Supreme Court Upholds Haryana Police Promotion Rules: Eight Years’ Experience Required for Inspector Post

Date of the Judgment: 26 March 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 184

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a police officer be promoted to the rank of Inspector without sufficient experience? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning the Haryana Police. The core issue revolved around the interpretation of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, specifically regarding the eligibility criteria for promoting Sub-Inspectors to the rank of Inspector. The Court had to determine whether the requirement of eight years of service for promotion to the post of Inspector is still applicable even after the abolishment of selection grades in 1987.
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan and R. Subhash Reddy, delivered the judgment. Justice Ashok Bhushan authored the opinion for the bench.

Case Background

The case originated from a dispute regarding the promotion of Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors in the Haryana Police. Prior to 2001, all Sub-Inspector posts were filled through promotions. However, a 2001 amendment to the Punjab Police Rules allowed for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector, with a maximum of 50% of posts being filled this way. In 2003, the appellants were directly recruited as Sub-Inspectors. Subsequently, some other police officers were promoted to Sub-Inspectors from Assistant Sub-Inspectors between June 2003 and March 2004. These promoted Sub-Inspectors were then promoted to the rank of Inspector in 2008 and 2009. The directly recruited Sub-Inspectors filed a writ petition challenging these promotions, arguing that they were senior and should have been promoted first.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The directly recruited Sub-Inspectors filed a writ petition in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana challenging the promotion orders of the private respondents. The High Court framed two issues: (i) whether Rule 13.14(2) of the Punjab Police Rules prescribes the eligibility criteria for promotion to the post of Inspector, and (ii) if so, whether the condition of eight years’ experience is arbitrary and discriminatory. The High Court ruled that Rule 13.14(2) does prescribe the eligibility criteria and that the eight-year experience requirement is not arbitrary. The writ petition was dismissed, leading to the appeals in the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework governing this case is the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. Key provisions include:

• Rule 12.3: This rule, as amended in 2001, allows for direct recruitment of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors, with a maximum of 10% and 50% of posts respectively.
• Rule 13.1: This rule governs promotions from one rank to another and states that promotions shall be made by selection tempered by seniority. It emphasizes efficiency and honesty as main factors governing selection. It also mentions that specific qualifications, whether in the nature of training courses passed or practical experience, shall be carefully considered in each case.
• Rule 13.14: This rule deals with promotions to and in the selection grades of Sub-Inspectors. Sub-rule (2) states that a Sub-Inspector is not eligible for promotion to a selection grade unless they have at least eight years of approved service as an upper subordinate, with five years in the rank of Sub-Inspector. “No Sub-Inspector shall be considered eligible for promotion to a selection grade unless he has at least eight years’ approved service as an upper subordinate, of which at least five shall have been in the rank of Sub- Inspector…”
• Rule 13.15: This rule pertains to List F, which regulates promotion to the rank of Inspector. Sub-rule (4) states that Sub-Inspectors admitted to List ‘F’ will be placed according to their date of permanent promotion to selection grade. “Sub-Inspectors admitted to List ‘F’ will be placed in that list in order according to their date of permanent promotion to selection grade…”
• Rule 13.16: This rule governs the promotion to the rank of Inspector. Sub-rule (1) states that substantive vacancies in the rank of Inspector shall be filled by promotion of officers from list F.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that they were senior to the private respondents in the cadre of Sub-Inspector, as they were directly recruited before the respondents were promoted to Sub-Inspector.
• They contended that Rule 13.14, which the High Court relied on, was not applicable to promotions from Sub-Inspector to Inspector. They argued that Rule 13.14 is for promotion to the Selection Grade of Sub-Inspector.
• The appellants submitted that the applicable rules for promotion from Sub-Inspector to Inspector are Rules 13.1, 13.15, and 13.16 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
• They further argued that the selection criteria are contained in Rule 13.1 and Rule 13.15, and that Rule 13.15(4) deals with inter-se seniority, not eligibility.
• The appellants also referred to the Haryana Police (Non-Gazetted and Other Ranks) Service Rules, 2017, which require five years of service as Sub-Inspector for promotion to Inspector, to support their argument that the High Court’s interpretation of eight years was incorrect.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that the requirement for promotion to the rank of Inspector has always been eight years of service.
• They contended that this criteria has been followed since the establishment of Haryana in 1966, even after the abolishment of selection grades in 1987.
• The respondents submitted that a conjoined reading of Rule 13.14 and Rule 13.15(4) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, makes it clear that eight years of service is required for promotion to the post of Inspector.
• They argued that Rule 13.14 is an integral part of the scheme of the Rules governing promotion to the rank of Inspector, and without it, there cannot be any List F.
• The respondents stated that the selection grades are in the nature of a promotional scale, and therefore, the criteria provided for promotion to selection grade can be taken as criteria for further promotion.
• They also argued that the rationale of eight years of service for a Sub-Inspector is to ensure that they are capable of discharging the higher responsibility of an Inspector.

