http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 8  

PETITIONER: RAM SHARAN

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,AJMER RANGE AND OTHER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/03/1964

BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. BENCH: WANCHOO, K.N. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) SHAH, J.C. AYYANGAR, N. RAJAGOPALA SIKRI, S.M.

CITATION:  1964 AIR 1559            1964 SCR  (7) 228  CITATOR INFO :  E          1974 SC 259  (16,17)

ACT: Police  Act,  1861 (Act 5 of 1861)  s.  2-Rajasthan  Police- Division of State into ranges-Promotions rangewise-If  deny- ing equality before law or equality in matters of public em- ployment-Constitution of India, Arts. 14 and 16.

HEADNOTE: The  system  prevailing in the State of  Rajasthan  for  the purpose  of promotion of head-constable to the post of  Sub- Inspectors of Police was challenged as violative of Arts. 14 and  16(1)  of the Constitution.  The  petitioner,  who  was promoted  to  the rank of Sub-Inspector of Police  from  the rank of head constable, was reverted when a permanent  ;Sub- Inspector  returned to the range as he was the  junior  most approved headconstable in that range, though in other ranges of  the State there were many approved  head-constables  who were  junior to him but they continued to officiate as  Sub- Inspectors.  The petitioners grievance was that if the whole State had been treated as one unit for purpose of  promotion to  and  reversion  from the  rank  of  Sub-Inspectors,  the petitioner  would  not have been  reverted.   He  contended, inter  alia,  that  the whole police force  being  one,  the practice  of  promotion of head-constables to  officiate  as Sub-Inspectors   rangewise  amounted  to  denial  of   equal opportunity before the law and was hit by Arts. 14 and 16 of the  Constitution; and that the practice of  confining  pro- motions  and reversions to officers serving at a  particular point  of time in one particular range and at the same  time making inter-range transfers freely and frequently and as  a matter of official routine was bound to produce serious  in- equalities in promotions and reversions and also very hapha- zard changes in seniority amongst the officers inter se. Held:.....(i) The system of giving promotions as evolved  in the  State cannot be struck down as denying equality  before the  law or denying equality in the matter of employment  in public  service, on the ground that the police  force  being deemed  one for the whole State, promotion  throughout  from

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 8  

constable upwards should be on the basis of the whole  State or simply on the ground of possible cases of hardship.   The system has been evolved for the efficiency of the police  in the State as well as for administrative convenience. (ii).If there is wholesale abuse of the power of transfer by the Inspector-General of Police, (for he alone can  transfer Sub-Inspectors from one range to another), a case of glaring denial of equality before the law or glaring denial of equal opportunity  for employment in the service of the State  may arise.  But a system like this cannot be struck down on the. ground  that  it may be abused.  In case of  abuse  in  this wholesale  manner  a case may arise for  striking  down  the abuse and not the system. (iii).....In  the  face of Government Order of  March  1955, directing  not to ordinarily transfer officers drawing  less than                             229 Rs.  250/-  p.m. outside their home district, it  cannot  be accepted  that  free and frequent transfers are  made  as  a matter  of  routine by the Inspector-General  of  Police  in violation  thereof.   Further  the material  that  has  been placed  on the record by the petitioner is  insufficient  to come  to  the  conclusion that along  with  this  system  of promotion,  there  is also a pracice of  free  and  frequent transfers  in  Rajasthan  as a matter  of  routine  of  Sub- Inspectors from one range to another.

