Unlaid statutory rules are unenforceable; pre-amendment medical standards therefore govern re-employment eligibility.

The respondent was appointed as a Constable in the Delhi Police on 1 March 1993. After completing 20 years of service, he sought voluntary retirement, which was accepted on 27 February 2014, and he retired on 1 March 2014.

He subsequently sought withdrawal of his voluntary-retirement application and, after rejection of that request, applied for re-employment under Rule 29 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 (“1980 Rules”).

The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the petitioners to reconsider his case under Rule 29. Upon reconsideration, his application was rejected on the ground of colour blindness, which had been made a disqualification by the 2010 amendment to Rule 24, though it was not a disqualification under the unamended Rule 24.

The Tribunal held that the 2010 Amendment Rules were unenforceable because they had not been laid before both Houses of Parliament as required by Section 148 of the Delhi Police Act, and directed that the respondent’s eligibility be assessed under the pre-amendment medical standards.

The Commissioner of Police challenged that decision before the High Court.

Whether the respondent’s entitlement to re-employment under Rule 29 of the 1980 Rules was required to be assessed under the pre-amendment Rule 24 or under Rule 24 as amended by the 2010 Amendment Rules.

Whether the 2010 Amendment Rules were legally enforceable despite not having been laid before both Houses of Parliament as required by Section 148 of the Delhi Police Act.

Whether the respondent was estopped from challenging the applicability of the 2010 Amendment Rules because he had not raised the issue in the contempt proceedings, or because he had not previously challenged the amendment directly.

The Court applied Rule 29 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, governing re-employment; Rule 24 of the 1980 Rules, under which colour blindness was not originally a disqualification; and the 2010 Amendment Rules, which introduced colour blindness as a disqualification.

Section 148(1) and (2) of the Delhi Police Act requires rules and regulations made under the Act to be notified in the Official Gazette and laid before each House of Parliament for the prescribed period; non-compliance with this mandatory laying requirement renders the rule unenforceable.

The Court also applied the principle that contempt requires contumacious and wilful disobedience, and that failure to raise an issue in contempt proceedings does not automatically create an estoppel where the alleged conduct is not ex facie contemptuous.

The Court held that consideration of the respondent’s re-employment necessarily had to be undertaken in accordance with the legally applicable medical standards.

Since the 2010 Amendment Rules, which introduced colour blindness as a disqualification, had not been laid before both Houses of Parliament as mandated by Section 148 of the Delhi Police Act, they could not be enforced against the respondent.

Consequently, the respondent’s eligibility had to be assessed under the pre-amendment Rule 24, under which colour blindness was not a disqualification.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ estoppel arguments, observing that the issue could still be raised and that non-raising of the issue in contempt proceedings was not decisive because every illegality does not amount to wilful contempt.

It held that the respondent’s entitlement to re-employment must be assessed under the medical standards contained in Rule 24 of the 1980 Rules prior to the 2010 amendment.

The writ petition was dismissed, the Tribunal’s judgment was affirmed in its entirety, and the petitioners were directed to comply with the Tribunal’s order within eight weeks.