HAV SAISANG SALIO Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The 3 (three) writ petitioners who are G.D. Havildars have preferred this writ petition invoking powers of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution for vindicating their rights for consideration for promotion to the post of SI. Mizoram Armed Police. The factual matrix available in the writ petition is that the 3 (three) writ petitioners along with about 3 (three) hundred others were initially recruited as Constables in the Mizoram Armed Police Battalions. Gradually they were promoted to the post of Lance Naik, Naik and thereafter, to the post of Havildar after putting in about 15(fifteen) years of service. There next promotion is to the post of Sub-inspector of Mizoram Armed Police for which they are entitled to consideration for promotion as per provision of Rule 41 of the Armed Police Manual, Part-Ill. It is submitted that as per provision of Rule 41,20% of the posts are to be filled up by recruitment whereas 80% to be filled up by promotion. Their right for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector of Mizoram Armed Police has been clouded when the Government of Mizoram framed and published the Mizoram Armed Police Battalions (Group-C posts) Recruitment Rules, 1992, wherein provisions have been made to treat the Havildar Clerks recruited directly at par with them for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Mizoram Armed Police.

(2.) I have heard in details the argument advanced (by Mr. George Raju, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government Advocate. While Mr. Raju tried to project the provisions incorporated in the Recruitment Rules of 1992 as violative of petitioners' rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, the Learned Government Advocate controverted the same on the ground that right for consideration for promotion to the next higher grade as per provision of Article 41 of the Assam Police Manual, Part-in, does not in any way denude the State of its Executive Powers to adopt a policy to go for direct recruitment. According to learned Govt. Advocate, the right for consideration for promotion of the writ petitioners may be treated as mere expectation and not a right vested in them. According to him, the decision of the Government reflected in the Rules of 1992 to treat the Cadre of Havildar Clerks as a feeder cadre to the post of Sub Inspector of Mizoram Armed Police cannot be accepted as violative of petitioners' rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

(3.) Formication of policy in respect of recruitment is a matter exclusively pertaining to the Executive functions of the State and a decision to treat a particular cadre at par with General Duty Havildars cannot be questioned by this court since it is a matter which calls for scrutiny of technical details for which the Government has the necessary technical expertise. Therefore, the reasons for equating the Havildar Clerks with that of G.D. Havildars for the purpose of promotion to the next higher grades'cannot be interfere with by this court in exercise of its powers under Article 226 of the Constitution.