Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj: The aforementioned Original Applications (O.A. No. 1650/2013, O.A. No.1687/2013, O.A. No.1609/2013, O.A. No.1730/2013, O.A. No.3675/2013, O.A. No.3664/2013, O.A. No.2033/2013, O.A. No.2037/2013, O.A. No.3696/2013, O.A. No.3793/2013, O.A. No.4494/2013, O.A. No.582/2014, O.A. No.637/2014, O.A. No.800/2014, O.A. No.878/2014, O.A. No.1053/2014, O.A. No.1092/2014, O.A. No.1444/2014, O.A. No.736/2014 and O.A. No.737/2014) raise identical question of law and facts, thus are taken up for disposal together in terms of a common order.
2. The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued notice dated 16.3.2013 providing for All India Examination for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspectors in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), Assistant Sub Inspectors in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) and Intelligence Officer in Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB). Graduation from a recognized University or equivalent was prescribed as the minimum educational qualification for the post in question. The examination was to comprise of written examination in two phases Physical Endurance Test (PET), Medical Examination and Interview/personality test.
3. In the present cases, we are concerned with the Recruitment Rules for the post of Sub Inspector (Male) under 10% quota and Sub Inspector (Female) in Delhi Police. The breakup of category-wise vacancies of Sub Inspector (Male) in Delhi Police, as mentioned in the notice, reads as under: Vacancies of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police Category UR OBC SC ST Total Open 161 58 29 16 264 Departmental 17 09 05 02 33 Ex-Servicemen 17 09 05 02 33 Total 195 76 39 20 330
4. In column 4 (A) & (B) of the notice, the age limit prescribed for the post, the category-codes and age relaxation available to different category of eligible candidates was mentioned. The age relaxation permissible beyond the upper age limit to departmental male/female candidates for Delhi Police was upto 40 years. The upper age limit was further relaxable for departmental candidates (OBC) upto 43 years and for departmental candidates (SC/ST) upto 45 years. For the sportsman of distinction, who had represented a state at the national level and the country at international, the age was further relaxable for five years for general category, 10 years for (SC/ST) and 8 years for OBC. Since the prime controversy involved in the present cases pertain to the age limit only, i.e., the reduction in relaxation permissible beyond upper age limit, column 4 (A) and (B) of the notice is extracted hereinbelow:- 4. (A) AGE LIMITS for the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, CAPFs, Assistant Sub Inspector in CISF and Intelligence Officer in NCB in 20-25 years. Note I: The upper age limit is relaxable for Central Government Civilian Employees as per extant Government order. Note II: The crucial date for age-limit is reckoned with reference to 01-01-2013 as extant Government orders. Note III: Candidates should note that only the Date of Birth as recorded in the Matriculation/Secondary Examination Certificate or an equivalent certificate available on the date of submission of application will be accepted by the Commission for determining the age eligibility and no subsequent request for its change will be considered or granted.
4. (B) Category-Codes and age relaxation available in different category of eligible candidates, for claiming Age Relaxation as on the date of reckoning. Code No. Category Age-Relaxation permissible beyond the Upper age limit
1 to 26 xxx Xxx
30. Departmental Male Candidates for Delhi Police only
(i) Departmental Candidates (Unreserved) who have rendered not less than 5 years of regular and continuous service as on closing date. Upto 40 years 31-32 xxx xxx
33 Departmental Female Candidates for Delhi Police only
(i) Departmental Candidates (Unreserved) who have rendered not less than 3 years of regular and continuous service as on closing date Upto 40 years 34-35 xxx xxx
36 For Delhi Police Only
(i) Sportsman of distinction who has represented a state at the national level and the country at international level (General) Upto 5 years
37. (ii) Sportsman of distinction who has represented a state at the national level and the country at international level (SC/ST) Upto 10 years
38. (iii) Sportsman of distinction who has represented a state at the national level and the country at international level (OBC) Upto 8 years
5. To put the facts straight, we may note that though in terms of the notice no examination was provided for recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector (Female) in Delhi Police, in column 4 (B), the age relaxation permissible beyond the upper age limit was also mentioned in respect of female candidates in Delhi Police (ibid). Subsequent to the aforesaid notice, the SSC issued corrigendum F.No.3/1/2013-P&P-II dated 9.4.2013 (Annexure A-3), which reads as under:- STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION RECRUITMENT OF SUB-INSPECTORS IN DELHI POLICE, CAPFs AND ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR IN CISF AND INTELLIGENCE OFFICER IN NCB EXAMINATION, 2013 CORRIGENDUM F.No.3/1/2003-P&P-II : Candidate may refer to the Notice of the above mentioned Examination published in the Employment News dated q16-3-2013. The following amendments in the notice mostly related to Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police only are made:-
(i) (a) The closing date for receipt of applicants may be read as 19.4.2013 in place of 12.4.2013. (b) The date of examination for paper-I may be read as 23.6.2013 in place of 10.6.2013. (c) The date of examination for paper-II may be read as 25.8.2013 in place of 18.8.2013.
(ii) In Para 2 of notice, the heading Vacancies of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police may be read as vacancy of Sub-Inspector Male in Delhi Police. As regards vacancy of Sub-Inspector-Female in Delhi Police, the following is also incorporated in the aforesaid para:- Vacancy of Sub-Inspector-Female in Delhi Police UR OBC SC ST Total
77 42 24 12 155
(iii) Below Note II (iii) of para 2, the following clause is incorporated:- In case sufficient number of Ex-serviceman candidates under categories at (i), (ii) and (iii) are not available, the unfilled vacancies will be filled amongst other available Ex-Servicemen candidates.
(iv) Note IV of para 4 (B) may be read as The benefit of age relaxation available to Central Govt. Civilian Employees is not applicable to the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police, in place of The benefit of age relaxation available to Central Govt. Civilian Employees are not available to Departmental candidates of Delhi Police.
(v) Age relaxation permissible to different category of candidates mentioned under codes 30, 31, 32, 33, 34 & 35 in para 4 (B) of the notice is modified as under:- Departmental Male/Female candidates for Delhi Police only:- Departmental candidates Male/Female (unreserved, OBC & SC/ST) who have rendered not les than 3 years of regular & continues service in Delhi Police as on closing date can avail age relaxation beyond upper age limit upto 30 years (for unreserved category code 30) 33 years (for OBC category Code 31) & 35 years (for SC/ST categories code 32) respectively.
