SURESH KUMAR versus THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. on 26 March 2021

278

[2021] 3 S.C.R. 278

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 3 S.C.R.

A

SURESH KUMAR

v.

THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No.1076 of 2021)

BMARCH 26, 2021

[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]

Punjab Police Rules, 1934: r.13.14 – Promotion to the postof Inspector – r.13.14(2) provides that no Sub-Inspector shall beconsidered eligible for promotion to a selection grade unless heChas at least eight years’ approved service as an upper subordinate,of which five years shall have been in the rank of Sub-Inspector –Promotion to selection grade of a Sub-Inspector was pre-conditionfor including the name of a Sub-Inspector in List ‘F’ which is a listfrom which promotion to Inspector was to be made – Even thoughDscheme of grant of selection grade was done away by the State byits common order dated 29.04.1987, the exercise of promotion toInspector from Sub-Inspector even after 29.04.1987 was done onthe basis of requirement of Rule 13.14(2) – The criteria in the Rulesfor assessing a person that he was entitled for grant of selectiongrade cannot be said to be meaningless with no purpose afterEwithdrawal of the selection grade – For promotion to Sub-Inspectorto selection grade eight years’ approved service was contemplatedwhich was with intent that sufficient experience is gained by a Policepersonnel to be considered for promotion to Inspector who is toman a Police Station and has to discharge other important functionsF– The selection grades are in the nature of promotional scale,therefore, the criteria provided for promotion to selection gradecan very well be taken as criteria for further promotion which isthe spirit of the Rules followed uniformly by the State while effectingthe promotion – The object and purpose of the Rules andmethodology for evaluating the Police personnel to move in theGhigher rank in the same or to the next rank cannot be lost sight norcan be ignored merely because the scheme was withdrawn on29.04.1987 – No error is committed by the State in continuing theevaluation of the Sub-Inspectors on the basis of criteria as providedin Rule 13.14 while effecting promotion – Service law – Promotion.H

Dismissing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The Government Order dated 29.04.1987 issuedby the State of Haryana, which communicates the decision of theState Government that “the present system of selection gradesas it exists for the employees of Groups B, C & D has beendiscontinued”. The effect of the G.O. dated 29.04.1987 was thatthere was no entitlement of a Sub-Inspector or any policepersonnel belonging to Group C to claim selection grade. Thestatutory Rule 13.1 provides that promotion from one rank toanother and from one grade to another in the same rank shall bemade by selection tempered by seniority. The use of expression“specific qualifications whether in the nature of training coursespassed or practical experience, shall be carefully considered ineach case” indicate that qualifications for promotion are notcontained in Rule 13.1 and they have to be found out from otherpart of the Rules. Rule 13.1 governs both promotions, from onerank to another, and from one grade to another. Thus, Rule 13.1regulates promotion within the grade and from one grade toanother. Rule 13.14 contains the heading “promotions to and inthe selection grades of Sub-Inspectors”. Rule 13.14(2) providesthat no Sub-Inspector shall be considered eligible for promotionto a selection grade unless he has at least eight years’ approvedservice as an upper subordinate, of which five years shall havebeen in the rank of Sub-Inspector. Now, coming to Rule 13.15which deals with “List F-Promotion to Inspectors”, Rule 13.15(1)deals with recommendations on behalf of Sub-Inspectorsconsidered fit for promotion to the rank of Inspector to besubmitted with their annual confidential reports on the 15th Aprileach year to Deputy Inspector-General by Superintendents ofPolice in Form 13.15(1). [Para 16][291-F-H; 292-A-D]

2. Rule 13.15(4) provides that Sub-Inspectors admitted toList ‘F’ will be placed in that list in order according to their dateof permanent promotion to selection grade. Thus, date ofpermanent promotion to selection grade is criteria which wasrequired to be followed for promotion to Inspector and as requiredby Rule 13.14(2) no Sub-Inspector shall be considered eligiblefor promotion to a selection grade unless he has at least eight A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ayears’ approved service as an upper subordinate, of which at leastfive years shall have been in the rank of Sub-Inspector.[Para 17][292-D-E]

