Supreme Court Upholds Changes to Delhi Police Recruitment Rules: Subodh Kumar vs. Commissioner of Police (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 17 March 2020

Citation: 2020 INSC 270

Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.

Can changes to recruitment rules that reduce the age limit for departmental candidates be considered arbitrary and discriminatory? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a case concerning the Delhi Police recruitment rules. The core issue was whether amendments to the rules, which altered the eligibility criteria for serving police personnel seeking to become Sub-Inspectors, were valid. The Court examined if these changes violated the principles of equality and fairness enshrined in the Constitution.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J., with the opinion authored by Ajay Rastogi, J.

Case Background

The appellants, who were constables and head constables in the Delhi Police (some of whom were later promoted to Assistant Sub-Inspectors), challenged amendments made to the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980. These amendments, notified on 13th March, 2013, altered the eligibility criteria for serving personnel seeking to fill 10% of the 50% quota reserved for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive)-Male. The appellants argued that the amendments were arbitrary and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Specifically, the amendments reduced the upper age limit for departmental candidates from 40 years to 30 years for general candidates, and similarly for OBC and SC/ST categories, effectively excluding many serving personnel from consideration.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The appellants initially challenged the amendments before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed their application, stating it could not interfere with amendments made by the executive unless they were unconstitutional or shockingly arbitrary. The Tribunal noted that the amendments were notified before the advertisement for recruitment was published. The Tribunal also directed the Delhi Administration to refer the matter to a committee to re-examine the amendments, but the committee upheld the changes. The appellants then appealed to the High Court, which also dismissed their challenge.

Legal Framework

The case revolves around the interpretation and application of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980, specifically Rule 7 and Rule 27A.

Prior to the amendment on 13th March, 2013, Rule 7 stated:

“7. Recruitment of Sub-Inspectors (Executives) .
– Fifty per cent of vacancies in the rank of Sub-
Inspector (Executive) shall be filled by direct
recruitment and 50% by promotion out of 50% direct
quota, 10% of the post shall be filled by limited
department competitive tests from amongst
constables, Head Constable, and Asstt. Sub-
Inspectors with minimum 5 years of service who shall
not be more than 35 years (40 years of Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes 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 July of the year if the examination is held in the
later half of the year. The educational qualifications
and other physical standards for the test shall be the
same as prescribed in the Rules for direct
recruitment to such posts. The unfilled vacancies
reserved for the department candidates will be
carried forward for 3 recruitment years as in the case
of vacancies for the scheduled tribe candidates
whether the unfilled vacancies will be filled by direct
recruitment.”

Rule 27A, before the amendment, stated:

“27-A. Relaxation of upper age limit for
departmental candidate – 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 candidate and 45
years in the case of candidates belonging to
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Candidates.”

After the amendment on 13th March, 2013, Rule 7 was modified to:

“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 of 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
recruitments to such posts.”

Rule 27A, after the amendment, stated:

“27-A. Relaxation of upper age limit for all
departmental candidates: Relaxation of upper age
limit of all departmental candidates for direct
recruitment against Group C and Multi T asking 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/Scheduled
Tribes.”

The amendments made four key changes:
✓ The term “Limited Departmental Competitive Test” (LDCE) was removed.
✓ “Other requirements” as prescribed for direct recruits were to be fulfilled by serving personnel.
✓ Qualifying service was reduced from 5 years to 3 years.
✓ The upper age limit was reduced to 30 years for general candidates, 33 for OBC, and 35 for SC/ST candidates.

These rules are framed under the powers conferred by the Constitution of India, specifically concerning the conditions of service for police personnel. The amendments must align with the principles of equality and non-discrimination as mandated by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the amendments were arbitrary and unworkable. They contended that by the time a serving constable or head constable is promoted to Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI), they would likely be over 30 years of age, making it nearly impossible for them to participate in the 10% quota for departmental candidates.

• They argued that the amended rules indirectly eliminate serving Head Constables/ASIs from competing for the 10% quota, violating Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

• The appellants argued that the High Court erred in holding that the amended rules provide equal opportunity to in-service candidates. They pointed out that the upper age limit for open market candidates is 25 years, whereas for in-service candidates, it is 30 years, making it impossible for serving personnel to compete before the age of 25.

