Kapil Dev & Ors v. Commissioner of Police & Ors

SANJIV KHANNA, J.: These writ petitionsimpugnthe order dated 18* July, 2014 passed W.P. (C) Nos. 2034/2015&2952/2015 Page 1of23 % • by the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal, for short) dismissing Original Application No. 1650/2013, Subodh Kumar and Others versus Commissioner of Police and Others and Original Application No. 2033/2013, Kapil Dev and Others versus Commissioner ofPolice and Others.

¶2The petitioners are male police personnel in the Delhi Police in the rank of Constables and Head Constables. In the present Writ Petitions, we are not dealing with appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Female), The next posts in the hierarchy are those of Assistant Sub-Inspector and '^then Sub-Inspector. Recruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspectors in the Delhi Police is regulated by Rules 7 and 27A of the Delhi Police (Appointment&Recruitment)Rules,,1^,$P(Rules,foi;short).

¶3Rules 7 and 27A, ofthe Rules as in force priorto 13*^ March, 2013 were as under;- "7. Recruitment of Sub-Inspectors (Executives).- Fifty per cent of vacanciesin the rank of Sub-Inspector (Executive)shall be filled by direct recruitment and 50% by promotionoutof 50% directquota, 10% of the post shall be filled by limiteddepartmentcompetitive tests from amongst constables,Head Constable, and Asstt. Sub-Inspectorswith minimum5 years of service who shall not be more than 35 years (40 years of ScheduledCastes/ScheduledTribes candidates)of age on the first day of January of the year if the examinationis held in the first half of the year and on the first day of July of the year if the examinationis held in the later half of the year. The educational W.P. (C)Nos. 2034/2015&2952/2015 ^ qualificationsand other physical standards for the test shall be the same as prescribed in the Rules for direct recruitment to such posts. The unfilled vacancies reserved for the department candidates will be carried forward for 3 recruitment years as in the case of vacancies for the scheduled tribe candidates whether the unfilled vacancies will be filled by direct recruitment. XXX 27-A. Relaxation of upper age limit for departmentalcandidate.- Relaxation of upper age limit of all departmental candidates for direct recruitmentagainstGroup 'C and 'D' posts of Police Department shall be as follows 40 years in the case of general candidateand 45 years t in the case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes Candidates.

¶4Rules 7 and 27-A post the amendmentseffective13"" March, 2013, read:- ^ "7. RecruitmentofSub-Inspectors(Executive)- Male.- 50% of vacanciesin the rank of Sub-Inspector(Exe.)- Male shall be filled by direct recruitmentand 50% by promotion. Out of 50% direct quota, 10% of the post } shall be filled from amongstservingConstables,Head Constables, and Asstt. Sub-Inspectorsenlisted in Delhi Police with a minimum of 3 years continuous service, who shall not be more than 30 years (33 years of OBC and 35 years for SC/ST candidates) of age on the first day of January of the year, if the examination is held in the first half of the year and on the first day of August of that year, if the examination is held in the later half of the year. The educational qualifications, physical standards and other requirements for the post shall be the same as prescribed in the rules for direct recruitments to such posts. W.P. (C) Nos. 2034/2015&2952/2015 Page 3 of23 XXX 27-A. Relaxation of upper age limit for all departmental candidates: Relaxation of upper age limit of all departmental candidates for direct recruitmentagainstGroup 'C and Multi TaskingStaff (Formerly group 'D' employees) enlisted in Delhi Police with a minimum of 3 years continuous service shall be as follows 30 years for generalcategorycandidates,33 years for OBC category candidates and 35 years in case of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes."

¶5The amended Rules had made four important and significant changes.First, the words "limiteddepartmentalcompetitivetesf for 10% reserved posts for departmental candidates under the 50% direct recruitmentquotawere deleted.Secondly,itwas stipulatedthat in addition to the educational qualifications and physical standards, "other requirements"as prescribed for direct recruits shall be fulfilled by the departmental candidates. Thirdly, qualifying years of service for departmental candidates under the direct recruitment 10% quota were reduced from five years to three years. The fourth change was that the upper age limitswere reducedto 30 years for General,33 years for Other BackwardClass, and 35 years for ScheduledCaste and ScheduledTribe candidates.The pre-amendedRuleshad prescribedmaximumage limitfor departmentalcandidatesseekingpromotionin the directrecruitmentquota as 40 yearsfor GeneralCategory,43 yearsfor OtherBackwardClassesand P&£6 4 0^*23 W.P. (C)Nos.2034/2015&2952/2015 \aO 45 years for ScheduledCaste and ScheduledTribecandidates,with at least 5 years experience in service.