3. Thus, promotion to selection grade of a Sub-Inspectorwas pre-condition for including the name of a Sub-Inspector inBList ‘F’ which is a list from which promotion to Inspector was tobe made. Even though scheme of grant of selection grade wasdone away by the State vide its common order dated 29.04.1987,the exercise of promotion to Inspector from Sub-Inspector evenafter 29.04.1987 was done on the basis of requirement of Rule13.14(2), i.e., names of only those Sub-Inspectors were includedCin List ‘F’ who have eight years of approved service as an uppersubordinate to their cadre. The promotion to selection grade wascontemplated under the Rules by following eligibility and criteriaas laid down in the Rules. The submission of the respondents isthat after the State Government withdrew the scheme of selectionDgrade by the Government order dated 29.04.1987 all statutoryprovisions regarding grant of selection grade became redundant.Even if no selection grade was to be provided to any of thepersonnel of the Police force after 29.04.1987, the criteria whichwas adopted for in rank promotion was followed by the State forpromotion to the next rank. The Rules contained in Chapter XIIIEhave to be given a conjoint and meaningful reading to advanceobject and purpose of the Rules. The Rules provided a mode andmanner for assessment of an official to move forward by means ofa grant of selection grade and thereafter by the next step on thenext rank. The criteria in the Rules for assessing a person thatFhe was entitled for grant of selection grade cannot be said to bemeaningless with no purpose after withdrawal of the selectiongrade. The grant of selection grade, in the rank in which Policeofficial was there, is a step for making eligible officer to move tothe higher rank. Can the argument be accepted that promotion of Sub-Inspector to Inspector has been on the basis of seniorityGalone? Whether there shall be no cap of experience when a Sub-Inspector is considered to be promoted to next higher rank ingrade, i.e., Inspector? If we accept the submission of the counselof the respondents that the requirement as contained in Rule13.14(2) is no longer applicable after withdrawal of selectionHgrade, there will be no requirement of any experience to any Sub-Inspector for becoming an Inspector which was never theintendment of the statutory Rules. For promotion to Sub-Inspectorto selection grade eight years’ approved service wascontemplated which was with intent that sufficient experience isgained by a Police personnel to be considered for promotion toInspector who is to man a Police Station and has to dischargeother important functions. It is relevant to notice that noamendments in the statutory Rules were made after 29.04.1987and even after notification was issued dated 24.12.2001substituting Rule 12.3. The case of the State before the HighCourt and before this Court is that even after 29.04.1987 till 2017Rules were enforced, all Sub-Inspectors, including direct andpromotees were uniformly dealt with by insisting the requirementof eight years’ approved service as the upper subordinate for thepurposes of inclusion of their names in List ‘F’. [Para 18][292-F-H; 293-A-F]

4. The selection grades are in the nature of promotionalscale, therefore, the criteria provided for promotion to selectiongrade can very well be taken as criteria for further promotionwhich is the spirit of the Rules followed uniformly by the Statewhile effecting the promotion. The object and purpose of the Rulesand methodology for evaluating the Police personnel to move inthe higher rank in the same or to the next rank cannot be lostsight nor can be ignored merely because the scheme waswithdrawn on 29.04.1987. No error has been committed by theState in continuing the evaluation of the Sub-Inspectors on thebasis of criteria as provided in Rule 13.14 while effectingpromotion. This Court has laid down time and again that whileconstruing statutory Rules such construction should be adoptedwhich may give effect to the intention or object of the Rule andno such interpretation be put which may make the Ruleineffective. [Paras 19, 20][293-G-H; 294-A-B]

State of Gujarat and Another vs. Justice R.A. Mehta(Retired) and Others (2013) 3 SCC 1 : [2013] 1 SCR 1– relied on.

5. The principle of construction of statutory Rules as laiddown above would apply to the interpretation of Punjab PoliceRules, 1934. The High Court did not commit any error in ABC

D

E

F

G

H

Aconstruing the Rules in the manner as was construed by the HighCourt. Chapter XIII of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 have to beconjointly and harmoniously construed and when we construeRules 13.1, 13.14 and 13.15, we do not find any error in Statepromoting the Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors who have eight years’approved service to their credit, at least five years being as Sub-BInspectors. Thus, the High Court has rightly upheld thepromotion orders of private respondents. No ground is made outto interfere with the judgment of the High Court in these appeals.[Para 21][295-G-H; 296-A-B]

State of Gujarat and Another v. Justice R.A. MehtaC(Retired) and Others (2013) 3 SCC 1 : [2013] 1 SCR 1– relied on.

Case Law Reference

[2013] 1 SCR 1relied onPara 20DCIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1076of 2021.

From the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2020 of the High Courtof Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.13496/2009(O&M).

