SURESH KUMARversusTHE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

278                       [2021]
               SUPREME COURT     3 S.C.R. 278
                              REPORTS                       [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A                              SURESH KUMAR
                                        v.
                     THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.
                         (Civil Appeal No.1076 of 2021)
B                               MARCH 26, 2021
          [ASHOK BHUSHAN AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
             Punjab Police Rules, 1934: r.13.14 – Promotion to the post
      of Inspector – r.13.14(2) provides that no Sub-Inspector shall be
      considered eligible for promotion to a selection grade unless he
C
      has at least eight years’ approved service as an upper subordinate,
      of which five years shall have been in the rank of Sub-Inspector –
      Promotion to selection grade of a Sub-Inspector was pre-condition
      for including the name of a Sub-Inspector in List ‘F’ which is a list
      from which promotion to Inspector was to be made – Even though
D     scheme of grant of selection grade was done away by the State by
      its common order dated 29.04.1987, the exercise of promotion to
      Inspector from Sub-Inspector even after 29.04.1987 was done on
      the basis of requirement of Rule 13.14(2) – The criteria in the Rules
      for assessing a person that he was entitled for grant of selection
      grade cannot be said to be meaningless with no purpose after
E
      withdrawal of the selection grade – For promotion to Sub-Inspector
      to selection grade eight years’ approved service was contemplated
      which was with intent that sufficient experience is gained by a Police
      personnel to be considered for promotion to Inspector who is to
      man a Police Station and has to discharge other important functions
F     – The selection grades are in the nature of promotional scale,
      therefore, the criteria provided for promotion to selection grade
      can very well be taken as criteria for further promotion which is
      the spirit of the Rules followed uniformly by the State while effecting
      the promotion – The object and purpose of the Rules and
      methodology for evaluating the Police personnel to move in the
G
      higher rank in the same or to the next rank cannot be lost sight nor
      can be ignored merely because the scheme was withdrawn on
      29.04.1987 – No error is committed by the State in continuing the
      evaluation of the Sub-Inspectors on the basis of criteria as provided
      in Rule 13.14 while effecting promotion – Service law – Promotion.
H
                                       278
    SURESH KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                         279


      Dismissing the appeals, the Court                                 A
      HELD: 1. The Government Order dated 29.04.1987 issued
by the State of Haryana, which communicates the decision of the
State Government that “the present system of selection grades
as it exists for the employees of Groups B, C & D has been
discontinued”. The effect of the G.O. dated 29.04.1987 was that         B
there was no entitlement of a Sub-Inspector or any police
personnel belonging to Group C to claim selection grade. The
statutory Rule 13.1 provides that promotion from one rank to
another and from one grade to another in the same rank shall be
made by selection tempered by seniority. The use of expression
“specific qualifications whether in the nature of training courses      C
passed or practical experience, shall be carefully considered in
each case” indicate that qualifications for promotion are not
contained in Rule 13.1 and they have to be found out from other
part of the Rules. Rule 13.1 governs both promotions, from one
rank to another, and from one grade to another. Thus, Rule 13.1         D
regulates promotion within the grade and from one grade to
another. Rule 13.14 contains the heading “promotions to and in
the selection grades of Sub-Inspectors”. Rule 13.14(2) provides
that no Sub-Inspector shall be considered eligible for promotion
to a selection grade unless he has at least eight years’ approved
service as an upper subordinate, of which five years shall have         E
been in the rank of Sub-Inspector. Now, coming to Rule 13.15
which deals with “List F-Promotion to Inspectors”, Rule 13.15(1)
deals with recommendations on behalf of Sub-Inspectors
considered fit for promotion to the rank of Inspector to be
submitted with their annual confidential reports on the 15th April      F
each year to Deputy Inspector-General by Superintendents of
Police in Form 13.15(1). [Para 16][291-F-H; 292-A-D]
      2. Rule 13.15(4) provides that Sub-Inspectors admitted to
List ‘F’ will be placed in that list in order according to their date
of permanent promotion to selection grade. Thus, date of                G
permanent promotion to selection grade is criteria which was
required to be followed for promotion to Inspector and as required
by Rule 13.14(2) no Sub-Inspector shall be considered eligible
for promotion to a selection grade unless he has at least eight

