HARPAL SINGH Vs. UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners were recruited as Constables in the Union Territory of Chandigarh on the various dates mentioned in paragraph 2 of the petition. By virtue of the provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, their conditions of service were governed by the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules ). On January 30, 1973, the Union Territory Administration issued a standing order laying down that the Constables should be deputed for the Lower School Course on the basis of a competitive test. Petitioners Nos. 5 to 7 filed Civil Writ Petn. No. 1812 of 1976, which came up before R. N. Mitta, J. who disposed it of on 10-9-1976 in the following terms:-

(2.) IN the return filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 and 2, it has been submitted that they have acted strictly in compliance with rules 13. 1, 13. 7 and 19. 14 of the Rules. It is further submitted that the provisions of rule 19. 14 of the Rules regarding the date, time and duration of the Refresher Course and the test are 'mandatory in the sense that the schedule has to be observed in chrono--metric exactitude' and if due to some emergent and important pre--occupations of the Administration, action could not be taken earlier, the duration and time schedule of the Refresher Course could be varied after consulting the Principal of the Police Training College, Phillaur, which had been done in the instant case.

(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. M. R. Agnihotri, the learned counsel for the respondents, has submitted that R. 19. 14 expressly provides that the eligible constables shall be called to the Lines and given Refresher Course of Drill and Instruction in contradistinction with the provisions of R. 13. 9 relating to the selection of Head Constables for the Intermediate School Course and that the observations made by the Full Bench in Sardul Singh's case (1970 Lab IC 1397 (Punj) (FB)) (supra) relating to the selection of constables for the Lower School Course were in his favour. He has further submitted that R. 19. 14 treated all the foot constables alike and a combined reading of the relevant rules shows that the process of promotion of a constable to the rank of Head Constable commences on the day when his name is brought on the rolls. He has also submitted that R. 19. 14 aims at introducing efficiency in the service and is not violative of Art. 16. On the second point, it is urged that the provision regarding the period of three months for Reference Course of Drill and Instruction mentioned in this rule should be regarded as a directory provision only.