YOGENDER PAL SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal by special leave arises out of a writ petition filed by the appellants in the High Court of Delhi for the issue of a direction to the Delhi Administration to appoint them as police Constables.

(2.) PRIOR to the coming into force of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (Act No. 34 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with effect from the 1st day of July, 1978, there was in force in the Union Territory of Delhi the Police Act, 1861. On the commencement of the Act, the Police Act, 1861 ceased to be in force in Delhi by virtue of section 149 of the Act. The first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act, however, provided that all rules and standing orders (including the Punjab Police Rules, as in force in Delhi) made under the Police Act, 1861 would be in so far as they were consistent with the Act be deemed to have been respectively made under the Act. Accordingly the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as in force in Delhi which had been enacted under the Police Act, 1861 continued to be in force even after the commencement of the Act. Chapter 12 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 contained the rules relating to the appointments and enrolments of Assistant Superintendents of Police, Deputy Superintendents of Police, Inspectors, Sergeants, Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Range Auditors, Head Constables and Constables. Recruitment to the cadre of Constables was done under rules 12.12 to 12.22 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934. Rules 12.14 and 12.15 dealt with the status of the recruits, the qualifications, age and the physical standards which the recruits had to satisfy. Rules 12.14 and 12.15 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 read as follows :

(3.) THE Rules were again amended in 1985. On that occasion rule 9 of the Rules which provided for the recruitment of the Constables was amended but we are not concerned with these amendments made in the year 1985 since we are concerned in this case with the rules which were in force prior to the above said amendment. Rule 30 of the Rules which is relevant for purposes of this case reads as follows :