TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Police Recruitment Rules Repealed, Preferential Treatment Unconstitutional</h1> <h3>Yogender Pal Singh & Others Versus Union Of India & Ors.</h3> Yogender Pal Singh & Others Versus Union Of India & Ors. - 1987 AIR 1015, 1987 SCR (2) 49, 1987 SCC (1) 631, JT 1987 (1) 227, 1987 SCALE (1)175 Issues Involved:1. Validity of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 after the promulgation of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980.2. Validity of the relaxation order dated 3.10.1981 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.3. Constitutional validity of preferential treatment based on descent under Article 16 of the Constitution.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 after the promulgation of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980:The appellants contended that since Rule 32, which repealed the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, was introduced on May 2, 1983, the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 remained in force until that date. The Delhi Administration argued that the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 ceased to be in force on December 31, 1980, with the promulgation of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980. The Court held that the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 were repealed by necessary implication with the promulgation of the new rules on December 31, 1980. The addition of Rule 32 in 1983 did not revive the old rules. Thus, the appellants could not rely on Rule 12.14(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 for preferential treatment in recruitment.2. Validity of the relaxation order dated 3.10.1981 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police:The appellants relied on an order dated 3.10.1981 by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, which relaxed the qualifications for the sons of Delhi policemen. The Delhi Administration contended that the order was invalid as it was based on the assumption that Rule 12.14(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 was still in force and that only the Administrator (Lt. Governor) had the authority to relax the rules under Rule 30 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980. The Court agreed with the Delhi Administration, stating that the Deputy Commissioner of Police did not have the authority to relax the rules, and any such relaxation should have been made by the Administrator. Consequently, the relaxation order dated 3.10.1981 was invalid.3. Constitutional validity of preferential treatment based on descent under Article 16 of the Constitution:The appellants claimed preferential treatment based on Rule 12.14(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which provided preference to sons and near relatives of police officers. The Court held that such preferential treatment based on descent was unconstitutional under Article 16 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment and prohibits discrimination on the grounds of descent. The Court cited the case of Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. The State of Andhra Pradesh, where a similar provision was held unconstitutional. The Court concluded that any preference in public employment based solely on descent was invalid, and the appellants' claim for relaxation based on their status as sons of police officers was not sustainable.Conclusion:The appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were not entitled to be recruited as Constables based on the invalid relaxation order and the unconstitutional preferential treatment. The Court clarified that the judgment would not affect the appointments already made under the relaxed rules.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
