the impugned notification, dated 15 September, 1997, and the letter, dated 18 September, 1997 (Annexure 5). The Government notification, dated 15 September, 1997, itself provides that the said notification shall not be implemented as a general rule and that the head constables in the prescribed pay-scale, if required to undertake investigation, as contemplated under the said notification, shall not be treated as a distinct class and to this extent the order, dated 18 September, 1997 (Annexure 5), shall also not be given effect to so as to create a different cadre and class having designation in contradistinction to those contemplated under the Uttar Pradesh Police Regulations.

    17. In view of the uncontroverted averments in the writ petition, it is directed that the respondents shall forthwith resort to the process of fulfilling all the existing vacancies of the post of Sub-Inspectors first by making promotion to the extent of 50 per cent (25 per cent by departmental examination and the 25 per cent on the basis of seniority subject to unfit) and after completing said promotion alone, direct recruitment shall be made on the post of Sub-Inspector. The said process of making promotion must be completed within four months from the date of having received certified copy of the judgment which must be communicated by the learned Standing Counsel within three weeks from today. The learned Standing Counsel is directed to communicate this order to the concerned authorities.

    18. The writ petition is allowed partly subject to the observations made above. There will be no order as to costs.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Ranbir Singh And Others v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others
    (Apr 19, 1999)