YOGENDER PAL SINGH & OTHERS versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 49 · Decided: 23-01-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: E.S. VENKATARAMIAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
\ 
~· 
I 
YOGENDER PAL SINGH & OTHERS 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
JANUARY 23, 1987 
[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] 
B 
Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 12.14. (3) constitutional validity 
of-Authorising the grant of preference of appointment in favour of 
sons and near relatives of persons serving in the police service, 
whether-Constitutional-Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 16(2) 
and Article 14(1). 
Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, 
Whether supersedes the earlier Punjab Police Rules, 1934, though it is 
deemed to be in force by virtue of section 149(2) of the Delhi Po/ice Act, 
1978--Construction of a New law. 
Delhi Police Act, 1978, sections 147 and 149--Scope and effect of, 
explained-Ru/es 30and32 of the 1980 Police Rules. 
The Delhi Police Act, 1978 (Act 34178) which came into force with 
effect from I. 7 .1978 by virtue of section 149 thereof repealed the earlier 
c 
D 
Act of 1861. However, the f'll'St proviso to section 149(1) provided that 
E 
all rules and standing Orders (including the Punjab Police Roles, as in 
force in Delhi) made under the Police Act, 1861 would be in so far as 
they were consistent with the Act may be deemed to have been respec-
tively made under the Act. Consequently the said 1934 Rules continued 
to be in force even after the commencement of the Act. By virtue of the 
anthority vested under section 147(2)(a) of the 1978 Act, the Lt. Gover-
F 
nor of Delhi promulgated the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruit-
ment) Rules, 1980. The said Rules which came into effect from 31.12.80 
were amended twice-in 1983 and 1985. By the newly added Rule 32 on 
2.5.83, all provisions contained in the Punjab Police Rules as applicable 
to the Union Territory of Delhi were-repealed. While under the earlier 
Rule 12: 14 (3) of the Punjab Police Rules, sons and near relatives of G 
persons who have done good service in Punjab Police or in the Army had 
preference in recruitment, under the new Rule 9(vi)(d)(ii) relaxation of 
the age limit alone was provided for "for sons of police personnel who 
die in service". Despite this Rule position, the Deputy Commissioner of 
Police Headquarters (I), Delhi, by bis order dt.3.10.81, relaxed the 
rules relating to the qualifications in favour of the sons or wards of Delhi H 
49 
50 
SUPREME COURT aEPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
A Policemen upto the limit of 7'h% of the total selection. Accordingly the 
police authorities in charge of the selection of candidates recommended 
~ 
259 candidates out of a total of 420 candidates who came within the 
category of ';Vards of Policemen/Class IV employees to the Delhi Ad-
ministration for seeking approval of the competent authority. 
B 
All the 23 appellants were eligible to be considered for the 
appointment as Constables In the light of th~ order of relaxation 
dated 3.10.81, but even they were not sent up for training which they had r-
to undergo before the appointment because six of them were found to be 
ineligible since their brothers had already been recruited in the Police 
·4: 
Department by relaxing the' rules of appointment in their favour. 15 of 
,-
c them were refused permission to join the training course on the ground 
that the Administrator (Lt. Governor of Union territory of Delhi) bad 
not relaxed the qualifications in their cases. Two of them, however, had 
\. 
in fact received a letter stating that the Administrator (Lt. Governor of 
the Union territory of Delhi) had accorded sanction for relaxation for 
recruitment in their cases and they could join the training course with 
D effect from 15.6.1982 but later on they were also denied admission into 
the Police force because their brothers had been recruited earlier in the 
Delhi Police service after according relaxation. The order of relaxation 
in their favour had, therefore, been withdrawn. The appellants who 
were thus aggrieved by the denial of admission into the service prefer-
,-\. 
red the writ petition in the High Court for the issue of writ of man-
E 
damus to the Delhi Administration to appoint them as Constables on the 
ground that they satisfied th'' qualifications prescribed by the rules read 
with the order of relaxation elated 3.10.1981. 
A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed the writ 
-r-. 
petition and held that the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 continued to re-
• 
F 
main ln force even after the promulgation of the Rules which came into 
'· 
force on 31.12.1980 and the cases of the 

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