                                                                        H
280            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                      [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     years’ approved service as an upper subordinate, of which at least
      five years shall have been in the rank of Sub-Inspector.
      [Para 17][292-D-E]
             3. Thus, promotion to selection grade of a Sub-Inspector
      was pre-condition for including the name of a Sub-Inspector in
B     List ‘F’ which is a list from which promotion to Inspector was to
      be made. Even though scheme of grant of selection grade was
      done away by the State vide its common order dated 29.04.1987,
      the exercise of promotion to Inspector from Sub-Inspector even
      after 29.04.1987 was done on the basis of requirement of Rule
      13.14(2), i.e., names of only those Sub-Inspectors were included
C     in List ‘F’ who have eight years of approved service as an upper
      subordinate to their cadre. The promotion to selection grade was
      contemplated under the Rules by following eligibility and criteria
      as laid down in the Rules. The submission of the respondents is
      that after the State Government withdrew the scheme of selection
D     grade by the Government order dated 29.04.1987 all statutory
      provisions regarding grant of selection grade became redundant.
      Even if no selection grade was to be provided to any of the
      personnel of the Police force after 29.04.1987, the criteria which
      was adopted for in rank promotion was followed by the State for
      promotion to the next rank. The Rules contained in Chapter XIII
E     have to be given a conjoint and meaningful reading to advance
      object and purpose of the Rules. The Rules provided a mode and
      manner for assessment of an official to move forward by means of
      a grant of selection grade and thereafter by the next step on the
      next rank. The criteria in the Rules for assessing a person that
F     he was entitled for grant of selection grade cannot be said to be
      meaningless with no purpose after withdrawal of the selection
      grade. The grant of selection grade, in the rank in which Police
      official was there, is a step for making eligible officer to move to
      the higher rank. Can the argument be accepted that promotion
      of Sub-Inspector to Inspector has been on the basis of seniority
G     alone? Whether there shall be no cap of experience when a Sub-
      Inspector is considered to be promoted to next higher rank in
      grade, i.e., Inspector? If we accept the submission of the counsel
      of the respondents that the requirement as contained in Rule
      13.14(2) is no longer applicable after withdrawal of selection
H     grade, there will be no requirement of any experience to any
    SURESH KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                       281


Sub-Inspector for becoming an Inspector which was never the           A
intendment of the statutory Rules. For promotion to Sub-Inspector
to selection grade eight years’ approved service was
contemplated which was with intent that sufficient experience is
gained by a Police personnel to be considered for promotion to
Inspector who is to man a Police Station and has to discharge
                                                                      B
other important functions. It is relevant to notice that no
amendments in the statutory Rules were made after 29.04.1987
and even after notification was issued dated 24.12.2001
substituting Rule 12.3. The case of the State before the High
Court and before this Court is that even after 29.04.1987 till 2017
Rules were enforced, all Sub-Inspectors, including direct and         C
promotees were uniformly dealt with by insisting the requirement
of eight years’ approved service as the upper subordinate for the
purposes of inclusion of their names in List ‘F’. [Para 18][292-F-
H; 293-A-F]
       4. The selection grades are in the nature of promotional       D
scale, therefore, the criteria provided for promotion to selection
grade can very well be taken as criteria for further promotion
which is the spirit of the Rules followed uniformly by the State
while effecting the promotion. The object and purpose of the Rules
and methodology for evaluating the Police personnel to move in
the higher rank in the same or to the next rank cannot be lost        E
sight nor can be ignored merely because the scheme was
withdrawn on 29.04.1987. No error has been committed by the
State in continuing the evaluation of the Sub-Inspectors on the
basis of criteria as provided in Rule 13.14 while effecting
promotion. This Court has laid down time and again that while         F
construing statutory Rules such construction should be adopted
which may give effect to the intention or object of the Rule and
no such interpretation be put which may make the Rule
ineffective. [Paras 19, 20][293-G-H; 294-A-B]
      State of Gujarat and Another vs. Justice R.A. Mehta             G
      (Retired) and Others (2013) 3 SCC 1 : [2013] 1 SCR 1
      – relied on.
     5. The principle of construction of statutory Rules as laid
down above would apply to the interpretation of Punjab Police
Rules, 1934. The High Court did not commit any error in               H
282            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     construing the Rules in the manner as was construed by the High
      Court. Chapter XIII of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 have to be
      conjointly and harmoniously construed and when we construe
      Rules 13.1, 13.14 and 13.15, we do not find any error in State
      promoting the Sub-Inspectors to Inspectors who have eight years’
      approved service to their credit, at least five years being as Sub-
B
      Inspectors. Thus, the High Court has rightly upheld the
      promotion orders of private respondents. No ground is made out
      to interfere with the judgment of the High Court in these appeals.
      [Para 21][295-G-H; 296-A-B]
            State of Gujarat and Another v. Justice R.A. Mehta
C           (Retired) and Others (2013) 3 SCC 1 : [2013] 1 SCR 1
            – relied on.
                             Case Law Reference
      [2013] 1 SCR 1                  relied on                  Para 20
D           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.1076
      of 2021.
            From the Judgment and Order dated 27.07.2020 of the High Court
      of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.13496/2009(O&M).
            With
E
            Civil Appeal Nos.1077 And 1078 of 2021.
            Nikhil Goel, AAG, Shyam Divan, P.S. Patwalia, Gurminder Singh,
      P.S. Narasimha, Sr. Advs., Pardeep Dahiya, Ms. Mahima Benipuri,
      Devashish Bharuka, Ashok K. Mahajan, Gautam Awasthi, Guroor
F     Sandhu, Devanshu Yadav, Ms. Naveen Goel, Dushyant Sarna, Vinay
      Mathew, Dr. Monika Gusain, Ms. Sindoora VNL, Sunil Gulia, Rahul
      Gupta, Advs. for the appearing parties.
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
G
            1. Leave granted.
            2. These three appeals have been filed against the common
      judgment dated 27.07.2020 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
      dismissing the Civil Writ Petition No.13496 of 2009 which was filed by
      the appellants in first two appeals. The third appeal, Sandeep Kumar
H
    SURESH KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                              283
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