¶6The petitionersin the aforesaidOAs had challengedthe reductionin the maximum permissible age for departmental candidates and the corrigendumissued on 9'^ April, 2013 to the employmentnotificationfor selection to the posts of Sub-Inspectors (Executive) under the direct recruitment quota pursuant to the aforesaid amendments.

¶7The impugned order dated 18^ July, 2014 passed by the Tribunal rejects the challenge holding that it was not for the Courts or Tribunal to ^interfere with the amendment and modifications made to the Recruitment Rules by the executive or legislature in their wisdom unless the same were unconstitutional or shockingly arbitrary. The authorities were entitled to prescribeand fix age limits and also to what extent relaxation should be granted. The petitioner's contention that the amendments to the Recruitment Rules were made after the selection process had already been ^ set in motion was rejected, pointing out that the amendments to the Recruitment Rules were notified on 13^*^ March, 2013 and notice/ advertisementfor recruitmentto the said posts was published on 16^^ March, 2013, i.e., post the amendmentof the Rules. The challengeto the corrigendum dated 9^'^ April, 2013, revising the advertisement in conformitywiththe termsofthe amendedRules,was rejectedas no vested right had accrued to the departmentalcandidatesunder the pre-amended W.P. (C) Nos. 2034/2015&2952/2015 ^ Rules. TheTribunalalsorejectedthepetitioners'contentionthatamended ^ \ Rules could not be applied to already existingvacancies,for it was the consciousdecisionof the Governmentof NCT of Delhi not to fill up the existing vacancies as per the pre-amendedRules. The amended Rules would apply to the vacanciescreated on 16.10.2012and advertisedon

16.3.2013.The Governmenthas deliberatelyand intentionallyappliedthe amended Rules. The challenge on the ground of alleged violation of Section147 ofthe DelhiPoliceAct was repulsed.

¶8The Tribunal thereafterfor the reasons recorded gave the following 'directions "31. Though Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, learned counselhas given a list of differentfeeder categories, which are eligible against departmentalquota for the post of Sub Inspector(Executive)in Delhi Police, but the categoriesdo not includethe Head Constablesand AssistantSub Inspectors(Executive).There is also no material available on record to show that while amending the rules, the concerned Committee could take into accountthe G.I., DepartmentofPersonnel& Training, O.M. No.l5012/l/88-Estt. (D) dated 20 51988 and 30.1.1990 (Annexure A-5) and the amendmentcarried in Delhi Police (Appointmentand Recruitment) Rules, 1980 vide notification NO.F.3/58/95-H(P)/5099 dated 1.9.1998,which reads as under;- "Govt ofNCT ofDelhi'sNotificationNo.F/3/58/95-H

(P)/5099 dated 1.9.1998 from Dy. Secreta^(H^e), Govt. of NCT of Delhi to the Addl. C.P. (HQ), Delhi etc. etc. In exerciseof the powersconferredby S»b-Section

(1)&(2) ofSection147 ofthe Delhi PoliceAct, 1978, Page6 of23 W.P. (C)Nos.2034/2015&2952/2015 the Lt. Governor of the National Capital Territory of Delhi is pleased to make the following rules, further to amend the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, namely:- 1, Short title and commencement Amendment •of Rule 27-A-^BT .v'&l v:- W.P. (C) Nos. 2034/2015&2952/2015

1..

2. "27-A

(1) Those rules may be called the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) (Amendment) Rules-1998

(2) They shall come into force with effect from the date of their publication in the Delhi Gazette. In the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, for rule 27-A, the following shall be substituted, namely:-Relaxation of Upper age limit for departmental candidates. . Relaxation of upper age limit of all departmental candidates for direct recruitment against Group 'C and 'D' posts of Police Department shall be as follows 40 years in the case of general category candidates and 45 years in the case of candidates belonging to scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes. Page 7 of23 ti.:-r" te I--

32.Besides, we are unable to appreciate that how in the absence of the amendment in Rule 8 of Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, the relaxed age standard available to sports persons could be done away, thus we are of the considered view that these aspects need to be taken into account by the concerned Committee.

