top of page

Selection process mandated for highly technical posts; not discriminatory: SC



Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors. v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Civil Appeal No.325 of 2021

Decided on February 18, 2021

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. V. Shekhar

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms. Garima Prasad

The present case was decided by a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Indira Banerjee. The Court upheld the judgement given by the High Court and dismissed the appeal.


Pursuant to an advertisement issued for filling up the posts of Constable Drivers, the Appellants were selected and appointed as Constable Drivers. The State Government under Section 2 read with Section 46 (11) of the Police Act, 1861 framed Uttar Pradesh Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015 (hereinafter, ‘the 2015 Rules’) to govern the selection, promotion, training, appointment, merit, and other conditions of service of the Motor Transport Unit of the Police Department. Aggrieved by the Rules, the Appellants filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Allahabad. By a judgment dated 24.10.2017, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Dissatisfied with the judgment of the High Court, the Appellants preferred an appeal before this Court.


The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Appellants who were initially recruited as police Constables went through a selection process for being appointed as Constable Drivers and hence, introduction of another selection process for being appointed as Head Constable Motor Transport by making Constable Drivers and Head Constable Drivers eligible for consideration is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The learned Counsel representing the Respondent submitted that earlier posts such as Constable Driver are technical posts whereas the posts introduced recently such as the Head Constable Motor Transport are highly technical in nature and a different selection for the same is necessary as it would require people with higher efficiency and knowledge.


The Court heard Counsels appearing on behalf of both parties.


The Court stated:

Rule 5 and 10 of the 2015 Rules are primarily challenged on the ground that the Appellants are forced to undergo a selection process for appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport. The selection process is mandated due to the posts of Head Constable Motor Transport being highly technical. The Rules are neither discriminatory nor arbitrary. Constable Drivers can be promoted on the basis of seniority to Head Constable Drivers. If they desire to be appointed as Head Constable Motor Transport, then they have to go through selection process. No interference with the judgment of the High Court is warranted. (Para 6)


The Court upheld the judgement given by the High Court and dismissed the appeal.



Yashwardhan Bansal

Comments


Articles

bottom of page