JUDGMENT: ORIGINAL   JURISDICTION-Writ  Petition  No.  175  of   1963. Petition under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India for  the enforcement of fundamental rights. B.   D. Sharma, for the petitioner. S.   V.  Gupte, Additional Solicitor-General, G.  C.  Kasli- wal,  Advocate-General, State of Rajasthan and B. R.  G.  K. Achar, for the respondents. March 16, 1964.  The judgment of the Court was delivered by WANCHOO, J.-This petition under Art. 32 of the  Constitution challenges  the system prevailing in the State of  Rajasthan for the purpose of promotion of head-constables to the  post of  Sub-Inspectors  of Police as violative of Arts.  14  and 16(1)  of  the  Constitution.  The petitioner  was  a  head- constable in the former State of Ajmer and was duly included in  the approved list of head-constables to be  promoted  to the  rank  of  Sub-Inspectors  of Police  in  1955  and  was appointed  on July 14, 1956 as officiating Sub-Inspector  of Police.   On  November 1, 1956, the former  State  of  Ajmer merged in the State of Rajasthan under the States  Reorgani- sation  Act.   The  petitioner was absorbed  in  the  police service of the State of Rajasthan and a fresh order  posting him as officiating Sub-Inspector in Rajasthan was passed  on November 1, 1956.  According to the petitioner, the practice of  Police  administration in Rajasthan is  that  the  whole police   force   of  the  State  is  generally   under   the administrative  control of the Inspector General of  Police, who is assisted by ,six Deputy Inspectors General of Police, each  Deputy Inspector General of Police being in-charge  of administration in one of the six ranges into which the whole State has been divided for administrative convenience.   The petitioner  however  contends  that  though  the  State   of Rajasthan is divided into six ranges, the Sub-Inspectors  in different ranges belong to one cadre and one service and are governed  by  the same rules and regulations  and  the  same conditions  of  service  as  regards  pay,  leave,  pension,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 8  

promotion,  disciplinary action etc.  The Sub-Inspectors  of Police are also transferable from one range to another.   It is usual for the Inspector General of Police to pass  orders of transfer from one range to another of three or four  Sub- Inspectors every day on an 230 average and thus the Sub-Inspectors in the different  ranges are  similarly situated and similarly circumstanced  in  all respects.  The same is the case with head-constables serving in   different ranges of the State.  The petitioner  further contends  that even though the police force is one  for  the entire  State  in view of s. 2 of the Police Act, No.  5  of 1861,  (hereinafter referred to as the Act) a practice  grew up  in  the State of Rajasthan of treating  the  members  of police  force serving at a particular point of time in  each range as a separate and distinct unit for purposes of making promotions   and  reversions.   In  consequences   of   this practice,  if  a vacancy in the cadre of  Sub-Inspectors  of Police  arose  in  one  range,  only  the  seniormost  head- constables  in that range were considered for  promotion  to that  vacancy, even though there might be more senior  head- constables  in other ranges who had also been  approved  for promotion.   These head-constables of other ranges were  not considered and promotion was made on the basis of the  head- constables  in  the  particular  range  where  the   vacancy occurred.   Similar was the case where reversion had  to  be made  on account of exigency of public service.  In view  of this  practice,  the petitioner was reverted in  April  1957 when  a permanent Sub Inspector returned to the range as  he was  the  juniormost approved head-constable  in  the  Ajmer range, though in other ranges there were many approved head- constables  who  were junior to him but  they  continued  to officiate as Sub-Inspectors.  The petitioner’s grievance  is that  if  the whole State had been treated as one  unit  for purposes of promotion to and reversion from the rank of Sub- Inspectors, the petitioner would not have been reverted.  He contends that the whole police force being one, the practice of  promotion  of  head-constables  to  officiate  as   Sub- Inspector  rangewise amounts to denial of equal  opportunity before  the  law and is hit by Arts. 14 and 16 of  the  Con- stitution.   It is contended that the practice of  confining promotions   and  reversions  to  officers  serving   at   a particular point of time in one particular range (i.e. where the  vacancy or the surplusage of posts  actually  occurred) and at the same time making inter-range transfers freely and frequently  and as a matter of official routine is bound  to produce  serious inequalities in promotions  and  reversions and  also  very haphazard changes in seniority  amongst  the officers inter se.  The practice according to the petitioner allowing free transfers produces results which are violative of  the equal protection of law and of equal opportunity  to public  servants  in  the  matter  of  employment  and  thus violates Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The petition has been opposed on behalf of the State and the system of promotion within the range is justified on                             231 the  basis of the administrative Organisation of the  police force  in  the State and efficiency  of  administration  for police  purposes.  The Organisation of the police  force  in the  State  is that the whole force is  under  an  Inspector General  of  Police; but for administrative  efficiency  the entire  area of the State is divided into four  ranges  each under one Deputy Inspector General of Police.  Besides these four ranges there are two other units of the force which are separate  administrative units, each under the charge  of  a