33.In view of the aforementioned, we dispose of the present Original Applications with the following directions: The Committee, which made final decision on

21.2.2013, to follow the same requirement for the recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police as followed in Central Armed Police Forces Examination 2013 would reexamine the impugned amendment in the Recruitment Rules for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police, keeping in view the chances of Head Constable (Executive) in Delhi Police to participate in the selection are reduced to minimal and the Assistant Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police are virtually debarred from participating in selection against 10% quota, though kept eligible for the post of Sub Inspector (Executive) in Delhi Police against said quota; by way of reduction in age relaxation, the field of choice is reduced drastically; once for Assistant Sub Inspector and Sub Inspector in Central Armed Police Forces there can be common examination, how for the other posts to be filled up by following different Recruitment Rules, there carmot be the common examination; when there is no amendment in Rule of the Delhi Police (Appointmentand Recruitment)Rules, 1980, how the age relaxationadmissibleto sportspersonsin the matter of promotionto the postof Sub Inspector(Executive)in Delhi Police under departmental quota / direct recruitment is done away with; whether the alignment of the examination for direct recruitment / departmental examination in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Forces can be a sufficient ground to amend the Recruitment Rules; and when before amendment in the Rules the Committeekept in view that the post at Sub W.P. (C)Nos. 2034/2015& 2952/2015 Page 8 of23 Inspector in CAPF is Group 'B' post, while the same in Delhi Police is Group 'C post. The examination would be completed within 12 weeks and follow up action, if any required, would be taken within further four weeks thereafter. In the meantime, the appointment, if any made on the basis of selection set in motion vide notice dated

16.3.2013 corrected vide corrigendum dated 9.4.2013 would remain subject to outcome of the aforesaid examination."

¶9The petitionersare not satisfied with the said observations'.The contention is that reduction of age for direct recruitment for departmental candidates as per the amended Rule 7 is unconstitutional as they have been excluded from the recruitment process inspite of extreme stagnation and lack of vacancies in the promotional hierarchy. The amendments are arbitrary and perverse, for they adyersely affect the petitioners' right for consideration and eligibility to compete in the direct recruitment process as Sub-Inspector (Executive). Constables appointed in 1988 were promoted as Head Constables after about 28 years of service in 2016. Candidates in the I age of 18 to 21 are recruited to the post of Constable. For promotion to the next post in the hierarchy-that of Head Constables-qualifying service is five years. Another five years service thereafter is necessary for promotion as Assistant Sub-Inspector. Reduction of the upper age limit to 30 years ' In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents,they have stated that pursuant to the impugned judgment,a meetingofthe Committeewas held on 18* December,2014 underthe Chairmanshipofthe Joint Secretary (Union Territories-Ministry of Home Affairs) with Officers of the Delhi Police and the Staff Selection Commission. After examining all aspects, the Committee was of the view that the age limit as modified was rational and should be continued. Increasing the age limit would have an adverse impacton account of shortage of young officers at the level of Subinspectors. DepartmentalCandidates were getting adequate opportunities in the promotion quota. W.P. (C) Nos. 2034/2015 & 2952/2015 uM denies and infringes the right of Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors to be considered for promotion. Accordingly, the reduction of age from 40 to 30 years in Rule 7 and 27A is arbitrary and illogical. It was submitted that pre-amended Rule 7 had conferred a vested right to Head Constables and Assistant Sub-Inspectors to aspire and qualify under the 10% quota.

¶10departmental personnel in the 50% direct recruitment category for the post of Sub-Inspectors is akin to aad—should be treated as a Limited Departmental Competitiy6 tesf or Examination (LDCE). The quota is nothing but promotion and cannot be equated with direct recruitment. Accordingly, the submission is that the respondents have acted illogically and arbitrarily by reducing the tipper age limit for departmental candidates for 10% reserved quota in the direct recruitment category from 40 years to 30 years. This age reduction is exfacie unjust and capricious as it virtually excludes the petitioners from being considered for promotion under the direct recruitment quota.