(vi) Age relaxation for sports pt. 4 in Note of para 10(A) is incorporated:- The relaxation in physical standards (height/chest), once granted at the time of initial appointment in Delhi Police will hold good till the individual concerned remains in Delhi Police.
(vii) Relaxation in PST/PET for Male/Female Departmental & Ex. Servicemen candidates for Delhi Police only mentioned below the heading (i) For male Departmental & Ex-Servicemen candidates and (ii) for Female Departmental candidates of para 10 (C) of notice stands deleted.
(ix) In Note-I in para 10(D), the following clause is incorporated:- The Ex-Servicemen candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police have also been exempted from PET.
(x) In para 9, the following Note (iv) below Note-III is incorporated:- Note-IV: The Commission may prescribe, at its option, separate cut-off marks in interview for general and reserved category candidates.
(xi) The recruitment to the post of Intelligence Officer in Narcotics Control Bureau mentioned in the notice of examination stands deleted. The other contents of the notice remain unchanged. Sd/- Under Secretary(P&P II) 09/04/2013
6. In the said corrigendum, the SSC provided that the benefit of age relaxation available to Central Government Civilian Employees is not applicable to the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police and the departmental candidates (male/female) (unreserved, OBC & SC/ST) who have rendered not less than three years of regular and continuous service in Delhi Police as on closing date can avail age relaxation beyond upper age limit upto 30 years (for unreserved category code 30), 33 years (for OBC category code 31) and 35 years (for SC/ST categories code 32) respectively. The corrigendum was based on the amendment in Rules 7 and 14 (a) of Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 (for short Rules 1980) notified vide notification No.13/11/2012/HP-I/Estt./7966 to 7971 dated 13.3.2013 (Annexure A-1). For easy reference, notification dated 13.3.2013 is reproduced hereinbelow:- HOME POLCIE-I/ESTABLISHMENT DEPARTMENT NOTIFICATION Delhi, the 13th March, 2013 No.F.13/11/2012/HP-1/Estt./7966 to 7971.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 147 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (34 of 1978), the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi, is pleased to make the following rules further to amend the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, namely-
1. Short title and commencement 1. (1) These rules may be called the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules, 2013 (2) They shall come into force on the date of their publication in the Delhi Gazette.
2. Amendment of Rule 7 In the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules 1980 for rule 7, the following shall be substituted, namely:-
7. Recruitment of Sub-Inspectors (Executive)-Male: 50% of vacancies in the rank of Sub-Inspector (Exe.)-Male shall be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion. Out of 50% direct quota, 10% of the post shall be filled from amongst serving Constables, Head Constables and Asstt. Sub-Inspectors enlisted in Delhi Police with a minimum of 3 years continuous service, who shall not be more than 30 years (33 years for OBC and 35 years for SC/ST candidates) of age on the first day of January of the year, if the examination is held in the first half of the year and on the first day of August of that year, if the examination is held in the later half of the year. The educational qualifications, physical standards and other requirements for the post shall be the same as prescribed in the rules for direct recruitment to such posts. Educational, physical and other standards/requirements for the post of Sub-Inspector (direct recruitment) shall be as under:-
1. Age 20 to 25 years relaxable by 3 years for OBCs and 5 years for SCs/STs candidates 2.Height 170 cms relaxable by 7.5 cms (162.5 cms) for ST candidates and 5 cms (165 cms) for resident of hill areas. 3.Chest 80 cms to 85 cms relaxable by 3 cms (77 cms to 82 cms) for ST candidates. 4.Weight Corresponding to height Note : The relaxation in physical standards (height/chest) once granted at the time of initial appointment in Delhi Police will hold good till the individual concerned remains in Delhi Police.
5. Educational Qualification Bachelors degree from a recognized University or equivalent 6.Driving Licence Candidates must possess a valid driving licence for LMV (Motorcycle and Car) on the date fixed for Physical Endurance & Measurement Tests. 7.Medical standard (i) The minimum distant vision should be 6/6 and 6/9 of both eyes without correction i.e, without wearing of glasses.
(ii) The candidates must not have knock knee, flat foot, varicose vein or squint in eyes and they should possess high colour vision.
(iii) They must be in good mental and bodily health and free from any physical defect likely to interfere with the efficient performance of the duties.
8. Reservation (i) For OBCs/SCs/STs categories, as per orders issued by Government from time to time.
(ii) 10% for departmental candidates of Delhi Police.
(iii) 10% for Ex-Servicemen as per rules. Out of 10% quota meant for Ex-servicemen, 50% of such quota will be reserved for following categories of Ex.-Servicemen:- (a) Having served in Special forces/NSG (Special Action Group) or; (b) Having received QI Qualified Instructors grading in the Commando Course or; (c) Officers from the Navy/Air Force who have worked in specialized Commando type units. Note:-In case sufficient number of Ex-Servicemen candidates under categories at (a), (b) and (c) are not available, the unfilled vacancies will be filled amongst other available Ex-Serviceman candidates. Amendment of Rule 27-A In the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 for Rule 27-A, the following shall be substituted, namely, 27-A. Relaxation of upper age limit for departmental candidates: Relaxation of upper age limit for all departmental candidates for direct recruitment against group C and Multi Tasking Staff (Formerly group D employees) enlisted in Delhi Police with a minimum of 3 years continuous service shall be as follows:- 30 years for general category candidates, 33 years for OBC category candidates and 35 years in case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Schedules Tribes.
7. By way of a separate notification dated 3.4.2013, the Rule 14 A of the Rules 1980 was also amended. The relevant excerpt of the said notification reads as under:- (a) Sub-Inspector (Women) (1) Age 20 to 25 years, relaxable upto:
(i) 28 years for OBCs and 30 years for SCs/STc candidates.
(ii) Upto 35 years (38 years for OBCs and 40 years for SCs/STs) for widows / divorced women / women judicially separated and who are not remarried.