and another is an appeal filed by the two appellants who were intervenors    A
in the Civil Writ Petition No.13496 of 2009. The Division Bench of the
High Court by the impugned judgment dismissed the writ petition upholding
the promotion orders of all the respondent Nos.4 to 34 as Inspector in
the Haryana Police.
      3. Brief facts of the case necessary to be noted for deciding these    B
appeals are:
        The appointment and promotion in Police Force of the State of
Haryana are governed by Punjab Police Rules, 1934. In the State of
Haryana prior to 2001, 100% posts of Sub-Inspectors of Police used to
be filled by way of promotion. Rule 12.3 was amended vide notification       C
dated 24.12.2001 by substituting Rule 12.3 to the following effect:
      “12.3, Direct appointment of Inspectors and Sub-Inspectors
      – Except as provided in rules 12.1 and 12.4 direct appointment
      shall not be made except in the rank of Inspector and Sub Inspector
      of Police. Such appointment in the rank of Inspector and Sub           D
      Inspector may be made up to a maximum of ten percent and fifty
      percent of posts respectively.”
       4. The first direct recruitment on the post of Sub-Inspector was
held in the year 2003 in which recruitment all the three writ petitioners,
Om Prakash, Sudeep Kumar Singh and Suresh Kumar were                         E
recommended for direct recruitment as Sub-Inspector. All the writ
petitioners joined in May, 2003 as Sub-Inspector. The private respondents
to these appeals who were arrayed as respondent Nos.4 to 34 in the
writ petition were promoted to the rank of Sub-Inspector from Assistant
Sub-Inspector between June, 2003 and March, 2004, i.e., after the writ
petitioners had joined. The respondents were promoted on the post of         F
Inspector by orders dated 27.11.2008, 18.05.2009 and 13.08.2009. The
writ petitioners aggrieved by the above mentioned promotion orders filed
Civil Writ Petition No.13496 of 2009 praying for following reliefs:
      “i)    Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus summoning the
             records of the cases.                                           G
      ii)    Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order
             dated 27.11.2008 (Annexure-P-8), order dated 18.05.2009
             (Annexure-P-9) and order dated 13.08.2009 (Annexure-
             P-10) whereby the private respondents have been promoted
             as Inspectors of Police;                                        H
284                SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A           iii)     Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the
                     confirmation order dated 30.06.2009 (Annexure P-2), order
                     dated 15.06.2009 (Annexure P-3) and also order dated
                     30.06.2009 (Annexure P-4);
            iv)      Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the Rules
B                    12.2, 12.8 and 13.18 of the Punjab Police Rules being ultra
                     vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
            v)       Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official
                     respondents to consider and promote the petitioner as
                     Inspector with effect from the date the private respondents
C                    were promoted and directing the official respondents to
                     grant all consequential reliefs that flow viz. seniority in the
                     rank of Inspector, fixation of pay, payment of arrears of
                     pay along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum
                     etc. etc.