WithE

Civil Appeal Nos.1077 And 1078 of 2021.

Nikhil Goel, AAG, Shyam Divan, P.S. Patwalia, Gurminder Singh,P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Advs., Pardeep Dahiya, Ms. Mahima Benipuri,Devashish Bharuka, Ashok K. Mahajan, Gautam Awasthi, GuroorFSandhu, Devanshu Yadav, Ms. Naveen Goel, Dushyant Sarna, VinayMathew, Dr. Monika Gusain, Ms. Sindoora VNL, Sunil Gulia, RahulGupta, Advs. for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.G

1. Leave granted.

2. These three appeals have been filed against the commonjudgment dated 27.07.2020 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryanadismissing the Civil Writ Petition No.13496 of 2009 which was filed bythe appellants in first two appeals. The third appeal, Sandeep KumarH

and another is an appeal filed by the two appellants who were intervenorsin the Civil Writ Petition No.13496 of 2009. The Division Bench of theHigh Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition upholdingthe promotion orders of all the respondent Nos.4 to 34 as Inspector inthe Haryana Police.

3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding theseappeals are:

The appointment and promotion in Police Force of the State ofHaryana are governed by Punjab Police Rules, 1934. In the State ofHaryana prior to 2001, 100% posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police used tobe filled by way of promotion. Rule 12.3 was amended vide notificationdated 24.12.2001 by substituting Rule 12.3 to the following effect:

“12.3, Direct appointment of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors– Except as provided in rules 12.1 and 12.4 direct appointmentshall not be made except in the rank of Inspector and Sub Inspectorof Police. Such appointment in the rank of Inspector and SubInspector may be made up to a maximum of ten percent and fiftypercent of posts respectively.”

4. The first direct recruitment on the post of Sub-Inspector washeld in the year 2003 in which recruitment all the three writ petitioners,Om Prakash, Sudeep Kumar Singh and Suresh Kumar wererecommended for direct recruitment as Sub-Inspector. All the writpetitioners joined in May, 2003 as Sub-Inspector. The private respondentsto these appeals who were arrayed as respondent Nos.4 to 34 in thewrit petition were promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector from AssistantSub-Inspector between June, 2003 and March, 2004, i.e., after the writpetitioners had joined. The respondents were promoted on the post ofInspector by orders dated 27.11.2008, 18.05.2009 and 13.08.2009. Thewrit petitioners aggrieved by the above mentioned promotion orders filedCivil Writ Petition No.13496 of 2009 praying for following reliefs:

“i)Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus summoning therecords of the cases.

ii)Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orderdated 27.11.2008 (Annexure-P-8), order dated 18.05.2009(Annexure-P-9) and order dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure-P-10) whereby the private respondents have been promotedas Inspectors of Police; A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aiii)Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing theconfirmation order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P-2), orderdated 15.06.2009 (Annexure P-3) and also order dated30.06.2009 (Annexure P-4); iv)Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the RulesB12.2, 12.8 and 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules being ultravires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

v)Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the officialrespondents to consider and promote the petitioner asInspector with effect from the date the private respondentsCwere promoted and directing the official respondents togrant all consequential reliefs that flow viz. seniority in therank of Inspector, fixation of pay, payment of arrears ofpay along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annumetc. etc.

Dvi)Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as thisHon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts andcircumstances of the present case may be issued.”

5. The writ petition was contested both by the State as well as bythe private respondents. It was pleaded on behalf of the State that theEeligibility for promotion from the post of Sub-Inspector to Inspector iseight years’ service of which five years’ service should be as Sub-Inspector, none of the writ petitioners had to their credit eight years’service hence they being not eligible were not promoted. The writpetitioners were promoted in the year 2011 when they completed eightyears of service to their credit. The State defended the vires of theFRules and contends that the Rules were neither arbitrary nor violative ofArticles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court framed followingtwo issues in the writ petition for consideration:

“(i) Whether Rule 13.14(2) prescribes the eligibility criteria forconsideration for promotion to the post of Inspector ?

G

(ii) If the Rule 13.14(2) is applicable, whether the conditions ofeight years experience is arbitrary and discriminatory and is,therefore, required to be struck down being violative of Article 16of the Constitution ?”

H

6. The High Court after considering the submissions of the partiesheld that Rule 13.14(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 prescribes theeligibility criteria for consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector.The High Court also held that requirement of eight years’ experiencefor promotion to the post of Inspector is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.After recording the conclusion, writ petition was dismissed by the HighCourt. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the writ petitionershave filed first two appeals and the last appeal has been filed by theintervenors.