(iii) Upto 30 years (33 years for OBCs and 35 years for SCs/STs) for departmental candidates of Delhi Police Aggrieved by the amendment in the Recruitment Rules by the notifications dated 13.3.2013 and 3.4.2013 (ibid) and the notice of examination was corrected vide corrigendum dated 9.4.2013 to the extent that the relaxation in upper age limit for departmental male candidates for Delhi Police was reduced from 40 years to 30 years in case of general category from 45 years to 35 years for SC/ST categories and 43 years to 33 years for OBC. For easy reference, the prayer made in O.A.No.1650/2013 is reproduced hereinbelow:- (a) quash and set aside the impugned notification/ actions/ orders or the respondents placed at Annexure A/1, Annexure A/2 and Annexure A/3 of the OA. (b) direct the respondents to grant all admissible relaxation including age relaxation as admissible to the departmental candidates as per GOI order and relaxations in Physical Test for all purposes relating to the Sub-Inspector Recruitment 2013 and (c) Consider the applicants as eligible for appointment to the post and (d) if any or all make the grade, they be appointed to the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe.) alongwith the batch (e) award costs of the proceedings and (f) pass any other order/direction which this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the applicants and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case.
8. In a couple of Original Applications, the grievance was also raised regarding deletion of provision for relaxation in upper age limit for sportsmen. Mr. Ajesh Luthra and Mr. Mahesh Srivastava, learned counsel for applicants contended saliently that:
i) the amendment to Rules 4, 14 and 27 (A) of the Rules 1980 are applied to the selection process set in motion vide notice dated 16.3.2013 when those were not even published in the official gazette, thus the amendment in the aforementioned Rules is absolutely arbitrary and unjustified, ii) the direct recruitment in Delhi Police is at the level of Constable (Executive) only and no such recruitment is made at the levels of Head Constable and Assistant Sub Inspector. The Constable becomes eligible for promotion to the post of Head Constable by way of seniority only after attaining the age of 40 years or by way of competitive examination after completing five years of service, thus even in order to become Head Constable through test mode, the Constable need to complete 5 years of service and by the time he completes such service, he attains the age of 26 years and before he completes the training, he attains the age of 27 years. In the circumstances, despite there being provision in the Recruitment Rules that the Constable, Head Constable and Assistant Sub Inspector are eligible for recruitment as Sub Inspector in Delhi Police against 10% departmental quota, practically with the amendment, all Head Constables (Executive) and Assistant Sub Inspectors (Executive) are excluded from the eligibility category, iii) the amendment in the Recruitment Rules has led to a skewed situation also for the reason that when the Constables may be eligible for their recruitment against 10% departmental quota, the Head Constables and Assistant Sub Inspectors may become ineligible for the same. iv) the alignment of the examination for Sub Inspectors in Delhi Police with CAPF can be no ground to change the Recruitment Rules for the posts,
v) the post of Sub Inspector in CAPF is a group B post while the same in Delhi Police is only a group C post, thus even otherwise also the Recruitment Rules for groups B & C cannot be expected to be in pari materia, vi) the impugned amendment in Section 7 and 27 (A) of the Rules 1980 is inconsistent with Rule 5, which is the broader rule, vii) the departmental candidates cannot be deprived of such age relaxation, which is admissible to SC, ST, ex-servicemen, sportsmen, widows, judicially separated women and / or divorced women, viii) the Delhi Police is a civilian Service and the benefit of age relaxation admissible to other Services cannot be denied to the applicants, ix) by issuing the corrigendum (ibid), the respondents could not have altered the notice for examination; and
x) on account of change in relaxation standard for departmental candidates, the relaxed physical standard applicable to them has also altered.
9. On the other hand, Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Delhi Police submitted:
a) before issuance of notice of examination dated 16.3.2013 a conscious decision was taken to align the Recruitment Rules for the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police, including the physical standard, PET, etc. for the purpose of inclusion of posts in CAPF Examination 2013 and to fill up the vacancies only after amendment in the Rules,
b) the Recruitment Rules were amended on 13.3.2013, i.e., before issuance of notice of examination for the post of Sub Inspector (Male) in Delhi Police dated 16.3.2013 and on 3.4.2013 before issuance of corrigendum dated 9.4.2013 whereby the post of Sub Inspector (Female) in Delhi Police was included in CAPF Examination 2013,
c) the mention of provisions of un-amended Rules in the advertisement was a mistake and was rightly corrected by issuing the corrigendum dated 9.4.2013,
d) in the meeting dated 21.2.2013 held under the Chairmanship of Union Home Secretary and attended by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Joint Commissioner of Police, Delhi (headquarters) on 21.8.2013, it was decided that the Delhi Police may follow same requirement as adopted for the post of Sub Inspectors in CAPF and necessary amendments in the Recruitment Rules might be made and it was thereafter only that the Rules were amended by the competent authority, i.e., the Lt. Governor, Delhi and were duly notified.
e) After amendment of the Rules 7, 14 (a) and 27 (A) of the Rules 1980 on 13.3.2013 and 3.4.2013, the fresh standing orders No.321/2013 and 369/2013 were issued,
f) there is no basis for the apprehension of the applicants that a number of incumbents of the post of Constable, Head Constable and Assistant Sub Inspector would become ineligible for the post, as they entered into service around the age of 30 to 35 years, though there is specific provision in the Rules treating them eligible for promotion,
g) in most of the said categories, the eligible employees enter into the service at the age of 18 years and even if they acquire the qualification of graduation at the age of 21 years, they would complete service of 3 years by attaining the age of 24 years or 25 years and they would have 5 years to avail the opportunity to participate in the departmental examination,
h) the object of Recruitment Rules is to not ensure that a large number of candidates should become eligible for the post in question but is to fix the eligibility criteria in the best interests of the Service and all those, who are eligible, can participate in the selection process,
i) it is well settled that the Courts should not interfere in policy matters unless it is clearly unconstitutional or shockingly arbitrary with reference to the test laid down in the Wednesbury principle,
j) prescribing any age limit for a given post as also deciding the extent to which the relaxation can be given, if any age limit is prescribed, is essentially a matter of policy and it is not open to the Court to prescribe such age limit or to prescribe the extent to which any age relaxation can be given,
k) for the limited purpose of testing the public policy in the context of illegality and unconstitutionality, Courts should avoid embarking on unchartered ocean of public policy,
l) withdrawal of earlier notification and issuance of fresh notification may not be considered irrational,
m) the acceptance of advice of the Public Service Commission regarding change in the qualifications, method of appointment, age or other conditions of recruitment, suggested to be introduced after the issue of the notification for selection cannot be held to be arbitrary,
n) when Government takes a conscious decision to amend the Recruitment Rules, the recruitment has to be made as per the amended rules,
o) it is for the expert body and not for the Courts having no assistance of experts, to trench into the prescribed qualification for a post; and
p) even after issuing the notification the Government can amend the Recruitment Rules and withdraw the notification for examination.
