SUNIL MATTAD Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition involves interpretation of Rule 8 (2) of the Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying While in Service) Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ).

(2.) THE petitioner's father Girdhari Lal was working as a Sub- Inspector in the Police Department of the Government of Rajasthan. He died on 28. 2. 1987 while he was in active government service. THE petitioner, who is the eldest son of late Girdhari Lal, made an application in February, 1988 to the Director General of Police, Jaipur, for appointment on the post of Sub- Inspector, under the Rules. According to the petitioner, he possessed qualification of Graduation in Commerce and therefore, fulfilled minimum requirement for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector as laid down in the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974. THE petitioner was subjected to physical fitness test in the Police Lines, before the Reserve Inspector, at Jaipur and his application was sent to the Home Department with the stipulation that he is physically fit for the post of Sub-Inspector and he fulfilled the qualifications. THE Government of Rajasthan in the Home Department sent a letter dated 20. 5. 1988 (Ex. 1) to the Director General of Police for appointment of the petitioner as Sub-Inspector under the Rules. Office of the Director General of Police issued a letter dated 8. 6. 1988 directing the petitioner to present himself for medical examination before the Medical Officer Incharge, Government Satellite Hospital, Sethi Nagar, Jaipur on 13. 6. 88. THEreafter, vide letter dated 5. 9. 1988 issued under the signature of the Dy. I. G. P. (Hq.) the petitioner and one Rajendra Aboosar were directed to appear before the Director General of Police for interview for the purpose of appointment on the post of Sub- Inspector. THE Petitioner has stated that the Dy. Secretary to Government, Home (Gr. l) Department, had written a D. O. letter dated 6. 10. 88 that the petitioner fulfilled the requisite qualifications for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector and there was no justification for subjecting him for interview. By the aforesaid D. O. letter, the Deputy Secretary to Government had requested the Director General of Police to issue appropriate order of appointment of the petitioner in terms of the earlier direction issued by the Government. THE petitioner has stated that despite this letter of the Home Department, the Director General of Police issued a letter to him calling upon him as to whether he was prepared to serve as an L. D. C. THE petitioner was directed to send his consent for that purpose. THE petitioner has further stated that he made representation to the Chief Secretary and Home Secretary to Govt. of Rajasthan for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and even the Department of Personel had given a clarification against the interviews for the purpose of appointment under the Rules. Even thereafter, the petitioner has not been given appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector and instead he is being forced to accept employment as an L. D. C.

(3.) SHRI Parihar, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate argued the case with excellence and submitted that Rule 8 (2) of the Rules clearly contemplate interviewing of the candidates for the purpose of satisfaction that the candidate will be able to maintain minimum standards of work and efficiency expected of the post. This was not a condition made by administrative instructions or by administrative action of any particular authority but was a part of the rule itself. Thus, there was no amendment of the statutory rules by administrative instructions or orders. The Director General of Police had acted in conformity with the provisions of Rule 8 (2) and if at the stage of interview the petitioner has not been found to possess the minimum requisite aptitude for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police, there was every justification for not giving him appointment on the said post. SHRI Parihar argued that even in Ex. 1 dated 20. 05. 1988, Government of Rajasthan in the Home Department had made it clear that before issuing appointment order, it would be ensured that the petitioner fulfills all the requirements of the post such as age, physical and medical fitness and soundness of character etc. as prescribed in the Rules. The Director General of Police had merely acted in conformity with the Rules and has not, in any manner, acted in contravention of the same. Regarding appointment of other persons, SHRI Parihar argued that the seven persons had been given appointment between 1976 to 1987 because of special circumstances. He pointed out that one appointment was made in the year 1976, the other was made in the year 1978, three appointments were made in the year 1982, one in the year 1983 and one in the year 1987. However, all the candidates who were considered for employment under the Rules, after 1987, were subjected to interview. Seven persons were wards/wives of the persons who were killed in encounter during active police service, and therefore, a lenient view was taken in their matter and appointments had been given to them without interview. However, the mere fact that others had been given appointment without interview could hardly denude the competent authority of the power and jurisdiction to subject a candidate to interview who is desirous of appointment under the Rules. SHRI Parihar further submitted that a discretion is vested with the competent authority under Rule 8 (2) and unless it can be said that the discretion was exercised wholly arbitrarily or was exercised with malice, the petitioner cannot claim that he has been subjected to discriminatory treatment. According to the learned Additional Government Advocate, no allegations of malafide have been levelled by the petitioner against the Director General of Police who had interviewed him. The Director General of Police is the Head of the Deptt. and he certainly knows the functional requirements of the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. At the time of interview it was found that the petitioner does not possess the aptitude and comprehensive knowledge expected of a candidate for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The petitioner gave poor account of himself before the Director General of Police and therefore, it was thought fit, in public interest, not to appoint him on the post of Sub-Inspector. The post of Sub-Inspector is very important in the hierarchy of police organisation. A Sub-Inspector of Police has to carry various responsibilities. He has to work as Station House Officer. Therefore, a person who lacks in aptitude and general awareness, cannot fit in the role of Sub-Inspector of Police.