Santosh Kumar And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. ... on 25 September, 2025

[Cites 12, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Santosh Kumar And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. ... on 25 September, 2025

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners states that so far as reliefs no.(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) in writ petition bearing Writ-A No.17405 of 2021 are concerned, they relate to grade pay and have nothing to do with the challenge to vires of Rule 6(A)(2)(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Ministerial, Accounts and Confidential Assistant Cadre Service Rules, 2015, therefore, this relief may be left open to be raised in a separate writ petition, for which, liberty may be granted. Accordingly, the petition so far as it relates to reliefs no.(iii), (iv), (v) and (vi) are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty aforesaid as far as permissible in law.

3. This leaves us with relief nos.(i) and (ii). Relief no.(i) is with regard to vires of Rule-6(A)(2)(iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Ministerial, Accounts and Confidential Assistant Cadre Service Rules, 2015 (in short 'the Rules, 2015'). Relief no.(ii) relates to a circular issued in pursuance to the said rules.

4. Rules of 2015 were notified on 23.07.2015. They have been made under Section 46(2) read with Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861. The Uttar Pradesh Police Ministerial, Accounts and Confidential Assistants services are ancillary cadres to the Uttar Pradesh Police and comprise posts in group C as is mentioned in Rule 2 thereof. Part III of the Rules, 2015 provides for recruitment to the post of various ranks in the ministerial cadre such as Inspector of Police (Ministerial), Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial) and Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (Ministerial). We are concerned with promotion to the post of Assistant Sub Inspector of Police (Ministerial) and rules in this regard. For convenience, Rule-6(A)(2)(iii) of the Rules, 2015 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"6. (1) Recruitment to the posts of various ranks shall be made from following sources;

(A) Ministerial Cadre Inspector of Police (Ministerial)- By promotion from amongst substantively appointed Sub-Inspectors of Police (Ministerial) on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit.

Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial)-By promotion from amongst substantively appointed Assistant Sub-Inspectors of Police (Ministerial) on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit.

Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial)-(a) Eighty percent by direct recruitment through the Board as per procedure prescribed in rule-17.

Note:- (1) Dependants of personnel of police department deceased during service who apply for the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial) in the dependant of deceased category shall be recruited by the Board as per the policy decided by the Government. Restriction being that every year such posts shall not be more than 5 percent of the posts to be filled by direct recruitment as against the vacancies arising in the previously sanctioned posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial).

(2) Twenty percent through promotion by the Board on the basis of departmental examination as per procedure prescribed in Appendix-D from amongst substantively appointed Group 'D' employees who have:-

(i)..

(ii)..

(iii) possess all other qualifications as specified for direct recruitment on the first day of the year of recruitment."

5. Sub-Rule (2)(iii) of Rule 6 (A) provides that twenty percent posts of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial) shall be filled through promotion by the Board on the basis of departmental examination as per procedure prescribed in 'Appendix-D' from amongst substantively appointed group-D employees who possess all other qualifications as specified for direct recruitment on the first day of the year of recruitment. It is this clause of the Rule which has been assailed. The proviso to Rule 6 A (2) goes on to provide that if suitable candidates from Group 'D' employees are not found then their unfilled vacancies shall be filled up by direct recruitment.

6. We may now refer to Rule 10(1) that deals with educational qualifications for direct recruitment on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial) which reads as under:-

"10 (1) Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial)

(a) Bachelor's degree from a University established by law in India or equivalent qualification recognized by Government.

(b) Hindi typing (Unicode based using in script or as prescribed by the Head of the Department) with speed of at least 25 words per minute.

(c) Certificate of 'O' Level in computer from DOEACC/ NIELIT Society. "

7. Now, the contention of petitioners' counsel in this case is that the petitioners before this Court are Class-IV employees for which the minimum qualification required is Class-V. They have been in service for several years and now, in midst-stream, to frame a Rule in 2015 prescribing that in order to be eligible for being considered for promotion under the twenty percent quota to the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police (Ministerial), albeit through a departmental examination, the Group-D employee must possess (a) Bachelor's degree from a University established by law in India or equivalent qualification recognized by Government; (b) Hindi typing (Unicode based using in script or as prescribed by the Head of the Department) with speed of at least 25 words per minute and (c) Certificate of 'O' level in computer from DOEACC/ NEILIT Society, is unreasonable, arbitrary as also discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It amounts to treating unequals as equals. The submission is that direct recruits and promotees do not belong to the same class. While direct recruits are fresh entrants to the service/ cadre, the promotees have already been in existence in service, albeit in the feeder/ lower cadre, therefore, to expect that they will possess the qualification of a direct recruit on the face of it is unreasonable. Direct recruits and promotees cannot have the same qualification, however, in the same vein, he submitted some of the petitioners not only in this petition i.e. Writ-A No.17405 of 2021 but in the connected petition, do possess the qualification of graduation while others dont. With regard to those who possess the qualification of graduation , the submission was that requiring them to possess further qualification of certificate of 'O' level in computer from DOEACC/ NIELIT of Society is highly unreasonable. At this stage of their career, they can't be expected to acquire such qualification. Prescription of such a qualification virtually ousts them from the zone of consideration. He placed reliance in this regard upon a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported in (2018) 1 SCC 149 'Maharastra Forest Guards And Foresters Union vs. State of Maharastra and Others'.