10. Respondent No.3 SSC filed a short reply and during the course of hearing, Mr. S.M. Arif, learned counsel made a reference to the same.
11. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the records.
12. The provisions of the Rules, which are relevant for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector (Male / Female) in Delhi Police are Rules 5, 7, 14 and 27 (A) of the Rules 1980. In the backdrop of said Rules and the amendments therein, the Delhi Police issued standing orders (ibid) from time to time. In the present cases, the controversy pertain to reduction in age relaxation for departmental candidates, for recruitment of Sub Inspector (Executive) (Male) and for open candidates for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) (Female), and doing away the age relaxation for sports persons for recruitment in both the categories. The age relaxation admissible to male candidates against departmental quota, for female candidates in open category and sports persons admissible prior to the amendment in the Recruitment Rules is mentioned in the notice dated 16.6.2013 and the amended Rules notified on 13.3.2013 and 3.4.2013 (relevant excerpts of which have been reproduced hereinabove).
13. In view of the submissions of the rival parties, following propositions arise to be determined: Whether the Tribunal can trench into the policy decisions and the Recruitment Rules? Whether the amended Rules can be applied to the selection already set in motion? Whether the amended Recruitment Rules can be applied to the vacancies in existence prior to such amendment? Whether there can be common examination for the posts in Groups C and B categories? Whether amendment in the Rules is in violation of Section 147 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978? and Whether there is due application of mind by the concerned Committee before amendment of the Rules?
14. To buttress her arguments, Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel for respondents relied upon following judgment of Honble High Court of Delhi as well as the judgments of Honble Supreme Court: NCT of Delhi through the Dept. of Excise v. S.P. Khanna, 125 (2005) DLT 137 (DB), Union of India & others v. Shivbachan Rai, (2001) 9 SCC 356, J Ranga Swamy v. Government of Andhra Pradesh & others, (1990) 1 SCC 288, Nilangshu Bhusan Basu v. Deb K. Sinha & others, (2001) 8 SCC 119, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Workmen, Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited, (2007) 1 SCC 408, Jai Singh Dalal & others v. State of Haryana & another, 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 600, Hindustan Lever Limited v. B.N. Dongre & others, (1994) 6 SCC 157, S. Prakash & another v. K.M. Kurian & others, (1999) 5 SCC 624, Deepak Agarwal & another v. State of Uttar Pradesh & others, (2011) 6 SCC 725, State of Jharkhand & others v. Ashok Kumar Dangi & others, (2011) 13 SCC 383,
V.K. Sood v. Secretary, Civil Aviation & others, 1993 Supp (3) SCC 9, State of M.P. & others v. Raghuveer Singh Yadav & others, (1994) 6 SCC 151; and The State of Haryana v. Subhash Chander Marwaha & others, (1974) 3 SCC 220.
15. As far as the first proposition is concerned, it is stare decisis that the Courts should not interfere in the policy matters unless the same are clearly unconstitutional or shockingly arbitrary. In S. P. Khannas case (supra), the Honble High Court of Delhi has ruled as under:- 35. It is well settled that this Court should not interfere in policy matters unless it is clearly unconstitutional or shockingly arbitrary in the Wednesbury sense. This court can only interfere if the policy decision is clearly violative of some constitutional or statutory provision or is shockingly arbitrary vide Union of India v. International Trading Company, GB Mahajan v. Jalgaon Municipal Council, AIR 1991 SC 1153; (supra)
36. In Krishnan Kakkanth v. Government of Kerala (supra), the Supreme Court observed: "To ascertain unreasonableness and arbitrariness in the context of Art 14 of the Constitution, it is not necessary to enter upon any exercise for finding out the wisdom in the policy decision of the State Government. It is immaterial whether a better or more comprehensive policy decision could have been taken. It is equally immaterial if it can be demonstrated that the policy decision is unwise and is likely to defeat the purpose for which such decision has been taken. Unless the policy decision is demonstratably capricious or arbitrary and not informed by any reason whatsoever or it suffers from the vice of discrimination or infringes any statute or provision of the Constitution, the policy decision cannot be struck down. It should be borne in mind that except for the limited purpose of testing the public policy in the context of illegality and unconstitutionality, courts should avoid "embarking on unchartered ocean of public policy."
37. Often, there is a misunderstanding that Judges can intervene in an administrative decision whenever they think it to be unreasonable. That is not so. It is only when there is extreme unreasonableness that the Court can intervene, and not otherwise.
38. Thus, in Re W, (1971) AC 682 Lord Hailsham observed ;- "Two reasonable persons can perfectly and reasonably come to opposite conclusions on the same set of facts without forfeiting their title to be regarded as reasonable. Not every reasonable exercise of judgment is right and not every mistaken exercise of judgment is unreasonable."
39. Hence, the Wednesbury unreasonableness means "unreasonableness verging on absurdity" as observed by the House of Lords in Puhlhofer v. Hillingdon L.B.C (1986) 1 All ER 467.
40. In Nottinghamshire C.C. v. Secretary of State for the Environment, (1986) 1 All ER 199 Lord Scarman observed that "to challenge a decision of the Minister as unreasonable the applicant must establish by evidence that the decision was so absurd that he must have taken leave of his senses.".
41. We are of the opinion that Court should not readily strike down policy decisions on the ground that they are unconstitutional, rather every attempt should be made to uphold their constitutional validity, if legally possible. The courts should always hesitate to declare a statute or policy decision unconstitutional, unless it finds it clearly so, because invalidating a statute or policy decision is a grave step. Of the three organs of the State (the legislature, the executive and the judiciary) only the judiciary has the power to declare the Constitutional limits of all three. This great power should therefore be exercised by the judiciary with the utmost humility and self restraint.
42. As observed by the Supreme Court in MH Qureshi v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 SC 731, the court must presume that the legislature understands and Page 2206 correctly appreciates the needs of its own people. The legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and may confine its restrictions to those where the need is deemed to be the clearest. In the same decision it was also observed that the legislature is the best judge of what is good for the community on whose suffrage it came into existence. In our opinion, the same principle also applies to executive decisions, as the executive is accountable to the legislature in a democracy.