D           vi)      Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this
                     Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
                     circumstances of the present case may be issued.”
             5. The writ petition was contested both by the State as well as by
      the private respondents. It was pleaded on behalf of the State that the
E     eligibility for promotion from the post of Sub-Inspector to Inspector is
      eight years’ service of which five years’ service should be as Sub-
      Inspector, none of the writ petitioners had to their credit eight years’
      service hence they being not eligible were not promoted. The writ
      petitioners were promoted in the year 2011 when they completed eight
      years of service to their credit. The State defended the vires of the
F     Rules and contends that the Rules were neither arbitrary nor violative of
      Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court framed following
      two issues in the writ petition for consideration:
            “(i) Whether Rule 13.14(2) prescribes the eligibility criteria for
            consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector ?
G
            (ii) If the Rule 13.14(2) is applicable, whether the conditions of
            eight years experience is arbitrary and discriminatory and is,
            therefore, required to be struck down being violative of Article 16
            of the Constitution ?”

H
    SURESH KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                                   285
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

       6. The High Court after considering the submissions of the parties         A
held that Rule 13.14(2) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 prescribes the
eligibility criteria for consideration for promotion to the post of Inspector.
The High Court also held that requirement of eight years’ experience
for promotion to the post of Inspector is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory.
After recording the conclusion, writ petition was dismissed by the High
                                                                                  B
Court. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the writ petitioners
have filed first two appeals and the last appeal has been filed by the
intervenors.
      7. We have heard Shri P.S. Patwalia, learned senior counsel and
Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants.
Shri Gurminder Singh, learned senior counsel, has appeared for the private        C
respondents. Shri Nikhil Goel, learned Additional Advocate General has
appeared for the State of Haryana.
       8. Learned senior counsel for the appellants submits that the
appellants/writ petitioners were senior to the private respondents in the
cadre of Sub-Inspector, and they being directly recruited before the              D
respondents could be promoted as Sub-Inspector. They being seniors
were entitled to be promoted on the post of Inspector as they have also
completed five years’ experience as Sub-Inspector. It is submitted that
the High Court has wrongly relied on Rule 13.14 which Rule was not
applicable for promotion to the post of Inspector from Sub-Inspector. It          E
is submitted that the applicable Rules for promotion from the rank of
Sub-Inspector to Inspector are Rules 13.1, 13.15 and 13.16 of Rules,
1934. Rule 13.14 covers a situation where a Sub-Inspector is being
promoted to and in the Selection Grade of Sub-Inspector. The Government
of Haryana vide its order dated 29.04.1987 has abolished the Selection
Grade in all Groups B,C and D posts. The Sub-Inspector being a Group-             F
C post, there was no question of promotion in Selection Grade of any
Sub-Inspector after 29.04.1987. In fact, none of the private respondents
were promoted in the Selection Grade so as to claim applicability of
Rule 13.14. The selection criteria is contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 13
and Rule 13.15. Sub-Rule (4) of Rule 13.15 does not deal with eligibility         G
rather it deals with inter-se seniority. The Haryana Police (Non-Gazetted
and Other Ranks) Service Rules, 2017 now provide, by Rule 7 read with
Appendix B that five years’ service is required as Sub-Inspector for
promotion to the post of Inspector. The position in Rules, 2017 clearly