8. It is also the submission of Sri Srideep Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioners based on Rule 8(1) that those Constable (Ministerial) or Assistant Sub-Inspector (Ministerial) who were already in service on the date of framing of the Rules of 2015 and whose conditions of service were earlier governed by government orders and who in fact did not possess the qualifications referred in Rule 10(1) read with Rule 6 (A)(2)(iii) of the Rules, 2015, they have been merged / absorbed in the newly created cadre without any requirement of these persons acquiring or possessing the qualifications referred in Rule 10(1) of the Rules, 2015, therefore, the submission is that this is also discriminatory. The same benefit should have been extended to the petitioners also who were eligible for being considered for promotion to the post of A.S.I. (M) under the relevant government orders which were applicable prior to 2015 but were not considered.

9. Per contra, Sri Prakhar Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State submitted that Rule-6(A)(2)(iii) of the Rules, 2015 has been framed so as to meet the requirements of the department and its expectations from the clerical cadre which plays an important role in the functioning of the department. In the present age, one cannot fathom a clerical cadre having only the knowledge of typing but not having basic skills and knowledge of operating a computer because a clerical employee is not only expected to type but also to operate the computer and also to do so many things on the computer for which basic knowledge of computer operations is necessary and the certificate i.e. 'O' level certificate certifies basic knowledge of such computer which is necessary in this age and time. As regards the qualification of graduation, the submission was that this is also in keeping with the requirements of the clerical cadre and the department. The clerical cadre should have adequate educational qualification and intelligence so as to be suited to perform the duties of clerical cadre efficiently and contribute to the efficient functioning of the department. He further submitted that it is not a case where within the promotion quota, two sub-classes have been created but it is a case where eighty percent of the posts of A.S.I. (M) have to be filled by direct recruitment for which the qualifications are prescribed in Rule 10(1) and the remaining twenty percent posts are to be filled by departmental examination albeit from amongst substantively appointed group-D employees who, interalia, possess all other qualifications as specified for direct recruitment on the first day of the year of recruitment. This is to meet the needs of the department. There is no sub-classification within the promotion quota. All who will be considered for promotion under the twenty percent quota should possess the qualification just as the direct recruits and they will have to appear in the departmental examination. He has invited our attention to Appendix 'D' which is referred in Rule-6(A)(2)(iii) of the Rules, 2015 to drive home the point that the said appendix merely provides that group-D employees will have to undergo typing test which shall be of qualifying nature and then prescribes the modalities of typing test etc. In addition to it, clause (iii) of sub-Rule (2) of Rule-6(A)(2)(iii) of the Rules, 2015 requires possession of other qualifications as are mentioned in Rule-10 of the Rules, 2015. There is no arbitrariness nor unreasonableness nor any violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He also submitted that it is not the case of the petitioners that there is nobody in the Group -D cadre possessing the qualifications as envisaged in Rule 6(A)(2)(iii) read with Rule 10(1) of the Rules, 2015.

10. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, we are not convinced by the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioners. In this age, the minimal requirement for a clerical cadre is not only to possess the skill of typing but also to be computer savvy. Such skill and knowledge ensures efficient functioning of a department. We cannot fathom a situation where a person is directly recruited or promoted in a clerical cadre without knowledge of basic skills of computer operations, therefore, to contend that merely because the petitioners herein are working in a feeder cadre i.e. Class-IV which requires a qualification of only Class V, there should be no requirement in the matter of their consideration for promotion for possessing such certificate of 'O' level in computer from DOEACC/ NIELIT Society is unacceptable. As regards qualification of graduation which is referred in Rule 10(1) of the Rules, 2015 that is also a necessity. One who is more qualified educationally is better suited to perform the duties of a clerical cadre. Classification on the basis of educational qualification is permissible in law. In this context, we may point out that it is the petitioners' own case that promotions of Group-D employees of the police department were earlier made to the clerical cadre i.e. Group -III post as per the U.P. Sub-ordinate Offices Ministerial Group 'C' Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001 on account of the fact that there were no rules made for the Group-D police employees for promotion to the clerical cadre under the Act, 1861 and the U.P. Police Group-D Service Rules, 2009 pertaining to Group-D employees did not contain any such provision for promotion to the clerical cadre. When we peruse the said Rules of 2001, we find that even under the said Rule under the twenty percent promotion quota to the lowest grade of Group-C post was to be made through a selection committee from two sources prescribing two quotas. One was a fifteen percent quota of such substantively appointed Group-D employees who had passed the High School Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. or an examination recognized by the government as equivalent thereto and who have completed five years' service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment. The other was a five percent quota for such substantively appointed Group-D employees who had passed the Intermediate Examination of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P. or an examination recognized by the government as equivalent thereto and who have completed five years' service as such on the first day of the year of recruitment. Therefore, if any of the petitioners had a qualification of less than intermediate or high school then even under the earlier Rules of 2001 which were made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, they could not be considered for promotion to the clerical cadre. Under the Rules of 2015 made under the Act, 1861, the only difference is that instead of the qualification of high school and intermediate, now the minimum educational qualification prescribed is graduation which by itself cannot be said to be arbitrary. As already stated, one who is better qualified educationally, he is better suited to perform the duties of clerical cadre considering the nature and functions of the said cadre and the requirements of the time and changing needs of the department.