7. We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel andShri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants.Shri Gurminder Singh, learned senior counsel, has appeared for the privaterespondents. Shri Nikhil Goel, learned Additional Advocate General hasappeared for the State of Haryana.

8. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that theappellants/writ petitioners were senior to the private respondents in thecadre of Sub-Inspector, and they being directly recruited before therespondents could be promoted as Sub-Inspector. They being seniorswere entitled to be promoted on the post of Inspector as they have alsocompleted five years’ experience as Sub-Inspector. It is submitted thatthe High Court has wrongly relied on Rule 13.14 which Rule was notapplicable for promotion to the post of Inspector from Sub-Inspector. Itis submitted that the applicable Rules for promotion from the rank ofSub-Inspector to Inspector are Rules 13.1, 13.15 and 13.16 of Rules,1934. Rule 13.14 covers a situation where a Sub-Inspector is beingpromoted to and in the Selection Grade of Sub-Inspector. The Governmentof Haryana vide its order dated 29.04.1987 has abolished the SelectionGrade in all Groups B,C and D posts. The Sub-Inspector being a Group-C post, there was no question of promotion in Selection Grade of anySub-Inspector after 29.04.1987. In fact, none of the private respondentswere promoted in the Selection Grade so as to claim applicability ofRule 13.14. The selection criteria is contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 13and Rule 13.15. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 13.15 does not deal with eligibilityrather it deals with inter-se seniority. The Haryana Police (Non-Gazettedand Other Ranks) Service Rules, 2017 now provide, by Rule 7 read withAppendix B that five years’ service is required as Sub-Inspector forpromotion to the post of Inspector. The position in Rules, 2017 clearly A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Adefeats the construction placed by the High Court requiring an eightyears’ qualifying period.

9. Shri Nikhil Goel, learned Additional Advocate General for theState of Haryana submits that requirement for promotion to the rank ofInspector has always been of eight years’ of service. The said criteriaBhas been followed ever since the State of Haryana was established in1966 and even after selection grade was abolished in 1987. Therequirement of eight years of service for promotion to the post of Inspectoris clear from a conjoined reading of Rule 13.14 read with Rule 13.15(4)of Rules, 1934. Rule 13.14 of Rules, 1934 was never challenged in thewrit petition but rather it was only the vires of Rule 12.2, 12.8 and 13.18Cthat were challenged. No reliance can be placed on Rules, 2017 whichRules have been notified after nine years of promotion of privaterespondents. Rule 13.14 is an integral and inalienable part of the schemeof the Rules governing promotion to the rank of Inspector. Without Rule13.14, there cannot be any List F and without List F, no promotion canDbe made to the post of Inspector. The selection grades are in the natureof a promotional scale. Therefore, the criteria provided for promotion toselection grade can be taken as criteria for further promotion. Therequirement and rationale of eight years of service for a Sub-Inspectoris to discharge the higher responsibility of an Inspector. Rules, 1934have always been interpreted so by the State and all promotions wereEaffected till new Rules were enforced in 2017.

10. Learned counsel for the private respondents also adopts thesubmissions raised by Shri Nikhil Goel that impugned judgment of theHigh Court needs no interference by this Court.

11. Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel, has also appearedfor the private respondents. He, however, submits that he is not affectedby the inter-se dispute between the writ petitioners and the privaterespondents. He submits that his clients have already been promoted asDeputy Superintendents of Police.

F

G12. We have considered the submissions made by the learnedcounsel for the parties and perused the records.

13. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the partiesand materials on record following two questions arise for considerationin these appeals:- H

(i) Whether the mode and manner of promotion in selectiongrade from rank of Sub-Inspector to Inspector as envisagedin Punjab Police Rules, 1934 has become redundant afterissuance of Government Order dated 29.04.1987 by Stateof Haryana withdrawing the grant of selection grade toGroup A, B and C employees?

(ii) Whether the Rule 13.14 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, whichcontemplate promotion to the various selection grades cannotbe looked into while considering the promotion of a Sub-Inspector to the rank of Inspector and requirement of havingat least eight years’ approved service as an uppersubordinate is no longer attracted for promotion of directrecruits Sub-Inspector?