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 8  

Deputy  Inspector  General of Police, though  they  are  not ranges.   These  two  units are  (1)  Criminal  Intelligence Department  and  Intelligence Branch, and  (2)  Railway  and Crime  Branch.   Under  the  four  ranges  are  the  various district  organisations of police under  Superintendents  of Police.  The initial recruitment to the police force is made within   a  district  in  the  rank  of  constable.    These constables  are posted in their respective  districts  after training.   This  is  done with  a  view  to  administrative efficiency, as such constables are well acquainted with  the conditions,  topography,  fairs, festivals  and  customs  of their  districts.  From these constables approved lists  are prepared for promotion to head-constable and these lists are prepared  districtwise by the Superintendent of Police,  who has  the  power to promote a constable to  a  head-constable within his district.  Once a constable has been confirmed as a  held constable, his further promotion as a  Sub-Inspector is by the Deputy Inspector General of Police.  For this pur- pose,  all the head-constables in the range consisting of  a number of districts of which the Deputy Inspector General of Police  is  the administrative head are  considered  as  one group  for promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspectors.   Conse- quently  the Deputy Inspector General of Police prepares  an approve, list of head-constables on the basis of  seniority- cum-merit.   Whenever  a vacancy occurs in  the  range,  the Deputy Inspector General of Police concerned makes promotion from  this  approved  list according  to  seniority  and  if reversion  is to take place it is the  juniormost  head-con- stable  officiating  as a Sub-Inspector  who  reverts.   The Inspector  General of Police only keeps a list of  confirmed SubInspectors  as  he is the officer who has  the  power  to promote  Sub-Inspectors  to the rank of  Inspectors.   Thus, according  to the State, this three tier system  has  always been  prevalent  in the State; promotion from  constable  to head-constable  is made by the Superintendent of Police  and is  confined to the district, promotion from  head-constable to Sub-Inspector is made by the Deputy Inspector General  of Police and is confined to the range, or, as the case may be, within  the  two  units already  referred  to,  and  finally promotion  from  the rank of Sub-Inspector to  the  rank  of Inspector  is  on a State-wise basis made by  the  Inspector General of Police 232 The case of the State is that this system, has been  evolved for   administrative   efficiency  and  there  is   in   the circumstances no inequality before the law and no denial  of equality  in  the  matter of employment of  members  of  the police  force of this description.  It is also contended  on behalf of the State that this system, is necessary not  only in  the  interest  of good administration but  also  in  the interest of efficiency as there are about 20,000 constables, 3,000 head-constables and 1,000 Sub-Inspectors of Police  in the  whole  of  the State.  It  is  therefore  an  extremely difficult  job for the Inspector General of Police to  order promotion  of a constable to the rank of headconstable,  and thereafter  promote  a head-constable to the  rank  of  Sub- Inspector.  Apart from that, it is averred that officers  on the  spot, like the Superintendent of Police who promotes  a constable to the rank of head-constable within his  district and  the Deputy Inspector General of Police who  promotes  a head-constable  to  the rank of a Sub-Inspector  within  his range,  or within the two units, know the staff and that  is why  the rules have provided that promotions would  be  made either  by  the  Superintendent  of  Police  or  the  Deputy Inspector General of Police, as the case may be