¶11The petitionershad drawnour attentiontojudgmentdated22^^ May, 2013 in Writ Petition (C) No. 2788/2012, Karamvir versus Government of NCT of Delhi, wherein the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that the pre-amended Rule had prescribed three modes of appointment of departmental candidates to the posts of Sub-Iilspector; (i) by promotion; W.P. (C) Nos. 2034/2015 & 2952/2015 ). The petitioners submit that the 10% reservation granted to

(ii) by direct recruitment and (iii) by appointmentthrough the LDCE Benefit of age relaxation would entitle the departmental candidates to appear in the LDCE and compete with the direct recruits in the open category. In other words, Rule 7 read with Rule 27A had postulated the LDCE in the nature of promotion and not direct recruitment. Deletion or alteration of few words, would not make any difference for Rule 7 still postulates promotion through LDCE for departmental candidates to the extent of 10% in the direct recruitmentquota. This 10% quota is in the nature of fast track promotionof departmentalcandidatesas was held by the Delhi High Court in the judgment dated 21^ December, 2012, Man / • Singh versus Union-India and Others, Wrjt Petition (C) No. 2887/2012. This judgment was followed in the case of Ajay Pandey versus Union of India, W:P. .(C) No. 1938/2011 and Satvir Singh versus Union ofIndia, W.P. (C) No. 1315/2015.

¶12The petitioners had also relied upon DOP&T's OM dated 30^ January, 1990 on the question of relaxation of upper age limit from 35 yearsto 40 years for departmentalcandidatesto GroupC and D posts. It is submitted that this OM is applicable to Delhi Police, who are under the Ministry of Home Affairs. The Delhi Police vide notification dated 17^ December, 1980 clarifies that in case of a conflict between the Rules framed under the Delhi Police Act and the Central Government Rules adopted under the said notification, the Rules" framed under the Delhi W.P. (C)Nos. 2034/2015& 2952/2015 Page 11 of23 PoliceAct wouldprevail,is ofno consequenceas OM dated 30^^ January, 1990 is not mentioned therein. Specific Central Government Rules mentionedin the OM dated 17*^ December, 1980 would no way affect or curtailthe scopeofthe DOP&T'sOM dated30^ January, 1990. Lastly,it is submitted that the amendments to Rules 7 and 27A was with the idea to align them with the Recruitment Rules of the Central Armed Police Force

(CAPF). However, an error was made, for the upper age limit of departmental candidates under CAPF service is 32 years and not 30 years.

¶13The amendment to the Rules was made is in exercise of statutory power conferred on the respondents under Section 147 of the Delhi Police Act read with proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. The Executive has been conferred th^ said power to enact, modify, omit or amend the Recruitment Rules by way of delegated legislation. The exercise of power to amend the Rules is a legislative and not an administrative act. Acts, which are legislative in character, have to be contrasted from an administrative or quasi judicial functions. Legislative acts do not normally require compliance with principles of natural justice. There is a presumption in favour of constitutionality and validity of a subordinate legislation and the burden is on the person who attacks it. A subordinate legislation can be challenged on the ground of lack of legislative competence, violation of fundamental rights or other provisions of the Constitution, violation of statute under which-it is made i.e. it fails to W.P. (C)Nos. 2034/2015& 2952/2015 Page 12of 23 ambit of judicialreview. As already stated above, this would not bar or prohibitthe Court from examiningthe validity of the amendmentswith reference to the Constitution, statutory guarantees and other grounds. While examiningthe said aspects the Respondentscan justify and give explanationwhy the amendmentswere made. Delegatedlegislationbeing neitheran administrativeor quasijudicialorder,the validitythereofhas to be examined and considered on parameters stated above.

¶14We have considered and examined the file noting dated 22"*^ February,2013. The notingrefersto the meetingofthe Commissionerof ^PoUce with the Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, to discuss recruitmentagainst330 vacantposts of Inspector(Executive)for the years 2012 and 2013. The Staff Selection Commission had expressed their inability to conduct separate recruitmentand had suggestedrecruitment along with recruitment for similar posts in the Central Armed Police Forces. Thereafter,the meetingscalled by the Chairman,Staff Selection Commission, were attended by officers from the Delhi Police and the Ministry of Home Affairs. There was discussion regarding standards/requirementsof Delhi Police and possibility of conducting common recruitment test with Central Armed Police Forces. Suggestions were given and exchanged. The issues raised were discussed with the UnionHome Secretaiyand othersandit was decidedto caiTyout necessary amendments in the Recmitment Rules of Delhf Police. Subsequently, the W.P. (C) Nos. 2034/2015&2952/2015 Page 14 of23 M-b M matter was discussed with the LieutenantGovernor, who approved the changes proposed by the Commissioner of Police.