14. Before we proceed to consider the respective submissions,we need to look into the statutory rules governing the promotion fromthe post of Sub-Inspector to Inspector. The statutory rules are PunjabPolice Rules, 1934. The appellant’s case is that only applicable rules forpromotion from the rank of Sub-Inspector to Inspector are Rules 13.1,13.15 and 13.16 of the Rules, 1934. We need to notice the aforesaidrules, which are to the following effect:- “13.1.Promotion from one rank to another. - (1)Promotion from one rank to another, and from one grade to anotherin the same rank shall be made by selection tempered by seniority.Efficiency and honesty shall be the main factors governingselection. Specific qualifications, whether in the nature of trainingcourses passed or practical experience, shall be carefullyconsidered in each case. When the qualifications of two officersare otherwise equal, the senior shall be promoted. This rule doesnot affect increments within a time-scale.

(2) Under the present constitution of the police force nolower subordinate will ordinarily be entrusted with the independentconduct of investigations or the independent charge of a policestation or similar unit. It is necessary, therefore, that well-educatedconstables, having the attributes necessary for bearing theresponsibilities of upper subordinate rank, should receiveaccelerated promotion so as to reach that rank as soon as theyhave passed the courses prescribed for, and been tested and givenpractical training in, the ranks of constable and head constable.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

(3) For the purposes of regulating promotion amongstenrolled police officers six promotion lists - A, B, C, D, E, and Fwill be maintained.

Lists A, B, C and D shall be maintained in each district asprescribed in rules 13.6, 13.7, 13.8 and 13.9 and will regulatepromotion to the selection grade of constables and to the ranks ofhead constables and Assistant Sub- Inspector. List E shall bemaintained in the office of Deputy Inspector- General as prescribedin sub-rule 13.10(1) and will regulate promotion to the rank ofSub-Inspector. List F shall be maintained in the office of theInspector-General as prescribed in sub-rule 13.15(1) and willregulate promotion to the rank of Inspector.

Entry in or removal from A, B, C, D or E lists shall berecorded in the order book and in the character roll of the policeofficer concerned. These lists are nominal rolls of those officerswhose admission to them has been authorised. No actual selectionshall be made without careful examination of character rolls.

Provided that five per cent of such promotions may be madefrom amongst the members of the Police Force, who achieveoutstanding distinction in sports field at All India level orInternational level if they are otherwise eligible for promotion butfor seniority.

13.15. List F - Promotion to Inspectors. - (1)Recommendations on behalf of Sergeants and Sub-Inspectorsconsidered fit for promotion to the rank of Inspector shall besubmitted with their annual confidential reports on the 15th Aprileach year to Deputy Inspector-General by Superintendents ofPolice in Form 13.15(1). Recommendations on behalf of Sergeantsand Sub-Inspectors employed in the Government Railway Policewill be sent direct to the Inspector-General of Police by theAssistant Inspector-General, Government Railway Police, in thesame form and not later than October each year. The DeputyInspector-General shall decide, after seeing the officersrecommended, and in consideration of their records, and his ownknowledge of them, whether to endorse the recommendations ofSuperintendents of Police and forwarded them to the Inspector-General. He will keep a copy of any recommendation so forwarded in the personal file of the officer; if he decides not to endorse arecommendation, he shall retain the original in the officer’s personalfile and send a copy of his own order on it to the Superintendentconcerned. Deputy Inspector-General shall finally submitrecommendations to the Inspector-General as soon as they aresatisfied as to the fitness of officers recommended, but in no caselater than October each year.

(2) Such of the officers recommended as the Inspector-General may consider suitable shall be admitted to promotion list‘F’ (form 13.15(2) which will, however, not be published. DeputyInspectors-General shall be informed, and shall in turn inform theSuperintendents concerned, of the names of those who have beenadmitted to the List; similar information will be sent to the AssistantInspector-General, Government Railway Police.

The original personal files of Sub-Inspectors admitted tothe list shall be transferred to the Inspector-General after duplicateshave been prepared for retention in the office of the DeputyInspector-General or the Assistant Inspector-General, GovernmentRailway Police, as required by Rule 13.38(1). Copies of allsubsequent annual confidential reports prepared in form 13.17 inrespect both of Sergeants and Sub-Inspectors admitted to the listwill, on return by the Inspector-General in accordance with rule13.17(1), be recorded by Deputy Inspectors-General or theAssistant Inspector-General, Government Railway Police, withthe duplicate personal files of the officers concerned. Copies ofall entries ordered to be made in personal files other than annualconfidential reports will be forwarded to the Inspector-Generalas soon as made for record with the original personal files; allsuch copies shall be attested by the Deputy Inspector-General orthe Assistant Inspector General, Government Railway Police,personally.