16. Also in Shivbachan Rais case (supra), it could be ruled that it is open to the Government while framing rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to prescribe such age limits or to prescribe the extent to which any relaxation can be given. Paragraph 6 of the said judgment reads as under:- 6. The only question that we are required to consider is whether the Rules framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and dated 29-3-1985 whereby age relaxation up to 5 years is permitted in the case of government servants can be considered as arbitrary or unreasonable. Prescribing of any age limit for a given post, as also deciding the extent to which any relaxation can be given if an age limit is prescribed, are essentially matters of policy. It is, therefore, open to the Government while framing rules under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to prescribe such age limits or to prescribe the extent to which any relaxation can be given. Prescription of such limit or the extent of relaxation to be given, cannot be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. The only basis on which the respondent moved the Central Administrative Tribunal was the earlier Rules of 1976 under which, though an age limit was prescribed, a limit had not been placed on the extent of relaxation which could be granted. If at all any charge of arbitrariness can be levied in such cases, not prescribing any basis for granting relaxation when no limit is placed on the extent of relaxation, might lead to arbitrariness in the exercise of power of relaxation. In any case, the Rules of 1976 have been replaced by the Rules of 1985 which govern direct recruitment to the post of Assistant Director in the present case. One has, therefore, to look to the Rules of 1985 in order to decide the eligibility of the respondent for the post of Assistant Director. We, therefore, do not agree with the finding of the Tribunal that the Rules of 1985 insofar as they prescribe the extent of relaxation of age limit, are arbitrary or unreasonable. This is also not a case where promotional avenues are being closed partially or fully. The post in question was to be filled by direct recruitment and not by promotion. Therefore, there could be no grievance on that score by the respondent.
17. Further, in Nilangshu Bhusan Basu (supra), it has been held thus: 6. We feel that once the rules permit recruitment to a post either by direct recruitment or by promotion leaving the decision to the appropriate authority, it will be difficult to say or lay down that process of recruitment by promotion must necessarily be adopted first. As a matter of fact, it would amount to legislating a provision in the Statute. xx xx xx
11. It has next been submitted that the departmental officers have been discriminated against since only those departmental officers could apply who responded to the qualification laid down for the candidates for direct recruitment more particularly about the age, since maximum age limit was 45 years. In this connection it may be observed that the qualifications have been prescribed in the rules including the upper age limit for an applicant. It is informed that there were forty outside candidates and eight others working in the Department. From amongst the 48 candidates, the appellant was selected, who is said to have been working as an Executive Engineer in the department. According to the learned counsel for the respondent he would become senior and an officer even higher to the Dy. Chief Engineer, who have either not been selected or were not able to apply because of the age bar or for any such reason. It is submitted that ignoring the senior officers working in the department or placing junior officers above them would lead to only unreasonable results. It may be observed that method of direct recruitment was adopted as permissible under the rules. Anyone responding to the qualification was free to apply including the departmental candidates. Some of the petitioners in the other Writ Petition are those who had applied but remained unsuccessful. It was an open selection based on merit and not seniority. Therefore, it cannot be argued that method of direct recruitment as adopted brought about any unreasonable results or it was discriminatory. In this connection it may also be mentioned here that learned counsel for the appellant submitted that post graduate qualification was one of the desirable qualification prescribed under the rules. It is further submitted that the appellant was the only candidate who possessed the post graduate qualification. We are however not on the merit of the selection. The Selection Committee made the selection of the candidate whom it thought to be the best among the applicants. We therefore find no force in this submission too as raised on behalf of the respondents.
18. Also in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Limited v. Workmens case (supra), it could be ruled by the Apex Court that the Court must exercise judicial restraint and need not encroach into the Executive or Legislative domain. Paragraph 40 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- 42. The courts must, therefore, exercise judicial restraint, and not encroach into the executive or legislative domain. Orders for creation of posts, appointment on these posts, regularization, fixing pay scales, continuation in service, promotions, etc. are all executive or legislative functions, and it is highly improper for Judges to step into this sphere, except in a rare and exceptional case. The relevant case law and philosophy of judicial restraint has been laid down by the Madras High Court in great detail in Rama Muthuramalingam vs. Dy. S.P. AIR 2005 Mad 1, and we fully agree with the views expressed therein.
19. In V.K. Soods case (supra), it could be held as under: 7. It is next contended that several persons whose names have been copiously mentioned in the appeal were not qualified to hold the post of examiner and they were not capable even to set the test papers to the examiners nor capable to evaluate the papers. We are not called upon to decide the legality of their appointments nor their credentials in this appeal as that question does not arise nor are they before the court. It is next contended by Mr. Yogeshwar Prasad, the learned Senior counsel that on account of inefficiency in the pilots' operational Capability repeatedly air accidents have been occurring endangering the lives of innocent travellers and this Court should regulate the prescription of higher qualifications and strict standard to the navigators or to the pilots be instead on. We are afraid that we cannot enter into nor undertake the responsibility in that behalf'. It is for the expert body and this Court does not have the assistance of experts. Moreover it is for the rule making authority or for the legislature to regulate the method of recruitment, prescribe qualifications etc. It is open to the President or the authorized person to undertake such exercise and that necessary tests should be conducted by U.P.S.C. before giving, the certificates to them. This is not the province of this Court to trench into and prescribe qualifications in particular when the matters are of the technical nature. It is stated in the counter affidavit that due to advancement of technology of the flight aviations the navigators are no longer required and therefore they are not coming in large number. Despite the repeated advertisements no suitable candidate is coming forward. We do not go into fault aspect also and it is not necessary for the purpose of this case. Suffice to state that pursuant to another advertisement made in July 1992, the appellant is stated to have admittedly applied for and appeared before the U.P.S.C. for selection and that he is awaiting the result thereof. Under these circumstances, we do not find any substance in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
20. In view of the aforementioned, we have no hesitation to arrive at a conclusion that it is not open for us to interfere with the Recruitment Rules framed / amended by the Executive / Legislature in its wisdom. Nevertheless, we are of the view that there should be objective application of mind by the concerned governmental machinery before amendment in the Rules and creation of a skewed situation should be avoided. Further even if the skewed situation is created, it should be brought on record that the note of likelihood of such situation was taken before amendment of the Rules and even after due notice of the same, the amendment was considered warranted and carried out.
