UNION OF INDIA Vs. YOGENDER PAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under clause of the Letters Patent of Punjab High Court as applicable to this Court, by the Union of India challenging, the judgment of a learned Single Judg directing that 21 of 'the writ petitioners be apponted as constableses in the Delhi Police Force.

(2.) The learned Singe Judge has held that the Punjab Police Rules, 193.4, framed under the Police Act, 1861, continue to remain in force in Delhi even after the promulgation of the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recrutment) Rules, 1980 & therefore relaxation made in favour of the wards of Delhi Policemen regarding age educational qualifications and physical standards by an order dated October 3, 1981, in accordance with Punjab Police Rule 12.15 read with Rule 12.14(3) entitles them to be recruited as constables in Delhi Police. The order relied upon by the writ petitioners reads as follows :"

(3.) The learned Judge bag negatived the contention that the Punjab Police Rules stood repealed on coming into force of the Delhi Police Act and the Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980, made thereunder. It has been observed that the appellants (respondents in the writ petition) cannot be allowed, to attack the above-quoted order as respondents While referring to the past practice of the respondents whereunder concessions, were granted to the wards of the Delhi Policemen, the learned Judge has further observed that the department's own conduct clearly shows that they were applying the Punjab Police Rules on the assumption that-they continue to be in force in Delhi. Therefore, it bag been held that the writ petitioners come within the purview of relaxation regarding age, educational qualification, height and chest and as such be taken in service having qualified in the test. It may be noted here that, out of twenty three petitioners, two of them, namely, petitioner No. 12, Prem Dutt and petitioner No. 15, Surinder Kumar,-were appointed ag constables during the pendency of the writ petition and, therefore, no directions were required to be passed in their case.