11. We may in this regard refer to a Constitution Bench judgment in the case of 'State of Mysore & Anr. vs. P. Narasing Rao' reported in AIR (1968) Supreme Court 349 wherein it was held that higher qualification of SSLC to be a relevant consideration for fixing higher pay scale than that of non-matriculate tracers. That classification, on the basis of higher qualification, was upheld. A later Constitution Bench in the case of 'State of J&K vs. Triloki Nath Khosa' reported in (1974) 1 SCC 19 discussed the earlier Constitution Bench judgment judgment in Roshan Lal Tandon vs. Union of India reported in (1968) 1 SCR 185 and Narasing Rao (supra) and the question which arose in the said case was as under:

?1. If persons drawn from different sources are integrated into one class, can they be classified for purposes of promotion on the basis of their educational qualifications??

12. This question was answered in affirmative. It was a case where promotion from the integrated cadre of Assistant Engineers to Executive Engineers was limited entirely to persons possessing a Bachelor's degree in Engineering or equivalent with seven years' service. It was held as under:-

?31. Classification, however, is fraught with the danger that it may produce artificial inequalities and therefore, the right to classify is hedged in with salient restraints; or else, the guarantee of equality will be submerged in class legislation masquerading as laws meant to govern well-marked classes characterised by different and distinct attainments. Classification, therefore, must be truly founded on substantial differences which distinguish persons grouped together from those left out of the group and such differential attributes must bear a just and rational relation to the object sought to be achieved.

***

50. We are therefore of the opinion that though persons appointed directly and by promotion were integrated into a common class of Assistant Engineers, they could, for purposes of promotion to the cadre of Executive Engineers, be classified on the basis of educational qualifications. The Rule providing that graduates shall be eligible for such promotion to the exclusion of diploma-holders does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and must be upheld.?

13. Having upheld the Rule, it was further observed in para 51 as follows:-

?51. But we hope that this judgment will not be construed as a charter for making minute and microcosmic classifications. Excellence is, or ought to be, the goal of all good governments and excellence and equality are not friendly bed-fellows. A pragmatic approach has therefore to be adopted in order to harmonise the requirements of public services with the aspirations of public servants. But let us not evolve, through imperceptible extensions, a theory of classification which may subvert, perhaps submerge, the precious guarantee of equality. The eminent spirit of an ideal society is equality and so we must not be left to ask in wonderment: What after all is the operational residue of equality and equal opportunity??

14. Triloki Nath Khosa (supra) was a case where promotion to the post of Executive Engineer and above was wholly assigned to graduates, a classification based on educational qualification.

15. In the case of ''T.R. Kothandaraman v. T.N. Water Supply and Drainage Board' reported in (1994) 6 SCC 282, Hon'ble the Supreme Court discussed all the previous judgments on classification and held in para 13 as follows:

?13. The aforesaid bird's-eye view of important decisions of this Court on the question of prescribing quota in promotion to higher post based on the educational qualification makes it clear that such a qualification can in certain cases be a valid basis of classification; and the classification need not be relatable only to the eligibility criteria, but to restrictions in promotion as well. Further, even if in a case the classification would not be acceptable to the court on principle, it would, before pronouncing its judgment, bear in mind the historical background. It is apparent that while judging the validity of the classification, the court shall have to be conscious about the need for maintaining efficiency in service and also whether the required qualification is necessary for the discharge of duties in the higher post.?

16. Having so held, the legal position was summarized in para 16 which reads as follows:

?16. From what has been stated above, the following legal propositions emerge regarding educational qualification being a basis of classification relating to promotion in public service:

(1) Higher educational qualification is a permissible basis of classification, acceptability of which will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.

