Statutory promotion rules for police forces cannot be bypassed by claims of past practice or desuetude.

The applicants are Constables in the Chandigarh Police, recruited between 2005 and 2009.

Historically, promotions to the post of Head Constable were governed by Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules (PPR), 1934, which shifted between merit-based tests and seniority-cum-merit criteria via various notifications in 1982 and 1988.

Despite the 1988 amendment reintroducing competitive tests (B-1 test), the department frequently granted one-time relaxations to promote constables based on seniority-cum-merit to address stagnation.

On 18.06.2021, the Chandigarh Administration notified an amendment to Rule 13.7, formalizing a quota of 70% for seniority-cum-merit, 25% via the B-1 competitive test, and 5% for sports.

The applicants challenged the circulars dated 31.05.2023 and 15.06.2023, which required them to submit willingness for the B-1 test under the 25% quota, arguing that long-standing practice made the test requirement obsolete.

1. Whether the Chandigarh Administration had the legal competence to amend the Recruitment Rules/PPR.

2. Whether the requirement of a B-1 test under the 25% quota is arbitrary, discriminatory, or hit by the doctrine of desuetude due to past relaxations based on seniority.

3. Whether the applicants have a vested right to promotion based solely on seniority-cum-merit.

Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as amended), which provides the statutory framework for promotion to Head Constable.

Section 46 of the Police Act, 1861, which empowers the State/Administrator to frame rules for the efficiency of the force.

The principle that administrative relaxations do not override statutory rules or create a binding precedent, and the doctrine of desuetude applies only when a rule is consistently ignored over a long period without any invocation.

The Tribunal reasoned that the 2021 amendment was validly enacted by the Administrator under Section 46 of the Police Act, 1861, to reorganize the force into a more efficient instrument.

It found that the previous instances where promotions were granted without a test were "one-time exceptions" necessitated by specific circumstances and did not create a vested right or a "legitimate expectation" for future deviations from statutory rules.

The Tribunal rejected the "desuetude" argument, noting the B-1 mechanism was periodically invoked and remained an integral part of the statutory scheme.

The Tribunal observed that requiring a test (especially considering new criminal laws like BNS/BNSS) maintains administrative efficiency and does not constitute "hostile discrimination" against senior constables, as the criteria are applied uniformly to the 25% quota class.

It held that the impugned notification and circulars are legally valid and fall within the executive policy domain, and no employee can claim a right to promotion contrary to the statutory rules.

The court while dismissing the challenge, granted the competent authority liberty to consider future exemptions at its discretion but clarified that such executive decisions would be final and not subject to further litigation.