21. As far as the proposition whether the amended Rules can be applied to the selection already set in motion is concerned, we find that in the present cases for the post of Sub Inspector (Male) in Delhi Police, the amended Recruitment Rules were notified on 13.3.2013 and the notice for examination was issued on 16.3.2013 and for the post of Sub Inspector (Female) in Delhi Police, amended Rules were notified on 3.3.2013 while the posts were included in the examination notified on 16.3.2013 only on 9.4.2013, thus it cannot be said that the amended Rules are applied to the selection already set in motion. Besides, as has been held by the Apex Court in Jai Singh Dalals case (supra), the State Government has power to withdraw the earlier notification and issue a fresh notification. Merely because the State Government had sent a requisition to the HPSC to select candidates for appointment, it did not create any vested right in the candidates called for interviews, regardless of the fact that the selection process had reached an advanced stage and was arrested by canceling the earlier notifications by another notification. For easy reference, paragraph 10 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- 10. Assuming (without deciding) that the withdrawal of the earlier notifications by the subsequent notification dated December 30, 1991 docs not, stricto sensu, attract the provision of Section 19 extracted above, counsel for the appellants overlooks the fact that since the appellants have no legal right to insist on their selection and appointment to the vacant posts in question, the mode of arresting the process recedes in the background as the State Government could have informed the HPSC not to proceed with the selection process as it desired to revise the norm for appointment. Once it is realised that merely because the State Government had sent a requisition to the HPSC to select candidates for appointment did not create any vested right in the candidates called for interviews, regardless of the fact that the selection process had reached an advanced stage, it docs not matter whether the selection process is arrested by cancelling the earlier notifications by another notification or by a mere communication addressed to the HPSC. Even if the HPSC were to complete the process and select candidates, such selection by itself would not confer a right to appointment and the Government may refuse to make the appointment for valid reasons. At best the Government may be required to justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the present case the pleadings do not show that the subsequent notification dated December 30, 1991 is specifically put in issue in the memo of appeal nor is there material placed on record to so hold. Besides, the proviso to rule 5 requires the method for recruitment to be specified by notification after consultation with the HPSC. The consultation with the HPSC has to be in regard to the positive act of specifying the method for recruitment and not in regard to the decision whether or not to resort to special recruitment. The proviso enables the making of special recruitment but the method of such recruitment has to be specified by notification. It is, therefore, obvious that even after the State Government has decided to resort to special recruitment, it may for valid reasons change its mind and one of the reasons could be that it desires to revise the extant eligibility criteria or substitute the same. This can be communicated to the HPSC for arresting the selection process which need not be done by a notification nor does it require consultation with the HPSC. Prior consultation with the HPSC is required before the issuance of a notification specifying the method of recruitment which was done when the notification of March 9, 1992, was issued. Therefore, counsel's submission that if Section 19 applied, the notification of December 30, 1991 would be rendered invalid for want of prior consultation on the thrust of the words 'in the like manner' employed therein, is clearly misconceived. Even if Section 19 does not apply, stricto sensu, we see no reason to hold that a State Government which has the power to specify the method of special recruitment by notification has no inherent power to revise the same if it for good reasons considers the same necessary. To so hold would mean that even if the State Government has committed a mistake it has no power to rectify or correct the same. The authority which has power to specify the method of recruitment must be deemed to have the power to revise and substitute the same in the same manner. On the analogy of Section 19 such an inherent power always exists in the authority to alter, vary, change or replace its creation.
22. In S. Prakashs case (supra), the Apex Court viewed that the Government can accept the advice of the Public Service Commission and make changes in the qualifications, method of appointment, age or other conditions of recruitment introduced after issuance of the notification for selection. In the said case, it was also viewed that selection process is not over till the list of selected candidates was published by the Public Service Commission. Paragraph 20 of the said judgment reads thus: 20. From the aforesaid G.O., it is clear that during the selection process, Government had accepted the advice of the Public Service Commission that the changes in the qualifications, method of appointment, age or other conditions of recruitment introduced after the issue of notification for selection to the post by the Public Service Commission will be given effect to in future selections only with an exception as mentioned therein. As stated earlier, in the present case selection process was not over till the list of selected candidates was published by the Public Service Commission on 13th May, 1995 and the impugned Note (3) does not change qualifications, method of appointment, age or other conditions of recruitment. It only fills up the lacuna or clarifies the ambiguity prevailing for computation of ratio or percentage for appointment by direct recruitment and by transfer. Because of the aforesaid factual position, in our view, it is not necessary to discuss judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents. However, we would refer to one decision rendered by this Court in Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs. Chanan Ram and Another [(1998) 4 SCC 202] wherein after considering the decision in the P.Ganeshwar Rao vs. State of Andhra Pradesh [(1998) Supp SCC 740], this Court held that if the recruitment rules underwent amendment prior to actual filling up of the advertised posts, the amended rules would apply. The Court also referred to a three-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Jai Singh Dalal vs. State of Haryana [1993 Supp (2) SCC 600] wherein it has been held that when the special process of recruitment had not been finalised and culminated into select list, the candidate did not have any right to appointment and that recruitment process could be stopped by the Government at any time before a candidate has been appointed and as the candidate has no vested right to get the process completed except that the Government could be required to justify its action on the touchstone of Article 14.
23. Also in Ashok Kumar Dangis case (supra), it could be held thus: 26. It is in the present appeals the writ petitioners, for the first time, have attempted to contend that amendment to Rule 2(b)(iii) made on 6th March, 2003, which inter alia provided that candidates having C.P.Ed or Dip.P.Ed shall be eligible for Physical Trained Teachers only cannot be applied retrospectively and their cases shall be governed by the un-amended Rules. It has been pointed out that the amendment has not been made with retrospective effect. We are not inclined to go into this question in the present appeal for the reason that in the light of the amendment in the Rules, Commission issued corrigendum and confined the candidature of persons holding qualification of C.P.Ed. or Dip. P.Ed., like the writ petitioners, to the posts of Physical Trained Teachers only. It conducted the examination on that basis and the writ petitioners without making any challenge to the same, participated in the selection process and appeared in the examination without any murmur. It is only after the result was published and their candidature not considered against the entire vacancy of the Primary School Teachers that they have chosen to file the writ petition with the relief aforesaid. Any direction to consider the candidature of the writ petitioners against the entire vacancy of Primary School Teachers would unsettle settled matter and shall result into chain reaction, affecting the appointment of a large number of persons.
24. In view of the above, we are unable to interfere with the application of the amended Rules to the selection set in motion vide notice dated 16.3.2013 and corrigendum dated 9.4.2013.