(2) Higher educational qualification can be the basis not only for barring promotion, but also for restricting the scope of promotion.

(3) Restriction placed cannot however go to the extent of seriously jeopardising the chances of promotion. To decide this, the extent of restriction shall have also to be looked into to ascertain whether it is reasonable. Reasons for this are being indicated later.?

17. In the case of Maharastra Forest Guard and Foresters Union (supra), relied upon by the petitioners' counsel, Hon'ble the Supreme Court found sub-classification for the purposes of promotion quota, which is not the case here. Here, there is one quota for promotion i.e. twenty percent quota and there is no sub-classification within that quota, therefore, the judgment in Maharastra Forest Guard and Foresters Union (supra) does not apply rather the other decisions, therein, as referred hereinabove, squarely apply and, based thereon, considering the facts and reasons given earlier, we are of the opinion that there is no violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India nor of the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution. There is nothing arbitrary, unreasonable or discriminatory in the Rule impugned before us.

18. As regards reference to Rule 8(1) by the petitioner's counsel, there is a rationale behind it. After all, the employees i.e. Constable (Ministerial) or A.S.I. (Ministerial) who were already in service on the said post on the date of notification of the Rules, 2015, could not be ousted merely because a different qualification was being prescribed by the said Rules. Petitioners do not belong to the said class who were covered by Rule 8(1). They have never been promoted as Constable (M) or A.S.I. (M) nor were they considered for such promotion prior to 2015. They are still on the feeder group-D post, therefore, they have to fulfill the criteria mentioned in the Rules of 2015 for being eligible for consideration for promotion.

19. We may also point out that in the event where a person does not get promoted for a considerable time, there is a policy of the government for providing the first promotional pay scale or the next promotion pay scale then the second promotional pay scale or still the next promotion pay scale and also the third promotional pay scale/ next promotion pay scale etc. which takes care of stagnation in any group. The right to be considered for promotion is available only in accordance with the Rules prevalent and not otherwise. As we do not find the Rules to be arbitrary or ultra-vires in any manner, therefore, we cannot grant relief no.(i) and (ii) prayed for. So far as relief no.(ii) is concerned, the selection has already been held although it was subject to result of this writ petition but considering the result aforesaid, no relief can be granted to the petitioners in this regard.

20. We, accordingly, dismiss writ petition bearing Writ-A No.17405 of 2021.

21. In the connected petition bearing Writ-A No.12097 of 2016 also the same Rules have been challenged. The only difference is apart from Rule 6 referred earlier, other Rules are also under challenge. Having gone through the grounds of challenge in the writ petition and as has also been stated by Sri Srideep Chatterjee, learned counsel for the petitioners, the thrust of the argument in this case is that the general rules framed by the State Government for its ministerial cadre i.e. the U.P. Sub-ordinate Offices Ministerial Group 'C' Posts of the Lowest Grade (Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 2001 (in short 'the Rules, 2001') should apply and not the Rules of 2015. This is the only argument advanced before us in this writ petition.

22. With respect, we cannot accept this argument for the reason that Rules, 2001 are applicable to government servants generally and have been framed under proviso to Article 309. We may in this very context refer to Article 309 of the Constitution of India which reads as under:-

"(ART. 309) Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State.?Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, Acts of the appropriate Legislature may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State.

Provided that it shall be competent for the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act."

23. As would be evident from a bare reading of it, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, acts of the appropriate legislate may regulate the recruitment, and conditions of service of persons appointed, to public services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union or of any State. Provided that it shall be competent for the President or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the Union, and for the Governor of a State or such person as he may direct in the case of services and posts in connection with the affairs of the State, to make rules regulating the recruitment, and the conditions of service of persons appointed, to such services and posts until provision in that behalf is made by or under an Act of the appropriate Legislature under this article, and any rules so made shall have effect subject to the provisions of any such Act. Now, in the case at hand, there is a Police Act of 1861 which a per-Constitution Act protected by Article 313 of the Constitution of India and the Rules of 2015 have been framed under Section 46(2) read with Section 2 of the said Act, 1861. It is trite that a rule which is made under an enactment of legislature prevails over a rule made under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India for the simple reason such rule under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India is subject to enactment, if any, governing the subject matter. In this case, there is an enactment i.e. the Police Act, 1861 and there are rules made thereunder specifically for the police department. Therefore, it is the Rules of 2015 which will apply and not the general rules applicable to government servants which have been framed under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. We, accordingly, reject the contention to the contrary.

24. For all these reasons, we do not find any merit for interference in writ petition bearing Writ-A No.12097 of 2016 also. Accordingly, the same is also dismissed.

(Prashant Kumar,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) September 25, 2025/Shanu/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court