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 8  

It is not denied that sometimes on account of administrative reasons  or exigencies of service, transfers are  made  from one district to another or from one range to another; but it is  urged that these are rare.  The State  has  emphatically denied  the statement of the petitioner that three  or  four SubInspectors  on an average are transferred  everyday  from one  range  to another.  It is said that the policy  of  the Government is that transfers of subordinate staff even  from one district to another should be rare.  In that connection, the State has referred to the Government Order issued to all Heads of Department in March 1955 in which it was said  that it  had come to the notice of the Government  that  officers were generally transferred outside their home districts, and sometimes  even  outside their  divisions,  thereby  causing great  hardship to the low paid employees.   The  Government had  therefore  decided to order that all  officers  drawing less  than Rs. 250/- p.m. may not ordinarily be  transferred outside  their  home  districts,  and  if  the  transfer  is unavoidable  it should, as far as possible, be  confined  to the division.  It may be mentioned that the revenue division would  ordinarily be of the same extent as a  police  range, though  not  necessarily so.  The State  therefore  contends that  transfers of subordinate staff are not freely made  as alleged  by the petitioner from one district to  another  or from  one  range  to another, and therefore  the  system  of promotion  of head-constables rangewise does  not-ordinarily result in any hardship due to promotion being confined  from head-constables to 233 Sub-Inspectors  within the range and does not result in  any inequality before the law or the denial of equal opportunity in the matter of employment in the service of the State. It  is  true that under s. 2 of the Police Act,  the  entire police  establishment  under a State Government is  for  the purposes of the Act, deemed to be one police force, and  pay and  all  other  conditions of service  of  members  of  the subordinate ranks of any police force have to be  determined by  the  State Government.  Even so, the Act  envisages  the Organisation  of police administration under  the  Inspector General of Police by creation of ranges under Deputy Inspec- tors General of Police and districts under District Superin- tendents   of  Police.   Such  Organisation   is   obviously necessary for the efficient functioning of the police  force and  that is why in practically all the States we find  that the  administration  of the police force, though  under  one Inspector  General  of Police, is further  sub-divided  into ranges  under  Deputy  Inspectors  General  of  Police   and districts  under  Superintendents  of  Police.   Further  it cannot be denied that local knowledge is generally  speaking conducive  to administrative efficiency in the police  force and  that  is  the  reason  for  recruiting  constables   on districtwise  basis  and providing for  their  promotion  as head-constables   also   on  districtwise   basis   by   the Superintendent of Police who is expected to know their work. The  same idea is apparent in the second tier of the  system by  which head-constables in a range consisting of a  number of districts are treated as one for promotion to the rank of Sub-Inspector  which  is  vested  in  the  Deputy  Inspector General of Police.  By providing promotion within the range, the  area  is a little widened as compared  to  a  district. Even so, the advantage of local knowledge is still available when  such selections are made on a rangewise basis.  It  is only when we reach third tier and come to promotion of  Sub- Inspectors  of  Police as Inspectors of  Police  that  local knowledge  is  not  insisted upon so much  as  the  work  of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 8  

Inspectors  of  Police  and those above them is  more  of  a supervisory nature.  On the other hand so far as the work of a constable, head-constable and Sub-Inspector is  concerned, they  deal with the public directly and in such a  situation local  knowledge  certainly plays an important part  in  the matter of efficiency of these ranks of the police force.  If the  State  has  evolved the three  tier  system  of  giving promotion  from  constables to head-constables,  from  head- constables  to  SubInspectors  and  from  Sub-Inspectors  to Inspectors, which is done in the interest of  administrative efficiency of the police force, it cannot in our opinion  be said that such a system should be struck down on the  ground that the police force being deemed one for the whole  State, promotion throughout 234 from  constable upwards should be on the basis of the  whole State.   Apart  from administrative difficulties  which  may arise  if  all promotion of members in the police  force  is concentrated in the hands of the Inspector General of Police which is what the petitioner is contending for, it seems  to us  that there is a good deal of force in the contention  of the  State  that  the  three  tier  system  works  for   the efficiency  of  the  police  force of  these  ranks  and  is designed  with  that object.  It is not denied that  it  may sometimes  happen that in one range a head-constable may  be promoted  who may be junior to a head-constable  in  another range  who does not get promotion at the same  time  because the  promotion is rangewise.  But it is urged that this  has to  be balanced against considerations of  efficiency  which have  led  to  the  evolving of the  three  tier  system  of promotion  already  referred  to and  therefore  the  system should  not be struck down, simply because at times  it  may happen that a junior head-constable may get promotion  while a  senior head-constable in another range may have to  wait. Balancing   the  various  considerations   mentioned   above therefore  it  seems to us that the system in force  in  the State of Rajasthan evolved as it has been for the efficiency of  the  police in the State as well as  for  administrative convenience cannot be said of itself to deny equality before the  law or to deny equality in the matter of employment  in public service, even though at times it may happen,  because of the system that a junior head-constable in one range  may get promotion as officiating Sub-Inspector while in  another range  a  senior head-constable may have to  wait  for  some time.   We  are therefore not prepared to strike  down  this system  as  denying  equality  before  the  law  or  denying equality in the matter of employment in the public  service, simply on the ground of these possible cases of hardship. It is however urged that the system is capable of abuse  and it is possible for the Inspector General of Police to trans- fer  some  Sub-Inspectors from one range to another  with  a view  to  deprive head-constables of a particular  range  of their  due  promotion and also with a view to  favour  head- constables of another range who might otherwise be junior on the basis of length of service.  Now it is not and cannot be disputed on behalf of the petitioner that transfers from one district  to  another or from one range to another  even  in these  ranks of the police force may have to be made in  the exigencies  of public service or for reasons peculiar  to  a particular  officer;  nor has it been  contended  that  such transfers can be in any way illegal under the provisions  of the Police Act.  What is contended is that by means of  such transfers  it  is  possible to create  conditions  in  which equality  before the law or equality of opportunity  in  the matter of employment in pub-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 8  

