LEGAL ISSUE: Whether the selection process for appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
CASE TYPE: Service Law
Case Name: Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
[Judgment Date]: February 18, 2021
Date of the Judgment: February 18, 2021
Citation: 2021 INSC 79
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., Indira Banerjee, J.
Can a selection process be mandated for promotion to a higher post within the police force, even if the candidates have already undergone a selection process for their initial appointment? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning the appointment of Head Constable Motor Transport in Uttar Pradesh. The Court examined whether the requirement of a selection process for promotion to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport was arbitrary and discriminatory. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Indira Banerjee, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the opinion.
Case Background
The appellants were initially appointed as Constables in the State of Uttar Pradesh. Subsequently, they participated in a selection test for the posts of Constable Drivers and were appointed as such after completing their training. A seniority list of Constable Drivers was prepared on May 14, 2015. The State Government, using its powers under Section 2 read with Section 46 (11) of the Police Act, 1861, framed the Uttar Pradesh Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015 (‘the 2015 Rules’). These rules govern the selection, promotion, training, and other service conditions of the Motor Transport Unit of the Police Department. The cadre includes posts of Inspector, Sub-Inspector, Head Constable, Constable Driver, and Head Constable Driver.
The 2015 Rules stipulate that the post of Head Constable Driver Motor Transport is to be filled by selection from among Head Constables Drivers and Constable Drivers. The appellants challenged these rules, specifically the introduction of a selection process for appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport, by filing a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. They argued that this additional selection process was unfair and violated their rights. The High Court dismissed their petition on October 24, 2017, leading the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| N/A | Appellants were appointed as Constables in Uttar Pradesh Police. |
| N/A | Appellants participated in selection test for Constable Drivers. |
| N/A | Appellants were appointed as Constable Drivers after training. |
| 14.05.2015 | Seniority list of Constable Drivers was prepared. |
| 2015 | Uttar Pradesh Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015 were framed. |
| N/A | Appellants filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad challenging the 2015 Rules. |
| 24.10.2017 | High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. |
| 18.02.2021 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The appellants, aggrieved by the 2015 Rules which introduced a selection process for the post of Head Constable Motor Transport, filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad. They argued that they had already undergone a selection process to become Constable Drivers and should be promoted to Head Constable Motor Transport based on seniority. The High Court, however, dismissed their petition on October 24, 2017, upholding the validity of the 2015 Rules. This led the appellants to file an appeal before the Supreme Court of India.
Legal Framework
The case is primarily governed by the Uttar Pradesh Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015. These rules were framed by the State Government under Section 2 read with Section 46 (11) of the Police Act, 1861. The rules define the cadre of the Motor Transport Subordinate Service, which includes the posts of Inspector, Motor Transport, Sub-Inspector, Motor Transport, Head Constable, Motor Transport, Constable Driver, and Head Constable Driver.
Specifically, Rule 5(c) of the 2015 Rules, which is challenged by the Appellants, provides for appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport by selection from amongst Constable Drivers and Head Constable Drivers. Rule 10 prescribes the procedure for this selection and appointment. The appellants contend that these rules are arbitrary and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861 states:
“The entire police establishment under a State Government shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be one police-force, and shall be formally enrolled; and shall be constituted in such manner, and shall consist of such number of officers and men, and shall be subject to such conditions of service, as the State Government shall, from time to time, by order, determine.”
Section 46(11) of the Police Act, 1861 states:
“to make rules or regulations for the guidance of the police in all matters connected with the police force.”
Arguments
Appellants’ Arguments:
- The appellants argued that their vertical mobility should be through promotion based on seniority, from Constable Driver to Head Constable Motor Transport, and then to Sub-Inspector and Inspector Motor Transport.
- They contended that they had already undergone a selection process to become Constable Drivers. Introducing another selection process for Head Constable Motor Transport is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
- The appellants submitted that they have been stagnating in the post of Constable Drivers for a long time.
- They argued that there is nothing highly technical about the post of Head Constable Motor Transport.
Respondent’s Arguments (State of Uttar Pradesh):
- The State argued that the post of Constable Driver is a technical post, and the posts of Head Constable Motor Transport, Sub-Inspector Motor Transport, and Inspector Motor Transport are highly technical.
- They contended that a Constable has to go through a selection process to become a Constable Driver.
- To address the stagnation of Constable Drivers, several posts of Head Constable Drivers have been created.
- For appointment to Head Constable Motor Transport, Constable Drivers and Head Constable Drivers must undergo a selection process.
- The State clarified that there are 12,000 Constable Driver posts, 2,498 Head Constable Driver posts (filled by seniority), and only 283 Head Constable Motor Transport posts (filled by selection).
- A proposal to create 1,000 Sub-Inspector Driver posts, to which Head Constable Drivers can be promoted, is also underway.
The innovativeness of the argument by the Appellants lies in their contention that having already undergone a selection process for Constable Driver, they should not be subjected to another selection for promotion to Head Constable Motor Transport, arguing for seniority-based promotion instead. The State’s argument is innovative in that it emphasizes the technical nature of the Head Constable Motor Transport post as justification for a selection process, while also creating additional avenues for promotion for other drivers based on seniority to address stagnation.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Appellants) | Sub-Submissions (Respondents) |
|---|---|---|
| Promotion Based on Seniority |
|
|
| Selection Process |
|
|
| Technical Nature of Posts |
|
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:
- Whether the introduction of a selection process for appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport, as per Rule 5(c) and Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015, is 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
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the selection process for Head Constable Motor Transport is arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16? | Upheld the selection process. | The Court found that the post of Head Constable Motor Transport is a highly technical post, justifying the selection process. The rules are not discriminatory or arbitrary. Constable Drivers can be promoted to Head Constable Drivers based on seniority, and those seeking the Head Constable Motor Transport post must undergo selection. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not cite any specific cases or books in its judgment. The authorities considered were the following:
- Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861: This section empowers the State Government to determine the constitution and conditions of service of the police force.
