Court Permits Withdrawal of Promotion-Rule Challenge Without Adjudicating Its Merits

The petitioner, appointed as a Motor Vehicle Fitter, Grade-III in 1998 and later promoted to Head Constable Driver-cum-Mechanic, Grade-II, challenged Appendix-B to the Police Sub-Inspector (Motor Transport) Class-III (Departmental Examination) Rules, 2019.

Appendix-B required specified feeder-cadre employees to have at least five years’ service and be entitled to the second higher pay scale of the PSI (Motor Transport) post before appearing in the departmental examination.

The petitioner contended that this requirement was inconsistent with paragraph 64 of the Gujarat Police Manual, 1975, and challenged the rejection of his candidature for the examination

The Court noted that the petition did not clearly establish the petitioner’s post at the relevant time, whether he had applied for promotion through the examination, or whether his name appeared on the seniority list.

After substantial dictation of the judgment, counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition so the petitioner could approach the competent authority.

1. Whether Appendix-B to the 2019 Rules, including its service and pay-scale conditions for appearing in the departmental examination, was ultra vires paragraph 64 of the Gujarat Police Manual, 1975

2. Whether the petitioner’s candidature for the PSI (Motor Transport) departmental examination had been lawfully rejected

Paragraph 64 of the Gujarat Police Manual, 1975, provides for appointment to the PSI (Motor Transport) post by promotion of suitable departmental employees or by nomination; its technical-qualification requirements apply to nomination, while promotion is from persons who pass the prescribed test.

The 2019 Rules, made under clause (b) of section 5 of the Gujarat Police Act, 1951, govern eligibility for the departmental examination. Rule 1(3) prescribes the examination period and chances, while Appendix-B identifies eligible feeder-cadre posts and requires at least five years’ service and entitlement to the second higher pay scale.

The Court distinguished the nomination qualifications in paragraph 64 from promotion through the prescribed departmental test, and noted that Appendix-B identified the relevant feeder cadres for that examination.

It found the petitioner’s challenge insufficiently supported because the record did not clarify his relevant service status or establish whether he met the applicable eligibility requirements.

The Court therefore stated that it was not possible to examine the validity of the Rules on the material before it.

The Court did not finally determine the validity of Appendix-B or the legality of the candidature rejection, as counsel then sought withdrawal.

The Court consequently issued no final ruling on the validity of Appendix-B or the merits of the rejection of the petitioner’s candidature.