                                                                                  H
286             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     defeats the construction placed by the High Court requiring an eight
      years’ qualifying period.
             9. Shri Nikhil Goel, learned Additional Advocate General for the
      State of Haryana submits that requirement for promotion to the rank of
      Inspector has always been of eight years’ of service. The said criteria
B     has been followed ever since the State of Haryana was established in
      1966 and even after selection grade was abolished in 1987. The
      requirement of eight years of service for promotion to the post of Inspector
      is clear from a conjoined reading of Rule 13.14 read with Rule 13.15(4)
      of Rules, 1934. Rule 13.14 of Rules, 1934 was never challenged in the
      writ petition but rather it was only the vires of Rule 12.2, 12.8 and 13.18
C     that were challenged. No reliance can be placed on Rules, 2017 which
      Rules have been notified after nine years of promotion of private
      respondents. Rule 13.14 is an integral and inalienable part of the scheme
      of the Rules governing promotion to the rank of Inspector. Without Rule
      13.14, there cannot be any List F and without List F, no promotion can
D     be made to the post of Inspector. The selection grades are in the nature
      of a promotional scale. Therefore, the criteria provided for promotion to
      selection grade can be taken as criteria for further promotion. The
      requirement and rationale of eight years of service for a Sub-Inspector
      is to discharge the higher responsibility of an Inspector. Rules, 1934
      have always been interpreted so by the State and all promotions were
E     affected till new Rules were enforced in 2017.
            10. Learned counsel for the private respondents also adopts the
      submissions raised by Shri Nikhil Goel that impugned judgment of the
      High Court needs no interference by this Court.

F            11. Shri P.S. Narasimha, learned senior counsel, has also appeared
      for the private respondents. He, however, submits that he is not affected
      by the inter-se dispute between the writ petitioners and the private
      respondents. He submits that his clients have already been promoted as
      Deputy Superintendents of Police.

G           12. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
      counsel for the parties and perused the records.
             13. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties
      and materials on record following two questions arise for consideration
      in these appeals:-
H
    SURESH KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                                 287
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      (i)    Whether the mode and manner of promotion in selection              A
             grade from rank of Sub-Inspector to Inspector as envisaged
             in Punjab Police Rules, 1934 has become redundant after
             issuance of Government Order dated 29.04.1987 by State
             of Haryana withdrawing the grant of selection grade to
             Group A, B and C employees?
                                                                                B
      (ii)   Whether the Rule 13.14 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which
             contemplate promotion to the various selection grades cannot
             be looked into while considering the promotion of a Sub-
             Inspector to the rank of Inspector and requirement of having
             at least eight years’ approved service as an upper
             subordinate is no longer attracted for promotion of direct         C
             recruits Sub-Inspector?
       14. Before we proceed to consider the respective submissions,
we need to look into the statutory rules governing the promotion from
the post of Sub-Inspector to Inspector. The statutory rules are Punjab
Police Rules, 1934. The appellant’s case is that only applicable rules for      D
promotion from the rank of Sub-Inspector to Inspector are Rules 13.1,
13.15 and 13.16 of the Rules, 1934. We need to notice the aforesaid
rules, which are to the following effect:-
              “13.1.Promotion from one rank to another. - (1)
      Promotion from one rank to another, and from one grade to another         E
      in the same rank shall be made by selection tempered by seniority.
      Efficiency and honesty shall be the main factors governing
      selection. Specific qualifications, whether in the nature of training
      courses passed or practical experience, shall be carefully
      considered in each case. When the qualifications of two officers          F
      are otherwise equal, the senior shall be promoted. This rule does
      not affect increments within a time-scale.
             (2) Under the present constitution of the police force no
      lower subordinate will ordinarily be entrusted with the independent
      conduct of investigations or the independent charge of a police           G
      station or similar unit. It is necessary, therefore, that well-educated
      constables, having the attributes necessary for bearing the
      responsibilities of upper subordinate rank, should receive
      accelerated promotion so as to reach that rank as soon as they
      have passed the courses prescribed for, and been tested and given
      practical training in, the ranks of constable and head constable.         H
288      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A            (3) For the purposes of regulating promotion amongst
      enrolled police officers six promotion lists - A, B, C, D, E, and F
      will be maintained.
            Lists A, B, C and D shall be maintained in each district as
      prescribed in rules 13.6, 13.7, 13.8 and 13.9 and will regulate
B     promotion to the selection grade of constables and to the ranks of
      head constables and Assistant Sub- Inspector. List E shall be
      maintained in the office of Deputy Inspector- General as prescribed
      in sub-rule 13.10(1) and will regulate promotion to the rank of
      Sub-Inspector. List F shall be maintained in the office of the
      Inspector-General as prescribed in sub-rule 13.15(1) and will
C     regulate promotion to the rank of Inspector.
             Entry in or removal from A, B, C, D or E lists shall be
      recorded in the order book and in the character roll of the police
      officer concerned. These lists are nominal rolls of those officers
      whose admission to them has been authorised. No actual selection
D     shall be made without careful examination of character rolls.
             Provided that five per cent of such promotions may be made
      from amongst the members of the Police Force, who achieve
      outstanding distinction in sports field at All India level or
      International level if they are otherwise eligible for promotion but
E     for seniority.
             13.15. List F - Promotion to Inspectors. - (1)
      Recommendations on behalf of Sergeants and Sub-Inspectors
      considered fit for promotion to the rank of Inspector shall be
      submitted with their annual confidential reports on the 15th April
F     each year to Deputy Inspector-General by Superintendents of
      Police in Form 13.15(1). Recommendations on behalf of Sergeants
      and Sub-Inspectors employed in the Government Railway Police
      will be sent direct to the Inspector-General of Police by the
      Assistant Inspector-General, Government Railway Police, in the
G     same form and not later than October each year. The Deputy
      Inspector-General shall decide, after seeing the officers
      recommended, and in consideration of their records, and his own
      knowledge of them, whether to endorse the recommendations of
      Superintendents of Police and forwarded them to the Inspector-
      General. He will keep a copy of any recommendation so forwarded
H
SURESH KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                                289
           [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