(3) When submitting recommendations for the entry of freshnames in List F, Deputy Inspectors-General and the AssistantInspector-General, Government Railway Police, will at the sametime submit specific recommendations (which need not beaccompanied by detailed confidential reports) as to the retentionor removal of officers already admitted to the list. On receipt ofthese recommendations, the Inspector-General will review the A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Provincial List, and pass orders regarding the retention or exclusionof names, at the same time communicating his decision to theDeputy Inspector-General and the Assistant Inspector-General,Government Railway Police.

A

(4) Sub-Inspectors admitted to List ‘F’ will be placed inthat list in order according to their date of permanent promotion toselection grade, and, if the date of permanent promotion to selectiongrade is the same in the case of two or more Sub-Inspectorsadmitted to list ‘F’ on one and the same date, then according todate of permanent promotion to the time-scale. Sergeants will beshown in list ‘F’ according to the date of entry in the list. When,however, two or more Sergeants are admitted to list ‘F’ on thesame date, their names will be shown in order of seniority amongthemselves.

B

C

13.16. Promotion to the rank of Inspector. - (1)Substantive vacancies in the rank of Inspector, save those whichare specially designated for the appointment of probationers shallbe filled by promotion of officers from list F selected according tothe principles laid down in rule 13.1. Sergeants are eligible forpromotion in the appointments reserved for European Inspectors.

D

(2) Temporary vacancies in the rank of Inspector shall beEfilled by the officiating promotion of officers on F list by theauthorities empowered by rule 13.4 to make the appointment. Suchofficiating promotions shall be made in accordance with theprinciples laid down in sub-rule 13.12(1) in the case of E list, andthe second part of that rule shall, mutatis mutandis, govern theFscrutiny of the work of F list officers and the removal from thatlist of the names of those who are found unfit for the rank ofinspector.

E

(3) No officer whose name is not on F list shall be appointedto officiate as Inspector without the special sanction of theGInspector-General. When no officer on F list is available in therange for a vacancy which the Deputy Inspector-General isrequired to fill, application shall be made to the Inspector-Generalto appoint a man from another range.”

15. On the other hand, the respondents placed reliance on Rule13.14, which is to the following effect:-H

“13.14. Promotions to and in the selection grades ofSub-Inspectors. - (1) Promotion to the various selection gradesof Sub-Inspectors shall be made by Superintendents of Policeand the Assistant Superintendent, Government Railway Police,as vacancies in the sanctioned establishment of such appointmentsoccur in accordance with the principle laid down in Rule 13.1.

(2) No Sub-Inspector shall be considered eligible forpromotion to a selection grade unless he has at least eight years’approved service as an upper subordinate, of which at least fiveshall have been in the rank of Sub- Inspector, and unless he isthoroughly efficient and competent to hold charge of a policestation of first class importance. No Sub-Inspector who has beenpunished by reduction, stoppage of increment, or forfeiture ofapproved service for increment, shall be eligible for promotion toa selection grade. Exceptions to this rule may be made only withthe sanction of the Inspector- General in recognition of distinguishedservice and exemplary conduct.

(3) Sub-Inspectors promoted to the 4th selection grade shallbe on probation for one year and may be reverted without formaldepartmental proceedings during or on the expiry of the period oftheir probation if they fail to maintain an exemplary standard ofconduct and efficiency.

Provided that the competent authority may, if it so thinks fitin any case, extend the period of probation by one year in theaggregate and pass such orders at any time during or on the expiryof the extended period of probation as it could have passed duringor on the expiry of original period of probation.”

