STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. SARATSINH R SISODIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these matters are taken up for hearing because common questions of law and facts are involved in these matters. L.P.A. No. 187 of 1986 arises out of the decision made in Special Civil Application No. 3502 of 1980 and L.P.A. Nos. 243, 244 and 245 of 1988 arise respectively out of Special Civil Application Nos. 1740, 1739 and 2477 of 1981. These Special Civil Application, along with two others, were disposed of by a common judgment dated 17/04/1985.

(2.) The short question arising for decision in the instant Appeals is as to whether or not the Police Constables with matriculation or equivalent standard, should be promoted by providing reserved quota of 33.33%. It appears to us that, previously, in the police service, persons with higher educational qualifications were not attracted and a policy decision had been taken that for the purpose of promotion to the cadre of Head Constable, Police Constables with the educational qualification upto matriculation or equivalent standard should be given promotion in the reserved quota of 33.33% and the rest will be kept for open competition from amongst the Police Constables. Later on, in exercise of the power under Sec. 5 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, rules being the Head Constables Grade I and Grade II (Armed Branch, Unarmed Branch and Women Branch) Recruitment Rules, 1979, were framed. Under the said Rules, reservation of 33.33% for the affected Police Constables, viz.. Police Constables with matriculation or equivalent standard, has been done away with. The respondents herein, who are matriculate Police Constables, contended that as the State Government was following a policy of giving promotions to the matriculate Police Constables against the reserved quota of 33.33%, the said policy should be pursued despite the aforesaid Rules framed under the Bombay Police Act and such literate Police Constables should be given promotions against the said reserved quota of 33.33%. The learned single Judge accepted such contention and held inter alia, that the Police Constables, who are matriculates or equivalent standard, had been reasonably expecting promotion on the basis of the existing policy and by the long standing policy decision, they have acquired some right in getting such promotion. Accordingly, the Government is estopped from affecting the chance of promotion of such Police Constables in the reserved quota to the extent of 33.33%. Such decision of the learned single Judge is under challenge in the instant Appeals.

(3.) Miss Doshit, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants, has very strongly contended that the law is well settled that nobody has got any vested right of promotion and chance of promotion can always be affected by introducing statutory rules governing the conditions of service. She has submitted that previously persons with higher educational qualifications were not attracted to the Police Service and for encouraging persons with higher educational qualifications for coming to the Police Service, a policy decision had been taken by the Government and reservation of 33.33% was made for giving promotion to the post of Head Constables from amongst the Police Constables having matriculate or higher educational qualifications. But with the change of time, more and more educated persons were attracted to the Police Service and considering the facts of the case, the Government felt that there was no necessity for such reservation. She has contended that the aforesaid Rules of 1979 were enacted under the Bombay Police Act, 1951 and the said Statutory Rules became effective, overriding any executive instructions, including policy decisions. In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondents-writ petitioners could not successfully contend in the Court of law that the earlier policy decision must be adhered to and overriding the condition of service under the said Rules, reservation of quota should be made for them and they should be promoted against the reserved quota. Miss Doshit has contended that the Government servants really enjoy a status, which can always be changed by the appropriate conditions of service, by framing rules, either under a statute or under the proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution. There cannot be any principle of estoppel against such statutory rules. She has contended that the learned single Judge has committed an error in proceeding on the footing that since such policy decision was continuing for long and chance of promotion on the basis of the existing policy decision was there, so far as the petitioners were concerned, such chance of promotion could not have been affected. Such decision of the learned single Judge is contrary to the various decisions of the Supreme Court.