¶15The SupremeCourtin P.U. Joshi&Ors. Vs. AccountantGeneral, Ahmadabad & Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 632 on the question of pattern, nomenclature of posts, cadres, categories, their creation/abolition, prescriptionof qualificationsand other conditions of service including avenuesof promotionandcriteriato be fulfilledhad observedas under:- "10. We have carefully considered the submissions made on behalfof both parties. Questionsrelatingto the constitution,pattern,nomenclatureofposts,cadres, p categories, their creation/abolition,prescription of qualificationsand otherconditionsofserviceincluding avenues of promotions and criteria to be fulfilled for such promotionspertainto the field of policyis within the exclusive discretionand jurisdictionof the State, subject, of course, to the limitations or restrictions envisaged in the Constitution of India and it is not for the statutory tribunals, at any rate, to direct the Governmentto have a particularmethodof recruitment or eligibility criteria or avenues of promotion or impose itself by substitutingits views for that of the State. Similarly, it is well open and within the competencyof the Stateto changethe rules relatingto a service and alter or amend and vary by addition/substraction(sic.)the qualifications,eligibility criteria and other conditions of service including avenues of promotion, from time to time, as the administrative exigencies may need or necessitate. Likewise,the State by appropriaterules is entitledto amalgamatedepartmentsor bifurcatedepartmentsinto more and constitute different categories of posts or cadresby undertakingfurtherclassification,bifurcation or amalgamation as well as reconstitute and restructure the patternand cadres/categoriesof service,as may be required from time to time by abolishingthe existing cadres/postsand creatingnew cadres/posts.There is no W.P. (C)Nos.2034/2015&2952/2015 Page 15 of23 right in any employee of the State to claim that rules / governing conditions of his service should be forever the same as the one when he entered service for all purposesandexceptfor ensuringor safeguardingrights or benefits already earned, acquired or accrued at a particular point of time, a government servant has no right to challengethe authorityof the State to amend, alter and bring into force new rules relatingto even an existing service." The aforesaid quotation is a complete answer to the contention of the petitionersthat a vestedrighthad accruedto the petitioners,who underthe pre-amendedRules were eligiblefor promotionthroughthe LDCE as Sub-Inspectorstill they attainedthe age of40 years. There is no right in any employeeto claimthatrulesgoverningconditionsof serviceshouldforever remain the same. The only right he has is for ensuring or safeguarding rights or benefitsalreadyearned,acquiredor accruedat a particularpoint oftime. This right does not extend and includethe right to challengethe authorityofthe Stateto amend,alterand bringinto forcenew rulesrelating to even an existingservice. Argumentof vested right, therefore,would ^fail.

¶16In NilangshuBhusanBasu Vs. Deb K. Sinha <6 Ors. (2001)8 SCC 119, reference was made to the State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. V. Sadanandant, AIR 1989 SC 2064, to highlightthe mode of recruitment and the category from which the recruitment to service should be made are of matters which are exclusivelyin domain of the executive,and judicial bodies should not sit in judgment over the Wisdom of the executive. W.P. (C)Nos. 2034/2015&2952/2015 Page 16 of23 Judiciaryshouldnot decidethe categoryfrom whichrecruitmentshouldbe made, re-writing or overruling the Rules.

¶17In the State of Tripura Vs. NikhilRanjan Chakraborty(2017) 1 SCALE 599, the SupremeCourtreferredto the settledpropositionof law that a candidatehas a right to be consideredin light ofthe existingrules, which implies "rule in force" on the date considerationtook place. Referencewas made to the decisionin the case ofDeepakAggarwaland Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2011) 6 SCC 725 to hold that there is no rule of universalor absoluteapplicationthatvacanciesare to be *' .'i filled up invariablyby the law existing on the date when the vacancies arose, for the requirementof fillingexistingvacanciesunderpre-amended rulesis interlinkedwiththe acquiredrightofthe candjdateto be considered for promotion. Therefore,:^'j^I^ss'^thFmle:^^ p^^ the particulartime frame withinwhichselectionprocessis to be completedsuchrightmay not accrue. ^18. Pertinent,would also be referenceto the decisionof the Supreme Courtin (2015)6 SCC 727, Dhole GovindSahebrao&Ors, v. Union of India & Ors., which states that chances of promotionsdo not constitute conditionsof service. The promotionalavenuescan undergochangesand alterations from time to time.