16. We may now notice the Government Order dated 29.04.1987issued by the State of Haryana, which communicates the decision of theState Government that “the present system of selection grades as itexists for the employees of Groups B, C & D has been discontinued”.The effect of the G.O. dated 29.04.1987 was that there was no entitlementof a Sub-Inspector or any police personnel belonging to Group C toclaim selection grade. The statutory Rule 13.1 provides that promotionfrom one rank to another and from one grade to another in the samerank shall be made by selection tempered by seniority. The use ofexpression “specific qualifications whether in the nature of training AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acourses passed or practical experience, shall be carefully considered ineach case” indicate that qualifications for promotion are not containedin Rule 13.1 and they have to be found out from other part of the Rules.Rule 13.1 governs both promotions, from one rank to another, and fromone grade to another. Thus, Rule 13.1 regulates promotion within thegrade and from one grade to another. Rule 13.14 contains the headingB“promotions to and in the selection grades of Sub-Inspectors”. Rule13.14(2) provides that no Sub-Inspector shall be considered eligible forpromotion to a selection grade unless he has at least eight years’ approvedservice as an upper subordinate, of which five years shall have been inthe rank of Sub-Inspector. Now, coming to Rule 13.15 which deals withC“List F-Promotion to Inspectors”, Rule 13.15(1) deals withrecommendations on behalf of Sub-Inspectors considered fit for promotionto the rank of Inspector to be submitted with their annual confidentialreports on the 15th April each year to Deputy Inspector-General bySuperintendents of Police in Form 13.15(1).

D17. Rule 13.15(4) provides that Sub-Inspectors admitted to List‘F’ will be placed in that list in order according to their date of permanentpromotion to selection grade. Thus, date of permanent promotion toselection grade is criteria which was required to be followed for promotionto Inspector and as required by Rule 13.14(2) no Sub-Inspector shall beconsidered eligible for promotion to a selection grade unless he has atEleast eight years’ approved service as an upper subordinate, of which atleast five years shall have been in the rank of Sub-Inspector.

18. Thus, promotion to selection grade of a Sub-Inspector waspre-condition for including the name of a Sub-Inspector in List ‘F’ whichis a list from which promotion to Inspector was to be made. Even thoughFscheme of grant of selection grade was done away by the State vide itscommon order dated 29.04.1987, the exercise of promotion to Inspectorfrom Sub-Inspector even after 29.04.1987 was done on the basis ofrequirement of Rule 13.14(2), i.e., names of only those Sub-Inspectorswere included in List ‘F’ who have eight years of approved service asGan upper subordinate to their cadre. The promotion to selection gradewas contemplated under the Rules by following eligibility and criteria aslaid down in the Rules. The submission of the respondents is that afterthe State Government withdrew the scheme of selection grade by theGovernment order dated 29.04.1987 all statutory provisions regardinggrant of selection grade became redundant. Even if no selection gradeH

was to be provided to any of the personnel of the Police force after29.04.1987, the criteria which was adopted for in rank promotion wasfollowed by the State for promotion to the next rank. The Rules containedin Chapter XIII have to be given a conjoint and meaningful reading toadvance object and purpose of the Rules. The Rules provided a modeand manner for assessment of an official to move forward by means ofa grant of selection grade and thereafter by the next step on the nextrank. The criteria in the Rules for assessing a person that he was entitledfor grant of selection grade cannot be said to be meaningless with nopurpose after withdrawal of the selection grade. The grant of selectiongrade, in the rank in which Police official was there, is a step for makingeligible officer to move to the higher rank. Can the argument be acceptedthat promotion of Sub-Inspector to Inspector has been on the basis ofseniority alone? Whether there shall be no cap of experience when aSub-Inspector is considered to be promoted to next higher rank in grade,i.e., Inspector? If we accept the submission of the counsel of therespondents that the requirement as contained in Rule 13.14(2) is nolonger applicable after withdrawal of selection grade, there will be norequirement of any experience to any Sub-Inspector for becoming anInspector which was never the intendment of the statutory Rules. Forpromotion to Sub-Inspector to selection grade eight years’ approvedservice was contemplated which was with intent that sufficientexperience is gained by a Police personnel to be considered for promotionto Inspector who is to man a Police Station and has to discharge otherimportant functions. It is relevant to notice that no amendments in thestatutory Rules were made after 29.04.1987 and even after notificationwas issued dated 24.12.2001 substituting Rule 12.3. The case of theState before the High Court and before this Court is that even after29.04.1987 till 2017 Rules were enforced, all Sub-Inspectors, includingdirect and promotees were uniformly dealt with by insisting therequirement of eight years’ approved service as the upper subordinatefor the purposes of inclusion of their names in List ‘F’.

19. The selection grades are in the nature of promotional scale,therefore, the criteria provided for promotion to selection grade can verywell be taken as criteria for further promotion which is the spirit of theRules followed uniformly by the State while effecting the promotion.The object and purpose of the Rules and methodology for evaluating thePolice personnel to move in the higher rank in the same or to the nextrank cannot be lost sight nor can be ignored merely because the scheme AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Awas withdrawn on 29.04.1987. No error has been committed by theState in continuing the evaluation of the Sub-Inspectors on the basis ofcriteria as provided in Rule 13.14 while effecting promotion.

