Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the validity of the Punjab Government's relaxation of the minimum height requirement for recruitment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The appellant was a candidate before the Punjab Public Service Commission for selection to the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He was found deficient in height by 1.20 cms but was otherwise fit. The Government of Punjab relaxed the physical fitness requirement in his case in special consideration of the meritorious service rendered by his brother, an IPS officer, during anti-terrorism operations in Punjab. The third respondent, who could secure only a post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail, challenged the appellant's selection. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the appellant's selection and directed the Government to fill the consequential vacancy from among the selected candidates. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal against that judgment. The factual chronology as per the judgment was that the Punjab Public Service Commission published an advertisement on 12.6.1996 inviting applications for 20 posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police and 6 posts of Deputy Superintendents of Jail/District Probation Officer. The written test was conducted on 25.2.1994. The Government formulated a policy on 6.2.1994 to show special consideration towards relatives of those who suffered due to terrorism or faced terrorism boldly. On 14.5.1994, the Government passed an order granting minor relaxation in physical standard to the appellant, noting that his brother had rendered useful service in tackling terrorism and bringing normalcy. The appellant was thereafter called for viva voce, included in the selected list, and appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police on 10.8.1994. The third respondent was appointed as Deputy Superintendent, Jail on 8.9.1994. The High Court found that the relaxation was granted only to the appellant and that the policy was evolved solely to help him, amounting to favoritism, and held that Rule 7 and Rule 14 could not be regarded as empowering such relaxation. Before the Supreme Court, none of the parties disputed the worthiness of the policy recognizing services of police personnel who faced terrorism. The undisputed fact was that the appellant's brother had rendered efficient and useful service in tackling terrorists' menace. The Supreme Court examined Rule 7 of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, which prescribed a minimum height of 5'7" (167.5 cms) and contained a second proviso that the physical standard shall not be relaxed without special sanction of the Government. Rule 14 contained the general power to relax rules for any class or category of persons. The Court held that Rule 7 preserved the Government's power to relax physical standards in individual cases, and it was not necessary to rely on Rule 14. The Court observed that the appellant could not be blamed for being the only candidate seeking relaxation; the same benefit could have been available to anyone similarly situated. The Court rejected the High Court's inference of favoritism merely because the policy was formulated on the occasion of the appellant's request, holding that a government may act on a particular occasion to chalk out a policy, and that does not attribute mala fide. The Court relied on Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. Their Workmen, where a Constitution Bench held that a policy inspired by an individual's impending retirement was not discriminatory if of general application. It also referred to JC Yadav v. State of Haryana for the proposition that relaxation clauses must be liberally construed. The Court distinguished District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagram v. Tripura Sundari Devi and Hoshiar Singh v. State of Haryana on the ground that those cases involved relaxation by the selection board, not by the Government under a statutory rule. The Supreme Court concluded that the Government's marginal relaxation under Rule 7 was valid and warranted no judicial interference. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the High Court's judgment was set aside, and the appellant's appointment was upheld, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Relaxation of Physical Standards - Government's Special Sanction - Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, Rule 7 second proviso - The High Court quashed the appointment of a Deputy Superintendent of Police candidate who was short by 1.20 cms after the Government relaxed the height requirement under Rule 7, finding favoritism because the appellant was the only beneficiary. The Supreme Court held that Rule 7 specifically empowers the Government to relax physical standards in individual cases with special sanction; it was not necessary to rely on Rule 14, and the High Court erred in equating a single beneficiary with mala fide (Paras not mentioned). B) Constitutional Law - Article 14 and Policy Decisions - General Application of Policy - Constitution of India, Article 14 - The Government formulated a policy to show special consideration for relatives of those who suffered due to terrorism or faced it boldly; this policy evolved when the appellant approached for relaxation. The Supreme Court held that a policy inspired by an individual case is not discriminatory if it is of general application, citing Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. v. Their Workmen, and no mala fides could be attributed merely because the policy was framed on that occasion (Paras not mentioned). C) Service Law - Interpretation of Relaxation Clauses - Pragmatic Construction - Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, Rules 7 and 14 - Relaxation rules must be construed liberally to meet special and deserving situations, but arbitrary exercise must be guarded; a narrow construction would deny benefit to deserving cases. The Supreme Court followed JC Yadav v. State of Haryana and held that the rule of relaxation must get a pragmatic construction to effectuate government policy (Paras not mentioned). D) Service Selection - Advertisement and Relaxation by Selection Board vs Government - Permissibility of Relaxation - Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, Rule 7 - Cases District Collector and Chairman, Vizianagram v. Tripura Sundari Devi and Hoshiar Singh v. State of Haryana were distinguished because they involved the selection board relaxing standards when the advertisement was silent, not a statutory rule exercised by the Government. The Supreme Court held that the Government's relaxation under Rule 7 was valid and warranted no judicial interference (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Government of Punjab validly relaxed the minimum height requirement for the appellant under Rule 7 of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, and whether the High Court erred in quashing the appellant's selection and appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police on grounds of favoritism and lack of power to relax.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and upheld the appellant's selection and appointment as Deputy Superintendent of Police. No costs were awarded.
Law Points
- Rule 7 second proviso of Punjab Police Service Rules
- 1959 permits relaxation of physical standard for an individual with special sanction of Government
- Rule 14 general power to relax applies to class or category of persons
- policy framed in context of individual case not discriminatory if of general application
- relaxation rules must be construed pragmatically and liberally
- Article 14 not violated by a general policy inspired by an individual case
