Rajesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 February, 2021


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Rajesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 February, 2021

Author: L. Nageswara Rao

Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, S. Ravindra Bhat

                                                 Non-Reportable
         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
          CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

               Civil Appeal No.325 of 2021

Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors.
                                             .... Appellant(s)
                           Versus

The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
                                          …. Respondent (s)

                      JUDGMENT

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. The Appellants were initially appointed as Constables in

the State of Uttar Pradesh. Pursuant to an advertisement

issued for filling up the posts of Constable Drivers, the

Appellants participated in the selection test. They were

selected and on completion of training they were appointed

as Constable Drivers. Seniority list of Constable Drivers was

prepared on 14.05.2015. In supersession of Government

orders, the State Government in exercise of the power under

Section 2 read with Section 46 (11) of the Police Act, 1861

framed Uttar Pradesh Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate

Officers Service Rules, 2015 (hereinafter, ‘the 2015 Rules’) to

govern the selection, promotion, training, appointment, merit

etc. and other conditions of service of the Motor Transport

1 | Page
Unit of the Police Department. Posts of Inspector, Motor

Transport, Sub-Inspector, Motor Transport, Head Constable,

Motor Transport, Constable Driver and Head Constable Driver

constitute the cadre of Motor Transport Subordinate Service.

The post of Head Constable Driver Motor Transport according

to the 2015 Rules, shall be filled up by selection from

amongst Head Constables Drivers and Constable Drivers.

Aggrieved by the Rules introducing the selection for

appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport,

the Appellants filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of

judicature at Allahabad. By a judgment dated 24.10.2017,

the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Dissatisfied with

the judgment of the High Court, the Appellants are before

this Court.

2. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for

the Appellant submitted that the vertical mobility of

Constable Drivers is by promotion as Head Constable Motor

Transport and thereafter, Sub-Inspector and Inspector Motor

Transport on the basis of seniority. The Appellants who were

initially recruited as police Constables went through a

selection process for being appointed as Constable Drivers.

Introduction of another selection process for the purpose of

2 | Page
being appointed as Head Constable Motor Transport by

making Constable Drivers and Head Constable Drivers

eligible for consideration is arbitrary and violative of Article

14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the

Appellants have been stagnating in the post of Constable

Drivers for a long period of time.

3. Ms. Garima Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent State of Uttar Pradesh 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. She

contended that a Constable has to go through a process of

selection to become a Constable Driver. To address the

stagnation of the Constable Driver, several posts of Head

Constable Drivers have been created. However, for being

appointed to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport,

Constable Drivers and Head Constable Drivers who are

eligible to be considered are required to go through a process

of selection. Thereafter, they will be entitled to be

considered for promotion as Sub-Inspector Motor Transport

and Inspector Motor Transport on the basis of seniority. She

argued that there are 12,000 posts of Constable Drivers at

3 | Page
present. 2498 posts of Head Constable Drivers have been

created to which Constable Drivers are eligible for promotion

on the basis of seniority. There are only 283 posts of Head

Constables Motor Transport which is a highly technical post

which can be filled up by selection from Constable Drivers

and Head Constable Drivers. To address the concern of the

Head Constable Drivers and Constable Drivers who are not

appointed to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport that

there are no avenues for promotion, there is a proposal to

create 1000 posts of Sub-Inspector Drivers. Head Constable

Drivers shall be entitled to be promoted to the post of Sub-

Inspector Drivers.

4. The 2015 Rules has a cadre consisting of 9126

Constable Drivers, 1098 Head Constable Drivers, 283 Head

Constable Motor Transport, 99 Sub-Inspector Motor Transport

and 9 Inspector Motor Transport. Rule 5 (c) which has been

challenged by the Appellants in the Writ Petition provides for

appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport

by selection from amongst Constable Drivers and Head

Constable Drivers as per the procedure prescribed in

appendix to the Rules. Rule 10 prescribes the procedure for

selection and appointment to the post of Head Constable

4 | Page
Motor Transport which is also assailed in the Writ Petition.

The main grievance of the Appellants is that they have

already undergone a selection process for their lateral

movement as Constable Drivers. It is impermissible to make

them to go through yet another selection process for

appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport.

According to the Appellants, all Constable Drivers should be

eligible to be promoted either as Head Constable Drivers or

as Head Constable Motor Transport on the basis of seniority

without going through any selection process. Referring to

the appendix to the Rules, the Appellants submitted that

there is nothing highly technical about the post of Head

Constable Motor Transport.

5. It is clear from the structure of the cadre that there are

only 283 posts of Head Constable Motor Transport which

according to the Government is a highly technical post.

Though the said post carries the same pay scale as Head

Constable Drivers, lateral movement as Head Constable

Motor Transport would provide an opportunity of vertical

mobility as Sub-Inspector Motor Transport and Inspector

Motor Transport. Addressing the concerns of Drivers, 1098

posts of Head Constable Drivers have been created and there

5 | Page
is a proposal to create 1000 posts of Sub-Inspector Drivers.

The posts of Head Constable Drivers and Sub-Inspector

Drivers are filled up by promotion on the basis of seniority.

6. Rule 5 and 10 of the 2015 Rules are primarily

challenged on the ground that the Appellants are forced to

undergo a selection process for appointment to the post of

Head Constable Motor Transport. The selection process is

mandated due to the posts of Head Constable Motor

Transport being highly technical. The Rules are neither

discriminatory nor arbitrary. Constable Drivers can be

promoted on the basis of seniority to Head Constable Drivers.

If they desire to be appointed as Head Constable Motor

Transport, then they have to go through selection process.

No interference with the judgment of the High Court is

warranted.

7. The judgment of the High Court is upheld and the

Appeal is, accordingly dismissed.

…………………………J.

[L. NAGESWARA RAO]

..…………..…………..J.

[INDIRA BANERJEE]

New Delhi,
February 18, 2021.

6 | Page



Source link