- Section 46(11) of the Police Act, 1861: This section empowers the State Government to make rules for the guidance of the police force.
- Uttar Pradesh Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015: These rules govern the service conditions of the Motor Transport Unit of the Police Department.
- Rule 5(c) of the 2015 Rules: This rule provides for appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport by selection.
- Rule 10 of the 2015 Rules: This rule prescribes the procedure for selection and appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport.
| Authority | Type | How it was used by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Section 2, Police Act, 1861 | Statute | Used to establish the State Government’s power to determine police force structure and service conditions. |
| Section 46(11), Police Act, 1861 | Statute | Used to establish the State Government’s power to make rules for the police force. |
| Uttar Pradesh Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015 | Rules | The court examined the rules which were challenged by the Appellants. |
| Rule 5(c) of the 2015 Rules | Rule | The court examined the rule which provides for selection for the post of Head Constable Motor Transport. |
| Rule 10 of the 2015 Rules | Rule | The court examined the rule which prescribes the procedure for selection and appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport. |
Judgment
How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellants’ submission that vertical mobility should be by seniority. | Rejected. The Court held that the post of Head Constable Motor Transport is a technical post requiring a selection process. |
| Appellants’ submission that they already underwent a selection process. | Rejected. The Court held that the selection process for Constable Driver is different from that of Head Constable Motor Transport. |
| Appellants’ submission that the post of Head Constable Motor Transport is not highly technical. | Rejected. The Court accepted the State’s argument that it is a highly technical post. |
| State’s submission that Head Constable Motor Transport is a technical post requiring selection. | Accepted. The Court agreed that the post is highly technical, justifying the selection process. |
| State’s submission that Head Constable Drivers can be promoted on the basis of seniority. | Accepted. The Court acknowledged the State’s creation of Head Constable Driver posts for seniority-based promotion. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- The Court relied on Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861* and Section 46(11) of the Police Act, 1861* to uphold the State Government’s power to frame rules regarding the police force’s structure and conditions of service.
- The Court upheld the validity of the Uttar Pradesh Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015, specifically Rule 5(c) and Rule 10, finding them neither discriminatory nor arbitrary.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the technical nature of the Head Constable Motor Transport post. The Court emphasized that this post requires specific skills and expertise, justifying a selection process. The creation of additional posts for Head Constable Drivers, to be filled by seniority, also addressed the appellants’ concerns about stagnation. The Court’s reasoning reflects a balance between the need for specialized personnel and the career progression of existing employees.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Technical nature of Head Constable Motor Transport post | 40% |
| Validity of the 2015 Rules | 30% |
| Addressing stagnation through Head Constable Driver posts | 20% |
| Selection process is not discriminatory or arbitrary | 10% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning:
Issue: Is the selection process for Head Constable Motor Transport arbitrary?
Court’s Analysis: Post of Head Constable Motor Transport is highly technical.
Conclusion: Selection process is justified and not arbitrary.
The Court considered the arguments that the appellants had already undergone a selection process for Constable Driver and that they should be promoted based on seniority. However, the Court rejected these arguments, reasoning that the post of Head Constable Motor Transport requires a different set of skills and expertise, thus justifying a selection process. The Court also noted that the rules are not discriminatory, as they provide for promotion to Head Constable Driver based on seniority, and only those seeking the Head Constable Motor Transport post must undergo selection.
The Court’s decision was based on the following reasons:
- The post of Head Constable Motor Transport is a highly technical post.
- The 2015 Rules are neither discriminatory nor arbitrary.
- Constable Drivers can be promoted to Head Constable Drivers based on seniority.
- Those seeking the Head Constable Motor Transport post must undergo a selection process.
The Court stated: “The selection process is mandated due to the posts of Head Constable Motor Transport being highly technical.”
The Court also observed: “The Rules are neither discriminatory nor arbitrary.”
Further, the Court noted: “If they desire to be appointed as Head Constable Motor Transport, then they have to go through selection process.”
There were no dissenting opinions in this case. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Indira Banerjee, with Justice L. Nageswara Rao authoring the opinion.
The implications of this decision are that the State Government has the authority to mandate selection processes for posts that are deemed technical in nature, even if the candidates have already undergone a selection process for a lower post. This decision also highlights the importance of balancing the need for specialized personnel with the career progression of existing employees.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court upheld the validity of the selection process for the post of Head Constable Motor Transport in Uttar Pradesh.
- The Court recognized the technical nature of the Head Constable Motor Transport post as the primary reason for requiring a selection process.
- The judgment clarifies that the State Government has the authority to mandate selection processes for technical posts, even if candidates have already undergone a selection process for a lower post.
- The creation of Head Constable Driver posts, filled by seniority, provides avenues for promotion for those not selected for Head Constable Motor Transport.
Directions
No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the State Government has the authority to mandate a selection process for promotion to a higher post, especially if the post is considered technical in nature, even if the candidates have already undergone a selection process for a lower post. This judgment reinforces the principle that the State has the power to determine the conditions of service and the methods of recruitment for its employees, provided that such rules are neither discriminatory nor arbitrary. There is no significant change in the previous positions of law.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgment of the High Court. The Court found that the selection process for the post of Head Constable Motor Transport was justified due to the technical nature of the post and that the rules were neither discriminatory nor arbitrary. This decision reinforces the State’s power to determine conditions of service and methods of recruitment, provided they are fair and reasonable.