RAM SHARAN versus THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE. AJMER RANGE AND OTHERS

Citation: [1964] 7 S.C.R. 228 · Decided: 16-03-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

1964
March 16
228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964}
RAM SHARAN
v.
THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE.
AJMER RANGE AND OTHERS
[P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J., K. N. WANCHOO, J. c. SHAH.
N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND S. M. S!KRI, JJ.J
Police Act, 1861 (Act 5 of 1861) s. 2-Rajasthan P&lice-
Divisic:;:i of State into range1'-Promotions rangewise-If deny-
ing equality before law or equality in matters of public em-
ployment-Constitution of India, Arts. 14 and 16.
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 rrnk of Sub-Inspector of Police from the rank of head
constable, was reverted when a permanent Sub-Inspector re-
turned to the range as he was the junior most approved head-
constable 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 conl'imded, 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 S€rious 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
constable upw£rds should be on the bas!s of the whole State
or simply on the ground of possible cases of hardship. The sys-
tem has been evolved for the efficiency of the police in the State
as \vell 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 serviee 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 abu~ in this whole-
sale 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
7 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
229
Rs. 250/- p.m. outside their home district, it cannot be accept-
1964
ed t~at free and frequent transfers are made as a matter of
routme by the Inspector-General of Police in violation thereof
Ram Sharaa
Further the material that has been placed on the record by
•·
the petitioner is insufficient to come to the conclusion that along TGM. IJ.puty 1"'11"""' ·
WI.th th"
t
f
t•
h
·
.
eneml of Po"''
is sys em o promo ion, t ere 1s also a prac1ce of free .Aj
R
.d
and frequent transfers in Rajasthan as a matter of routine of
me'ot,::;:• a
Sub-Inspectors from one range to another.
. ~RIGINAL JURISDICTION-Writ Petition No. 175 of 1963.
Pet1t10n 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 de-
livered by
W ANCHOO, 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 includ-
ed in

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.