MULCHANDBHAI LAVJIBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This is a petition filed by the petitioners herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking and seeking protection of their fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petitioners are un-armed and armed police constables serving in various police stations of Sabarkantha District. Initially each of the petitioners was appointed as police constable in various other districts, but on their request, each of them was transferred to the Sabarkantha District. In short, each of the petitioners is serving in the Sabarkantha District on acceptance of their request-transfer.

(2.) It requires to be noted that the basic controversy is not that police constables would be denied the benefits of higher grade/scale under the G.R. at Annexure 'A'. It is also not the controversy that police constables would be denied the benefits on account of their transfer from one district to another due to exigencies of service. The controversy raised in the present petition and consequently the grievance made therein, arises only because such benefits are denied to the police constables because they have been transferred to another district on their own request.

(3.) It was sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that various circulars have been issued by the Home Department of the State, which clarified the application of the impugned G.R. at Annexure 'A'. According to the learned counsel for the respondents, all these circulars, whether read individually or collectively, only lends support to the view expressed in the G.R. at Annexure 'A'. 3.1 This contention cannot be entertained for a number of reasons. Firstly, circulars which may have been issued by the Home Department of the State are only clarificatory in nature, and are issued with a view to make the administration and application of the G.R. in question more smoother and effective. It is obvious that circulars do not have the status in law which a G.R. has. Therefore, circulars which merely emphasize the applicability of the G.R. cannot, in any manner, add to or support the legality of the G.R., where such legality is lacking. The second reason this contention cannot be entertained is that all the circulars sought to be referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents are prior to the date of the impugned G.R. at Annexure 'A', i.e. 1 6/08/1994. Thus, even if such circulars were taken into consideration, they cannot amplify or support the impugned G.R. at Annexure 'A'. The third reason why this submission cannot be countenanced is that none of the circulars sought to be referred to by the learned counsel for the respondents are on the record of the present petition. In fact, it requires to be noted that the respondents herein have not even filed an affiadvit-in-reply to the petition. For this reason also, the factual averments made by the petitioners in this petition require to be accepted inasmuch as they have not been controverted at all.