¶19In Union ofIndia & Ors. Vs. Shivbachan Rai (2001)9 SCC 356, it W.P. (C)Nos.2034/2015&2952/2015 Page 17 of23 -kit was held that the Rules prescribing age limit and the extent to which relaxation could be granted were a matter of policy. The Supreme Court held that such Rules could not be termed as arbitrary or unreasonable. In the said case there were additional avenues of promotions, which were not partially or totally closed.

¶20The petitioners are correct in their submissionthat appointmentto a higher post through LDCE as per judicial decisions is a method of promotion and not appointmentas a direct recruit. Under the pre-amended ^ules,the 10% quotareservedfofiffficersofthe DelhiPolicewho qualify the LDCE, was a method of promotion. It was fast track promotion. However,this would not help the case set up by the petitionersany further as the amended Rule does not postulate LDCE. The amendment has done away with the concept of fast track promotion by LDCE. The amended Rule gives equal opportunityto the in service candidates,who are eligible ^to compete with the open candidates in the 50% direct recruitment quota for appointment in the cadre of Sub-Inspectors. In addition there is a stipulation of 10% reservation of posts for the eligible in-service officers. The appointments under the 10% quota under the 50% direct recruitment quota cannot be treated as appointment by way of promotion. This is appointment by way of direct recruitment. The eligible in-service officers participate in the same examination as open candidates. Selection is made W.P. (C) Nos. 2034/2015 & 2952/2015 through the common process and examination. The ehgible in-service officers appointedas direct recruits carmot claim parity and be equated with those who were/are promoted and vice versa.

¶21The amendedRule is not a way and methodof fact trackpromotion, but it gives an opportunity to the eligible in-service officers, who can compete with open candidates. They have also got the benefit of 10% quota or reservation.

¶22In the presentcase the recruitmentwas by wayof directrecruitment. Earlier there was stipulationof LDCE or test for filling up 10% of the directrecruitmentquotaposts. LDCE/testswere earlierheldin 2004, 2007 and twice in 2009. While discussingthe process whether or not to hold LDCE/test and whether the same should be held by the Staff Selection Commission,the question of amendmentto tHe'Ruleswas taken up. A conscious and deliberate decision was taken to amend the rules and ^ereafter,fill up the directrecruitmentquotavacancies,10% quotafor in service police officers in direct recruitment was retained but the provision relating to LDCE/test was deleted. Amendments were made to reduce the upperage limit,and bringthem atpar with the age limitfor directrecruits. The intention was to conduct a common examination for the direct recruits and the departmentalcandidatesunderthe 50% directrecruitmentquota.

¶23The petitionershave placed relianceupon the DoP&T's OM dated 30^^ January, 1990. This OM relates to relaxationof upper age limit for W.P. (C) Nos. 2034/2015&29'52/2015 Page 19 of23 departmental candidates to Group C and D posts and states that departmentalcandidatesfiom the General Category may be allowed to competealong with candidatesfrom the open market up to the age of 40 years in Group C posts and 45 years in the case of Scheduled Caste and ScheduledTribe candidates. Tne OM dated 30^'' January, 1990 is by way of executiveinstructions. The RecruitmentRules are statutoryin nature. The Rules will override if there is conflict between the said Recruitment Rules and the DoP&T's OM dated 30'^ January, 1990. The Delhi Police notificationdated 17^^ December, 1980 stipulatesthat in case there is a conflict between the rules framed under the Delhi Police Act and the Central Government rules adopted by the same notification,the rules framed under the Delhi Police Act will prevail. The said notificationhad made a number of Central Ciovemmentrules applicableto Delhi Police. We find grave difficulty in accepting the petitioners' contention that the said notification does not include DoP&T OMs and therefore by implication and inference the OMs will prevail over the Rules framed under the Delhi Police Act. This is certainly not the legally correct position and the contention has to be rejected. The statutory Rules will prevail over the OM dated30^^January,1990.

¶24We must deal with other contentions raised by the petitioners primarily on the ground that reduction in age in case of in-service candidates is discriminatoiy, arbitrary and deprives fair and equitable W.P.(C) Nos. 2034/2015 & 2952/2015 opportunity to the in-service candidates. The submission is that recruitmentin Delhi Police at the post of Constablein the case of male candidatesis betweenthe agesof18 to 21 years.Constablesare promoted, after five years, as Head Constables and after five years as Head Constables,as AssistantSub-Inspectors. AssistantSub-Inspectors,it is submitted,are also eligible to appear under the 10% direct recruitment quota. They would now be barredbecauseofthe age restriction,for most ofthem were appointedafterattainingthe age of31 years.Further,thereis acute stagnationin the lower hierarchy.Consequently,reductionof the upperage limit is whollyarbitraryand inequitable. It is pointedout that the upper age limit was extended/increasedto 40-45 years in view of the aforesaidstagnation. ' ''Vfiii

