NON-REPORTABLE    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).  2047 OF 2020            (ARISING OUT OF SLP(CIVIL) NO(S). 30192 OF 2017)

SUBODH KUMAR & ORS. ….APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE & ORS.       ….RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

Ajay Rastogi, J.

1. The  appellants  are  the  Constables/Head  Constables(Male)

serving  in  Delhi  Police  and  are  members  of  the  Delhi  Police

(Appointment  &  Recruitment)  Rules,  1980  (hereinafter  being

referred to as Rules, 1980).   Some of them later got promoted to

the  post  of  Assistant  Sub-Inspector  during  pendency  of  the

appeal.

1

2. The  grievance  of  the  appellants  is  that  the  amendments

which has been made under Rule 7 and Rule 27A of the Rules,

1980 vide notification dated 13th March, 2013 have deprived and

made them ineligible to participate against 10% out of the 50%

quota  reserved  for  direct  recruitment  to  be  filled  up  from the

serving  personnel(constables,  head  constables  and  ASI)  is

arbitrary and violative of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution.  

3. The controversy was raised in reference to the amendment

made under Rule 7 and Rule 27A of the Rules, 1980 against 10%

out of 50% quota reserved for direct recruitment to the post of

Sub-Inspectors  (Executive)-Male.   Indisputedly,  either  of  the

appellant was not eligible to participate in the selection process

which  was  initiated  by  the  respondents  pursuant  to  an

advertisement dated 16th March, 2013 followed with Corrigendum

dated 9th April, 2013 held for the post of Sub-Inspector(Executive)

but few of them were permitted to participate under the interim

order of the Tribunal.

4. Rule 7 and Rule 27A of the Rules, 1980 as in force prior to

the amendment dated 13th March, 2013 are as under:-

2

“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.

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.”

5. Rule 7 and Rule 27A of the Rules,  1980 post amendment

dated 13th March, 2013 are as under:-

“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-

3

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.

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 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/Scheduled Tribes.”

6. The amended rules had made four significant changes which

are referred to as under:-

(i)  The  words  “Limited  Departmental  Competitive Test”  (LDCE)  for  10%  reserved  posts  for departmental  candidates  under  the  50%  direct recruitment quota were deleted.   

(ii)  It  was  stipulated  that  in  addition  to  the educational  qualifications  and  physical  standards, “other requirements” as prescribed for direct recruits shall be fulfilled by the serving personnel.  

(iii) Qualifying years of service for serving personnel was reduced from 5 years to 3 years.  

(iv) Upper age limit for appointment of Sub-Inspector (Executive) was reduced from 40 years to 30 years

4

for general candidates, for OBC from 43 years to 33 years  and  from  45  years  to  35  years  for  SC/ST candidates.  

7. Staff Selection Commission issued employment notification

on behalf of Delhi Police to fill up various posts including the post

of  Sub-Inspector  (Exe.)  Male  vide  its  advertisement  dated  16th

March, 2013.  Thereafter, it revealed that the amendment which

has  come  into  force  vide  notification  dated  13th March,  2013

remain unnoticed, a further Corrigendum came to be notified on

9th April,  2013 incorporating necessary changes giving effect to

the  amendment  notification  dated  13th March,  2013.   It

specifically notified the changes in the upper age limit for general,

OBC and SC/ST serving candidates and provisions for relaxation

towards physical  test.  The result  of  the aforesaid  Corrigendum

dated 9th April, 2013 was that the appellants stood excluded from

consideration as they were indisputedly above the upper age limit

from participating in the selection process.

8. This came to be challenged by the appellants by filing of an

Original  Application  before  the  Central  Administrative

Tribunal(hereinafter being referred to as the “Tribunal”) seeking

5

quashing  of  the  notification  dated  13th March,  2013  and

advertisement  dated  16th March,  2013  read  with  Corrigendum

dated 9th April, 2013 and by an interim order dated 29th May, 2013

and  7th October,  2013,  the  Tribunal  allowed  the  appellants  to

participate  in  the  process  of  selection  held  pursuant  to  an

advertisement dated 16th March, 2013.