                           235 lic  service  may  be  denied  to  a  head-constable  of   a particular  range.   It is true that if there  is  wholesale abuse  of the power of transfer by the Inspector General  of Police, (for it is he alone who can transfer  Sub-Inspectors from  one  range  to another, a case of  glaring  denial  of equality   before  the  law  or  glaring  denial  of   equal opportunity  for employment in the service of the State  may arise.    But  we  cannot  strike  down  a  system  on   the supposition  that an Inspector General of Police  may  abuse his power and create glaring instances of denial of equality before the law or of the equal opportunity of employment  in the  service  of the State.  A system like  this  cannot  be struck down on the ground that it may be abused.  In case of abuse in this wholesale manner a case may arise for striking down the abuse and not the system. This  brings us to the allegation made in the petition  that inter-range  transfers have been freely and frequently  made as  a  matter  of official routine and  this  therefore  has resulted   in   serious  inequalities  in   promotions   and reversions.   The petitioner also stated in this  connection that  the  Inspector General of Police was making  three  to four  transfers  of Sub-Inspectors on an  average  everyday. The  State has emphatically denied this allegation.   It  is also  brought  to our notice that the policy  of  the  State Government  is that subordinate staff who get less than  Rs. 250/- per mensem should not generally be transferred outside their  home  district, and if the transfer is  essential  it should  as  far  as possible be confined  to  the  division. Constables, head-constables and Sub Inspectors generally  do not  receive  more  than Rs. 250/- per  mensem  as  pay  and therefore the policy of the Government is that such officers should  not  as far as possible be transferred  outside  the district  and certainly not outside the division as  far  as possible.   In  view of this Government Order  transfers  of Sub-Inspectors  should rarely take place outside the  range. We  are  therefore not prepared to accept that  there  is  a policy of free and frequent transfers of Sub-Inspectors as a matter of routine from one range to another, and that  makes this system result in serious inequalities in promotions and reversions.   In the face of the Government Order  of  March 1955  we cannot accept free and frequent transfers are  made as a matter of routine by the Inspector General of Police in violation  thereof.   Further  the material  that  has  been placed  on the record by the petitioner is  insufficient  to come  to the conclusion that along with this system of  pro- motion,  there  is  also a practice  of  free  and  frequent transfers  in  Rajasthan  as a matter  of  routine  of  Sub- Inspectors  from one range to another.  In this view of  the matter, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.  In  the circumstances we make no order as to costs. 236 Before we part with this petition we should like to sound  a note  of warning that the system of promotion  of  head-con- stables  to Sub-Inspectors within a range can be  rationally supported  on  the basis that inter-range transfers  of  Sub Inspectors  would be a matter of rare occurrence  and  would not  be effected liberally or for ulterior motives; this  is an  important  aspect of the matter which should  always  be borne  in mind by the authorities concerned in Rajasthan  in order to avoid any further challenge to the system.                     Petition dismissed. 237

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 8