25. The third question arises to be determined is whether the Recruitment Rules amended can be applied to the vacancies already in existence. The controversy is no longer res integra in Deepak Agarwals case (supra). Honble the Apex Court viewed that the Government can always take a conscious decision to not fill up the posts as per the existing rules and apply the amended Rules to the available vacancies. Paragraphs 28 and 29 read as under:- 28. In our opinion, the matter is squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. K. Ramulu (supra). In the aforesaid case, this Court considered all the judgments cited by the learned senior counsel for the appellant and held that Y.V. Rangaiah's case (supra) would not be applicable in the facts and circumstances of that case. It was observed that for reasons germane to the decision, the Government is entitled to take a decision not to fill up the existing vacancies as on the relevant date. It was also held that when the Government takes a conscious decision and amends the Rules, the promotions have to be made in accordance with the rules prevalent at the time when the consideration takes place.
29. The High Court has noticed that the post of Technical Officers and statistical Officers have been deleted from the feeder cadre for promotion to the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner for valid reasons. The Government was of the opinion that the Technical Officers and Statistical Officers were not suitable to be promoted on the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner, which involved multifarious administrative responsibilities. The experience gained by the officials working on the post of Technical Officer and Statistical Officer was of no relevance for the duties to be performed on the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner. Consequently, a conscious decision was taken to abolish the feeder cadre consisting of Technical Officers and Statistical Officers for promotion to the post of Deputy Excise Commissioner. The Division Bench, therefore, correctly applied the ratio laid down in Dr. K. Ramulu's case (supra) wherein this Court reiterated the ratio in Union of India Vs. K.V Vijeesh that for reasons germane to the decision, the Government is entitled to take a decision not to fill up the existing vacancies on the relevant date.
26. In Raghuveer Singh Yadavs case (supra), it could be held thus: 4. For recruitment to the posts of Inspectors, Department of Weights and Measures in the State of M.P, an advertisement was issued on 27-7-1987 calling for applications from eligible candidates. The qualification prescribed for eligibility was degree in Arts or Commerce or Science or Engineering or Diploma in Engineering. It would appear that written examinations were held and results were declared on 26-8-1989. Thereafter, the Board issued interview cards to the successful candidates. In the meanwhile, the Government amended the rules by M.P. Standard of Weights and Measurement (Enforcement) Rules, 1989 in consultation with Government of India and Public Service Commission and altered the eligibility qualification for appointment to those posts by presenting degree in Science with Physics as a subject or Degree in Engineering or Technology or Diploma in Engineering. The respondents challenged the amended rules on the ground that having issued the notification for filling up the posts of Inspectors with Degree of Arts and Commerce the State had to proceed with the recruitment only as per the qualification prescribed in the notification and the subsequent amendment to the rules should not stand in the way of the Recruitment Board to consider the claims on the basis of marks secured in the examination and also interview to be held. In other words the amended rules have no retrospective operation. This contention found favour with the Tribunal and accordingly the Tribunal allowed the application.
5. It is not in dispute that Statutory Rules have been made introducing Degree in Science or Engineering or Diploma in Technology as qualifications for recruitment to the posts of Inspector of Weights and Measures. It is settled law that the State has got power to prescribe qualifications for recruitment. Here is a case that pursuant to amended Rules, the Government has withdrawn the earlier notification and wants to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It is not a case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered of their claims according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules have only prospective operation. The Government is entitled to conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously no candidate acquired any vested right against the State. Therefore, the State is entitled to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified recruitment and to issue fresh notification in that regard on the basis of the amended Rules.
6. The ratio in P Mahendran v. State of Karnataka1 has no application to the facts in this case. In that case, for the posts of Motor Vehicles Inspector, apart from the qualifications prescribed, they issued additional qualifications and selection was sought to be made on the basis of additional qualifications. It was held that since recruitment was sought to be made on the basis of the qualifications prescribed, the additional qualifications prescribed thereafter have no retrospective effect to the recruitment already set in motion. Under those circumstances, additional qualifications were directed not to be taken into account for considering the claims of the candidates on the basis of the original advertisement. The ratio therein is clearly inapplicable to the facts in this case.
7. The appeal is accordingly allowed but in the circumstances without costs. The State is directed to issue fresh notification within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of this order for recruitment in accordance with the amended Rules.
27. In the present cases, on 16.10.2012, the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India conveyed approval of the President of India for creation of 500 new posts of Sub Inspector (Executive) (Male) in Delhi Police and after calculation, on 14.12.2012, 330 vacancies of Sub Inspector (Executive) (Male) were conveyed to SSC for direct recruitment on the basis of Examination 2013. When on 19.12.2012 the Under Secretary (P&P-II), SSC informed that the SSC has decided that the recruitment to the post will be a part of SI in CAPF Examination 2013 to be conducted by the Commission during the year 2013, the Delhi Police on 2.1.2013 asked SSC to clarify whether it follow all the eligibility conditions adopted by it in the ongoing recruitment, i.e., Examination 2012 with regard to age, educational qualification, physical/medical standards and relaxations, etc. as prescribed in the SO 321/2011 and Rule 7 of the Rules 1980. In such circumstances, the meeting convened by the SSC on 20.2.2013 was attended by the Union Home Secretary, Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Joint Commissioner of Police, Delhi (headquarters). In the meeting it was decided to align the Recruitment Rules for the post of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police, including physical standards, PET, etc., necessary for inclusion of the post in the ensuing SI in CAPFs etc. Examination 2013. It was also emphasized that the MHA and Delhi Police would take immediate decision in the matter so that recruitment / examination notice of Sub Inspector in Delhi Police, IO in NCB and SI/ASI in CAPFs Examination 2013 could be published by 16.3.2013. On 21.2.2013 a further meeting was held under the Chairmanship of Union Home Secretary and attended by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Joint Commissioner of Police, Delhi (headquarters) wherein it was decided that the Delhi Police might follow same requirement as was prescribed for SI in CAPFs, thus proposal was sent to the Lt. Governor, Delhi for amending Rules 7 and 27 (A) of the Rules 1980. Accordingly, Rules were finally amended on 13.3.2013. On the basis of amended Rules, a fresh standing order was issued on 14.3.2013. It was thereafter only that the notice of examination was issued on 16.3.2013. When the selection process was set in motion as per the un-amended Rules, the SSC was requested to rectify the discrepancy in the notice, thus it was not so that the vacancies were available since long. The same were created on 16.10.2012 and were circulated on 14.12.2012. With creation of vacancies itself, a conscious decision was taken to amend the Rules and to fill up the said vacancies as per the amended Rules. Similarly, on 21.3.2013, the MHA (Govt. of India) conveyed approval for the creation of 306 posts of Women Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police and on 25.3.2013 itself, to align the recruitment of Women Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police with that of Sub Inspector in CAPFs, a proposal was sent to Lt. Governor, Delhi for amendment in Rule 14 a) of the Rules 1980. On 26.3.2013, 155 vacancies of Women Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police were conveyed along with discrepancies noticed in the advertisement / notice dated 16.3.2013 published by the Commission. On 3.4.2013, the amendment in Rule 14 (A) of the Rules 1980 was notified and on the basis of the amended Rules, a corrigendum dated 9.4.2013 making amendment in the notice dated 16.3.2013 incorporating the vacancies of Women Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police and rectifying the discrepancies in view of the amendment in the Recruitment Rules / standing orders was issued. Thus, apparently, a conscious decision was taken to fill up the new created posts in accordance with the amended Rules.