¶25We find these contentions'4fe-'1afc unsound. The recruitmentage of Constables (Male):is between 18 to 21 years. A Constablewould, therefore,normallyget severalopportunitiesto appear ^ndgetselectedvidedirectrecruitmentforthepostofSub-Inspectorbythe time he attainsthe age of30. Thereis no directrecruitmentin the cadreof Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspectors, which are entirely promotionalposts. At best, the loweringofthe upper age limit for in-serviceofficersmeansthatthe numberofchancesto qualifystandreduced. By no stretchcan this reductionin maximumpermissibleage be regarded as arbitrary or unconstitutionalwhen the recruitment in the cadre of W.P. (C) Nos. 2034/2015&2952/2015 Page21 of23 Constableis between the ages of 18 to 21 years. The argument of acute stagnation is misconceived for the reason that the 10% quota for in-service police officers has not been reduced. In addition, the in-service police officersalsocompetewithdirectrecruitsandcan be appointedagainst40% of the balanceposts under the direct recruitmentquota. Lastly, the eligible Assistant Sub-Inspectors are entitled to promotion under the 50% promotional quota.

¶26The last contention raised by the petitioners was with reference to differentupper age limitsprescribedin the Border SecurityForce, Central Industrial Security Force etc. There can be variation in the upper age limits, as recruitmentl^les for different forces as per requirements,can vary. In severalforce^thereis a separatelimitedLDCE quota,in addition to promotion quota and direct recruitment quota: The upper age limit prescribed as 30 years for general categories for the cadre of Sub-Inspector (Executive) in the Delhi Police cannot be struck down for this reason. Induction at the initial stage at the cadre of Constables, is for candidates between the age group of 18-21 groups. The upper age limit of 30 years for in-service departmental candidatesis reasonable and fair and cannot be termed as arbitrary. The age gap is 9 years or more. In-service police candidateswould get sufficient opportunitiesto compete and appear for selectionas Sub-Inspectors(Executive)in the 10% quota out of 50% direct recruitmentquota, before becoming ineligible-due to the amended age W.P. (C) Nos. 2034/2015«& 2952/2015 Page22of23 / ^ : criteria.Thechallengefailsandshouldberejected. ^ ^

¶27For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in the writ petition.The petitionis dismissedwithoutany orderas to costs. april;?0^2017 VKR ^ w.p. (C) Nos. 2034/2015& 2952/2015 (SANJIVKHANNA) JUDGE (CHANDEITSHEWIA]^ JUDGE -S?- IP

$- + IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2952/2015 Reservedon : 2''"'February,2017 Date of decision: April. 2017 KAPIL DEV AND OTHERS Petitioners Through Ms. Jyoti Singli, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tinu Bajwa, Mr. Amandeep Joshi, Mr. Sameer Shamiaand Mr. HimanshuGautam,Advocates. Versus COMMISSIONEROF POLICEAND OTHERS Respondents Through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Ml-. Aiun Bhardwaj, CGSC for SSC. CORAM: HON'BLE IMR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SIIEKHAR SANJIV KHANNA. J.; For detailed order see Writ Petition (Civil) No. 2034/2015, Suhodh Kumar and Others versus Commissioner of Police and Others, pronounced today. ^ . •H'— (SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE APRIL,2017 VKR / (CHAN&Eir^HEKHAR) JUDGE W.P. (C) Nos. 2034/2015 & 2952/2015 Page I of 1 n'" * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2034/2015 Reserved on : February, 2017 Dateofdecision: ;;^d^April,2017 SUBODH KUMAR AND OTHERS Petitioners Through Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tinu Bajwa, Mi-. Amandeep Joshi, Mr. Sameer Sharma and Mr. Himanshu Gautam, Advocates. Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS Respondents Through Mr. Satyakam,ASC for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC for SSC. WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 2952/2015 + KAPIL DEV AND OTHERS Petitioners Through Ms. Jyoti Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Tinu Bajwa, Mr. Amandeep Joshi, Mr. Sameer Sharma and Mr. Himanshu Gautam, Advocates. Versus COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS Respondents Through Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, ASC for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, CGSC for SSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR