https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200401 The recruitment rules governing constable appointments were held to be fully occupied by the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, so the earlier Punjab Police Rules no longer applied to that subject. Relaxation under the new regime vested in the Administrator, not the Deputy Commissioner of Police, and a relaxation order issued without such authority could not create an enforceable right to appointment. Preference for sons or wards of police personnel was also found inconsistent with Article 16 because public employment cannot be based on descent alone. The claim for appointment therefore failed. en-us Fri, 23 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 27 Mar 2018 17:09:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200401 The recruitment rules governing constable appointments were held to be fully occupied by the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, so the earlier Punjab Police Rules no longer applied to that subject. Relaxation under the new regime vested in the Administrator, not the Deputy Commissioner of Police, and a relaxation order issued without such authority could not create an enforceable right to appointment. Preference for sons or wards of police personnel was also found inconsistent with Article 16 because public employment cannot be based on descent alone. The claim for appointment therefore failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 23 Jan 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=200401