Submissions of the Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the mode and manner of promotion in selection grade from the rank of Sub-Inspector to Inspector as envisaged in Punjab Police Rules, 1934 has become redundant after the issuance of Government Order dated 29.04.1987 by the State of Haryana withdrawing the grant of selection grade to Group A, B, and C employees?
2. Whether Rule 13.14 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which contemplates promotion to the various selection grades, cannot be looked into while considering the promotion of a Sub-Inspector to the rank of Inspector, and whether the requirement of having at least eight years’ approved service as an upper subordinate is no longer attracted for the promotion of direct recruits Sub-Inspector?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

The Supreme Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Punjab Police Rules, 1934: The entire framework of the case was based on the interpretation of these rules, specifically Rules 12.3, 13.1, 13.14, 13.15 and 13.16.
• Government Order dated 29.04.1987: This order discontinued the system of selection grades for Groups B, C, and D employees in Haryana.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• State of Gujarat and Another vs. Justice R.A. Mehta (Retired) and Others, (2013) 3 SCC 1: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that statutory rules should be interpreted in a way that gives effect to the intention or object of the rule, and not in a way that makes the rule ineffective.

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the High Court did not commit any error in construing the Rules. The Court held that Chapter XIII of the Rules have to be conjointly and harmoniously construed. It agreed with the High Court’s interpretation that the State was correct in promoting Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors who have eight years’ approved service to their credit, at least five years being as Sub-Inspectors. The appeals were dismissed.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to give effect to the intention and object of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. The Court emphasized that the rules should be interpreted in a way that makes them workable and effective. The Court noted that even though the selection grade system was abolished in 1987, the criteria for promotion to the selection grade, which included eight years of service, was still relevant for promotion to the next rank. The Court reasoned that the requirement of experience was necessary for the post of Inspector, who has to discharge important functions. The Court also considered the fact that the State had consistently followed this interpretation of the rules in its promotion practices.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court upheld the requirement of eight years of approved service for promotion from Sub-Inspector to Inspector in the Haryana Police.
• The Court emphasized that statutory rules should be interpreted in a way that gives effect to their intention and object.
• The abolishment of selection grades does not render the criteria for promotion to those grades irrelevant when considering promotions to higher ranks.
• The Court’s decision ensures that only experienced officers are promoted to the rank of Inspector, maintaining the efficiency and integrity of the police force.

Directions

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

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that even after the abolishment of the selection grade system, the criteria for promotion to those grades, such as the requirement of eight years of service, remains relevant for promotion to higher ranks. This judgment clarifies that the intention and object of the rules should be given effect, and that a practical and workable interpretation should be adopted. This ruling reinforces the importance of experience in promotions within the police force.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Suresh Kumar vs. The State of Haryana & Ors. upholds the Haryana Police’s practice of requiring eight years of service for promotion from Sub-Inspector to Inspector. The Court emphasized the importance of interpreting statutory rules in a manner that gives effect to their purpose and intent. This judgment ensures that promotions within the police force are based not only on seniority but also on the experience necessary to handle the responsibilities of higher ranks.