9. The learned Tribunal on 18th July, 2014 disposed of the OA

No. 1650/2013 filed by the appellants holding that it was not open

for  the  Tribunal  to  interfere  with  the  amendment  and

modifications made to the recruitment rules by the executive or

legislature in their wisdom unless the same were unconstitutional

or shockingly arbitrary.   It  further observed that it  was for  the

recruiting authorities to prescribe and fix age limits and also to

what  extent  relaxation  should  be  granted.   The  appellants’

contention that the amendments to the recruitment rules were

made  after  the  selection  process  had  already  been  set  into

motion was rejected,  pointing out that the amendments to the

recruitment  rules  were  notified  on  13th March,  2013  and

advertisement for recruitment to the said posts was published on

16th March, 2013, i.e., post amendment to the Rules, 1980.  The

6

challenge to the corrigendum dated 9th April, 2013, revising the

terms of advertisement being in conformity with the amendment

rules was repelled holding that no vested right had accrued to the

serving  candidates  under  the  pre-amended  rules.   While

concluding, it directed the Delhi Administration to refer the matter

to  the  Committee  which  was  formed  to  re-examine  the

amendments  keeping  in  view  the  grievances  raised  by  the

appellants.  The Committee also in compliance of the Tribunal’s

order  revisited  the  amendments  made  under  the  notification

dated 13th March, 2013 which did not find favour.  The conclusion

of the minutes of the meeting held on 18th December, 2014 has

been placed on record by the respondents along with the counter

affidavit at page 76 of the paper book.  The same are extracted

hereunder:-

“1. The existing age limits as modified relating to the departmental candidates has due rationale and to remain and continue.  Increase in age will lead to shortage  of  young  officers  at  the  level  of  Sub- Inspectors which is the dire need of the day where Police duties have become highly arduous and also because  the  departmental  candidates  are  getting opportunity in promotion quota etc as explained by Delhi Police.

2. Keeping in view the recruitment policy of the Delhi Police, the Committee is of the opinion that the demand is not justified as existing changed policy is

7

working well for the promotion of sports and sports curricular/physical fitness in Delhi Police.  Therefore, there seems to be no need to modify Rule-5 of Delhi Police  (Appointment  &  Recruitment)  Rules-1980 meant  for  implementing the  direction  of  the  Govt. relating  to  SC/ST,  Ex-servicemen,  outstanding sportsmen, departmental candidates, etc.

3. The  issue  of  ground  for  amending  the recruitment rules was examined by the Committee at length  and  it  got  emerged  that  it  is  not  only  the alignment of  examination with CAPF but  the major issue here is to have young officers at middle level of the force and also to have pan India representation in the Delhi Police force through SSC recruitment. It was also felt  that since 50% of  the total  vacancies are already allocated to the promotee employees, there chance of promotion is nowhere compromised.

4. In  view of  the  clarification  provided by  Delhi Police regarding the Post  of  Sub Inspector  in  CAPF being Group “B” while Sub Inspector (Exe.) in Delhi Police being Group “C” posts, the Committee is of the view that the contention of the applicants does not hold ground.”

10. The  order  of  the  Tribunal  came  to  be  challenged  by  the

appellants before the Division Bench of the High Court and that

came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 20th April, 2017 which

is a subject matter of challenge before us.

11. Mr.  M.N.  Rao,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the  appellants

submits  that  the  amendment  which  has  been  made  under

notification dated 13th March, 2013 practically is unworkable and

arbitrary. When the serving personnel is promoted to the post of

8

ASI, he indeed by that time cross the age of 30 years and this is

indirect  way  of  elimination  of  serving  Head  Constable/ASI  to

participate  against  10%  quota  reserved  for  serving  personnel

under the Rules, 1980 and to buttress further submits that there

cannot  be  a  rule  which  is  impossible  of  compliance  and  is

suggestive of arbitrariness and lack of application of mind of the

authority  in  making  such  amendments  under  the  notification

dated 13th March, 2013 and is in violation of Article 14 and 16 of

the Constitution and deserves to be interfered with by this Court.