20. This Court has laid down time and again that while construingstatutory Rules such construction should be adopted which may giveBeffect to the intention or object of the Rule and no such interpretation beput which may make the Rule ineffective. We may refer to the judgmentof this Court in State of Gujarat and Another vs. Justice R.A. Mehta(Retired) and Others, (2013) 3 SCC 1, where this Court laid downfollowing in paragraphs 96, 97 and 98:

C“96. In the process of statutory construction, the court mustconstrue the Act before it bearing in mind the legal maxim ut resmagis valeat quam pereat which means it is better for a thing tohave effect than for it to be made void i.e. a statute must beconstrued in such a manner so as to make it workable. ViscountSimon, L.C. in Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated CollieriesDLtd. [1940 AC 1014 : (1940) 3 All ER 549 (HL)] stated as follows:(AC p. 1022)

“… if the choice is between two interpretations, thenarrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purposeof the legislation, we should avoid a construction which wouldEreduce the legislation to futility and should rather accept thebolder construction based on the view that Parliament wouldlegislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effectiveresult.”

97. Similarly in Whitney v. IRC [1926 AC 37 (HL)] it wasFobserved as under: (AC p. 52)

“… A statute is designed to be workable, and theinterpretation thereof by a court should be to secure that object,unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that endunattainable.”

G

98. The doctrine of purposive construction may be takenrecourse to for the purpose of giving full effect to statutoryprovisions, and the courts must state what meaning the statuteshould bear, rather than rendering the statute a nullity, as statutesare meant to be operative and not inept. The courts must refrainHfrom declaring a statute to be unworkable. The rules of

interpretation require that construction which carries forward theobjectives of the statute, protects interest of the parties and keepsthe remedy alive, should be preferred looking into the text andcontext of the statute. Construction given by the court mustpromote the object of the statute and serve the purpose for whichit has been enacted and not efface its very purpose. “The courtsstrongly lean against any construction which tends to reduce astatute to futility. The provision of the statute must be so construedas to make it effective and operative.” The court must take apragmatic view and must keep in mind the purpose for which thestatute was enacted as the purpose of law itself provides goodguidance to courts as they interpret the true meaning of the Actand thus legislative futility must be ruled out. A statute must beconstrued in such a manner so as to ensure that the Act itselfdoes not become a dead letter and the obvious intention of thelegislature does not stand defeated unless it leads to a case ofabsolute intractability in use. The court must adopt a constructionwhich suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy and “tosuppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of themischief, and pro privato commodo, and to add force and life tothe cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers ofthe Act, pro bono publico”. The court must give effect to thepurpose and object of the Act for the reason that legislature ispresumed to have enacted a reasonable statute. (Vide M. Pentiahv. Muddala Veeramallappa [AIR 1961 SC 1107] , S.P. Jain v.Krishna Mohan Gupta [(1987) 1 SCC 191 : AIR 1987 SC 222], RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.[(1987) 1 SCC 424 : AIR 1987 SC 1023], Tinsukhia ElectricSupply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam [(1989) 3 SCC 709 : AIR1990 SC 123] , SCC p. 754, para 118, UCO Bank v. RajinderLal Capoor [(2008) 5 SCC 257 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 263] andGrid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. v. Eastern Metals and Ferro Alloys[(2011) 11 SCC 334] .)”

21. The principle of construction of statutory Rules as laid downabove would apply to the interpretation of Punjab Police Rules, 1934.We are of the opinion that the High Court did not commit any error inconstruing the Rules in the manner as was construed by the High Court.We endorse the view of the High Court interpreting the Punjab PoliceRules, 1934. Chapter XIII of the Rules have to be conjointly and AB

C

DEF

G

H

Aharmoniously construed and when we construe Rules 13.1, 13.14 and13.15, we do not find any error in State promoting the Sub-Inspectors toInspectors who have eight years’ approved service to their credit, atleast five years being as Sub-Inspectors. Thus, the High Court has rightlyupheld the promotion orders of private respondents. No ground is madeout to interfere with the judgment of the High Court in these appeals.BThe appeals are dismissed.

Devika Gujral

Appeals dismissed.

C

D

E

F

G

H