28. In the circumstances, we are of the view that there is no infirmity in the present cases in applying the amended Rules to the vacancies created on 16.10.2012 and 26.3.2013.
29. Learned counsel for applicants also argued that the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police is a Group C post while the same in CAPF is a Group B post, thus the posts cannot be expected to be in pari materia. Though we do not find force in such argument, as it is not unusual that by way of a common examination, the posts in different categories can be filled up, but there should have been due application of mind by the decision making machinery to the said fact before amending the Rules merely to align the selection process for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) (Male/Female) in Delhi Police with CAPF. Even in the present cases also, for the posts of Sub Inspector / Assistant Sub Inspector in CISF common examination was notified.
30. Section 147 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 provides for the power of the Administrator to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. In exercise of such power, the Administrator made the Delhi Punishment (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980. The amendment in Rules 7, 14 and 27 (A) of the said Rules notified on 13.3.2013 and 3.4.2013 is also made by the Lt. Governor, Delhi by following the due process, noticed hereinabove. We do not find violation of Section 147 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 in amendment of the Recruitment Rules by the Lt. Governor of Delhi after the process was initiated in a meeting chaired by the Union Home Secretary and attended by the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and Joint Commissioner of Police, Delhi (headquarters), thus the contention advanced by learned counsel for applicants regarding violation of Section 147 is turned down. However, we find that when even the Rules so amended provide that the Constables, Head Constables and Assistant Sub Inspectors enlisted in Delhi Police are eligible for recruitment as Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police, it is not understood that how the Head Constable and Assistant Sub Inspector (Executive) can be eligible with the maximum age limit being 30 for general category, 33 years for OBC and 35 for SC/ST categories, as the posts are filled up by promotion or through departmental test. For a moment the Head Constable may sometimes be eligible but the chance of consideration of Assistant Sub Inspector against departmental quota with reduction in relaxed age limit appears to be completely closed. We are conscious that the consideration for promotion in a particular category cannot be considered as vested right and closure of right for such consideration can be no ground to interfere with the Recruitment Rules but the Committee, which viewed that the Recruitment Rules could be amended, ought to have been conscious about such skewed position could arise in the Recruitment Rules after amendment. Once after due application of mind the Committee still feels that the amendment is justified, obviously it is for the Executive to take a final view.
31. Though Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counsel has given a list of different feeder categories, which are eligible against departmental quota for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police, but the categories do not include the Head Constables and Assistant Sub Inspectors (Executive). There is also no material available on record to show that while amending the rules, the concerned Committee could take into account the G.I., Department of Personnel & Training, O.M. No.15012/1/88-Estt. (D) dated 20.5.1988 and 30.1.1990 (Annexure A-5) and the amendment carried in Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 vide notification No.F.3/58/95-H (P)/5099 dated 1.9.1998, which reads as under:- Govt. of NCT of Delhis Notification No.F/3/58/95-H (P)/5099 dated 1.9.1998 from Dy. Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the Addl. C.P. (HQ), Delhi etc. etc. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-Section (1) & (2) of Section 147 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978, the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to make the following rules, further to amend the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, namely:-
1. Short title and commencement 1. (1) Those rules may be called the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules-1998 (2) They shall come into force with effect from the date of their publication in the Delhi Gazette.
2. Amendment of Rule 27-A 2. In the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, for rule 27-A, the following shall be substituted, namely:- 27-A Relaxation of Upper age limit for departmental candidates. . Relaxation of upper age limit of all departmental candidates for direct recruitment against Group C and D posts of Police Department shall be as follows:-
40 years in the case of general category candidates and 45 years in the case of candidates belonging to scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes.
32. Besides, we are unable to appreciate that how in the absence of the amendment in Rule 8 of Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, the relaxed age standard available to sports persons could be done away, thus we are of the considered view that these aspects need to be taken into account by the concerned Committee.
33. In view of the aforementioned, we dispose of the present Original Applications with the following directions: The Committee, which made final decision on 21.2.2013, to follow the same requirement for the recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police as followed in Central Armed Police Forces Examination 2013 would reexamine the impugned amendment in the Recruitment Rules for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police, keeping in view the chances of Head Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police to participate in the selection are reduced to minimal and the Assistant Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police are virtually debarred from participating in selection against 10% quota, though kept eligible for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police against said quota; by way of reduction in age relaxation, the field of choice is reduced drastically; once for Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector in Central Armed Police Forces there can be common examination, how for the other posts to be filled up by following different Recruitment Rules, there cannot be the common examination; when there is no amendment in Rule 5 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, how the age relaxation admissible to sports persons in the matter of promotion to the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police under departmental quota / direct recruitment is done away with; whether the alignment of the examination for direct recruitment / departmental examination in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces can be a sufficient ground to amend the Recruitment Rules; and when before amendment in the Rules the Committee kept in view that the post at Sub Inspector in CAPF is Group B post, while the same in Delhi Police is Group C post. The examination would be completed within 12 weeks and follow up action, if any required, would be taken within further four weeks thereafter. In the meantime, the appointment, if any made on the basis of selection set in motion vide notice dated 16.3.2013 corrected vide corrigendum dated 9.4.2013 would remain subject to outcome of the aforesaid examination. No costs. Let a copy of this order be placed in each case file. ( A.K. Bhardwaj ) ( Sudhir Kumar ) Member (J) Member (A) /sunil/