• The appellants argued that the amendment, by reducing the age limit, is irrational and has no nexus with the object of attracting meritorious persons from the ranks of Constable, Head Constable and ASI’s to shoulder higher responsibilities.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the 10% quota for departmental candidates is not a fast-track promotion. They stated that serving personnel have a separate 50% quota for promotion in their respective channels.

• The respondents contended that the 10% quota is part of the 50% direct recruitment quota and that serving personnel must meet the same standards as open market candidates.

• The respondents argued that the modified upper age limit has a reasonable nexus with the need for young officers at the Sub-Inspector level. They also stated that the changes were made to align with the recruitment policy of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF) and to ensure pan-India representation in the Delhi Police.

• The respondents emphasized that setting eligibility qualifications, including age limits, is a matter for the employer and not for the courts. They argued that the amendments serve a public purpose and are not open to judicial interference.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue that the Court addressed was:

1. Whether the amendments to Rule 7 and Rule 27A of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980, reducing the upper age limit for departmental candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive)-Male, are arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. However, it referred to the following legal principles:

• The principle that prescribing age limits for a post and deciding the extent of relaxation are matters of policy.

• The principle that a candidate has a right to be considered under the existing rules, which implies the ‘rule in force’ on the date the consideration took place.

• The principle that it is always open for the Government or the appointing authority while framing rules, to prescribe such age limits or to prescribe the extent to which any relaxation can be given.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court interpreted and applied the provisions of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980* as amended, specifically Rule 7 and Rule 27A, to assess the validity of the amendments.
• The Court examined the amendments against the principles of equality and non-discrimination as mandated by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India*, and found no violation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that prescribing age limits and deciding the extent of relaxation are matters of policy. The Court emphasized that the government or the appointing authority has the right to set such limits and that these decisions should not be interfered with unless they are arbitrary or unreasonable. The Court also considered the need for younger officers at the Sub-Inspector level and the objective of aligning the Delhi Police recruitment policy with that of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF).

The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The Court considered the following points:

• The Court emphasized that the prescription of age limits and the extent of relaxation are essentially matters of policy. It stated, “It is always open for the Government or the appointing authority while framing rules, to prescribe such age limits or to prescribe the extent to which any relaxation can be given.”

• The Court noted that the amendments were made to bring in younger officers at the Sub-Inspector level, which is a valid objective. The Court observed, “the upper age limit which has been modified relating to the departmental candidates has a reasonable nexus and pre-existing upper age limit would lead to shortage of young officers at the level of Sub-Inspectors which is dire need of the day…”

• The Court also considered that the amendments were made to align with the recruitment policies of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPF). This alignment was seen as a valid objective by the Court.

• The Court clarified that the 10% quota for departmental candidates is not a fast-track promotion but rather a part of the direct recruitment process, and that serving personnel must meet the same standards as open market candidates. The court stated, “while giving due opportunity to the in-service candidates for participating against 10% out of the 50% quota reserved for direct recruitment to compete in the self-same selection process on the same standards and yardsticks…”

• The Court concluded that the amendments, while reducing the chances of some serving personnel, were not arbitrary or unreasonable. It held, “Just because the amendment under notification dated 13th March, 2013 has curtailed the chances of the appellants to take part in the selection process, it cannot lead to an inference that the rule is arbitrary or unreasonable as prayed for.”

There were no minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

✓ Prescribing age limits and deciding the extent of relaxation in recruitment rules are matters of policy and the prerogative of the employer.

✓ Courts should not interfere with such policy decisions unless they are found to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

✓ Amendments to recruitment rules can be made to align with broader policy objectives, such as bringing in younger officers or aligning with other forces’ recruitment policies.

✓ Serving personnel seeking direct recruitment must meet the same standards as open market candidates, with some relaxation in age limits.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the government or the appointing authority has the right to prescribe age limits and relaxation for recruitment, and such decisions are matters of policy that should not be interfered with by the courts unless they are arbitrary or unreasonable. This judgment reinforces the principle that employers have the autonomy to set eligibility criteria for recruitment, provided these criteria are not discriminatory or irrational. There was no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s decision and affirming the validity of the amendments made to the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980. The Court held that the amendments, which reduced the upper age limit for departmental candidates, were not arbitrary or unconstitutional. The Court emphasized that setting age limits is a matter of policy and that the amendments were made to bring in younger officers and align with the recruitment policies of the Central Armed Police Forces.