12. Learned counsel further submits that an apparent error has

been committed by the High Court in holding that the amended

rules give equal opportunity to in-service candidates to compete

with open market candidates against 50% of direct recruitment

quota.   According  to  the  learned  counsel,  the  High  Court  has

completely  misdirected  both  in  facts  and  law.   In-service

candidates cannot compete with open market candidates for the

reason that the upper age for open market direct recruits is 25

years whereas for in-service candidates, it is 30 years.  It is not

possible  for  serving  Constables,  Head  Constables  or  ASI  to

compete for the direct recruitment quota before the age of 25

9

years.   Both  the  categories  are  distinct  and  different.   The

amendment which has been made in the upper age limit for the

candidates to participate for the post of Sub-Inspector (Exe.) Male

under  notification  dated  13th March,  2013  is  indirect  way  of

elimination of the serving candidates in the process of selection.

Such an amendment being irrational and has no nexus with the

object to the achieved.   The very purpose as projected attract

meritorious persons in the rank of Constable, Head Constable and

ASI’s  to  shoulder  higher  responsibilities  is  not  going  to  be

achieved under the impugned amendment notification dated 13th

March, 2013.   

13. Ms.  Madhavi  Divan,  learned  ASG,  appearing  for  the

respondents, on the other hand, while supporting the judgment of

the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court submits that it is a not a

fast track promotion of the serving personnel to the post of Sub-

Inspector(Executive).   For  serving  personnel,  50%  quota  is

reserved  for  promotion  in  their  respective  channel  and  after

qualifying the minimum service as Assistant Sub-Inspector,  one

could  be  considered  for  promotion  against  50%  of  promotion

quota but so far as 50% quota reserved by direct recruitment is

10

concerned, it is an open selection and 10% out of 50% quota of

direct recruitment is carved out for the serving personnel whose

suitability  has  to  be  adjudged  on  the  same  standards  and

yardsticks  prevalent  for  open  selection  under  the  scheme  of

Rules, 1980 and that is the reason for which an amendment has

been made under notification dated 13th March, 2013.  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 where police duties have

become highly arduous and also for the reason the departmental

candidates are awaiting their opportunity in  promotion quota and

were desirous that selection under direct recruitment quota be

brought not only in alignment with CAPF but the object was to

have young officers at middle level of the force and also to have

pan India representation in Delhi Police through SSC recruitment.

14. Learned counsel further submits that eligibility qualifications

for recruitment or promotion in service are ordinarily the matters

to  be  considered by  the  appropriate  authority  and  not  by  the

Courts.   It  is  the  employer  who  is  best  suited  to  decide  the

11

requirements a candidate must possess according to the needs of

the employer and the nature of work.  Prescribing of any age limit

for  a  given  post,  as  also  deciding  the  extent  to  which  any

relaxation  given  if  an  age  limit  is  prescribed,  are  essentially

matters of policy and as long as its competence in making such

amendments would serve a public purpose, it is not open to be

interfered with by this Court under limited scope of judicial review

after it has been examined by the Tribunal and confirmed by the

High Court.

15. It is a settled law that 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 the matters of

policy.  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.

Prescription of such limit or the extent of relaxation to be given,

cannot  ordinarily  be  termed as  arbitrary  or  unreasonable.  Just

because  the  amendment  under  notification  dated  13th March,

2013 has curtailed the chances of the appellants to take part in

12

the selection process, it cannot lead to an inference that the rule

is arbitrary or unreasonable as prayed for.

16. It is equally a settled proposition of law 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.  There

is no rule of universal or absolute application that vacancies are

to be filled invariably by the law existing on the date when the

vacancy  arises.   The  requirement  of  filling  up  earlier  year

vacancies under the old rules is  interlinked with the candidate

having acquired a right to be considered for promotion.

17. The four significant changes which have been made under

the amendment notification dated 13th March, 2013 envisage that

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  except  giving  some

advantage in relaxation of upper age limit for a fair consideration

in the process of selection and scaling the upper age limit indeed

may reduce the number of serving personnel holding the post of

13

Constable/Head Constable/ASI in competing with the candidates

in  the open selection but  that  in  itself  cannot  be  regarded as

unconstitutional or arbitrary as prayed for by the appellants and

at the same time,  it  may not  be construed to  be a  fast  track

promotion to the serving personnel reserving right of in-service

personnel  for  their  promotion  against  50%  quota  separately

reserved under the scheme of Rules, 1980.

18. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.

19. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

              .…….…………………………………….J.        [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

          ………………………………………….J.          [Ajay Rastogi]

New Delhi March 17, 2020

14