 in the personal file of the officer; if he decides not to endorse a       A
 recommendation, he shall retain the original in the officer’s personal
 file and send a copy of his own order on it to the Superintendent
 concerned. Deputy Inspector-General shall finally submit
 recommendations to the Inspector-General as soon as they are
 satisfied as to the fitness of officers recommended, but in no case
                                                                           B
 later than October each year.
        (2) Such of the officers recommended as the Inspector-
 General may consider suitable shall be admitted to promotion list
 ‘F’ (form 13.15(2) which will, however, not be published. Deputy
 Inspectors-General shall be informed, and shall in turn inform the
 Superintendents concerned, of the names of those who have been            C
 admitted to the List; similar information will be sent to the Assistant
 Inspector-General, Government Railway Police.
         The original personal files of Sub-Inspectors admitted to
 the list shall be transferred to the Inspector-General after duplicates
 have been prepared for retention in the office of the Deputy              D
 Inspector-General or the Assistant Inspector-General, Government
 Railway Police, as required by Rule 13.38(1). Copies of all
 subsequent annual confidential reports prepared in form 13.17 in
 respect both of Sergeants and Sub-Inspectors admitted to the list
 will, on return by the Inspector-General in accordance with rule          E
 13.17(1), be recorded by Deputy Inspectors-General or the
 Assistant Inspector-General, Government Railway Police, with
 the duplicate personal files of the officers concerned. Copies of
 all entries ordered to be made in personal files other than annual
 confidential reports will be forwarded to the Inspector-General
 as soon as made for record with the original personal files; all          F
 such copies shall be attested by the Deputy Inspector-General or
 the Assistant Inspector General, Government Railway Police,
 personally.
       (3) When submitting recommendations for the entry of fresh
 names in List F, Deputy Inspectors-General and the Assistant              G
 Inspector-General, Government Railway Police, will at the same
 time submit specific recommendations (which need not be
 accompanied by detailed confidential reports) as to the retention
 or removal of officers already admitted to the list. On receipt of
 these recommendations, the Inspector-General will review the              H
290            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A           Provincial List, and pass orders regarding the retention or exclusion
            of names, at the same time communicating his decision to the
            Deputy Inspector-General and the Assistant Inspector-General,
            Government Railway Police.
                    (4) Sub-Inspectors admitted to List ‘F’ will be placed in
B           that list in order according to their date of permanent promotion to
            selection grade, and, if the date of permanent promotion to selection
            grade is the same in the case of two or more Sub-Inspectors
            admitted to list ‘F’ on one and the same date, then according to
            date of permanent promotion to the time-scale. Sergeants will be
            shown in list ‘F’ according to the date of entry in the list. When,
C           however, two or more Sergeants are admitted to list ‘F’ on the
            same date, their names will be shown in order of seniority among
            themselves.
                    13.16. Promotion to the rank of Inspector. - (1)
            Substantive vacancies in the rank of Inspector, save those which
D           are specially designated for the appointment of probationers shall
            be filled by promotion of officers from list F selected according to
            the principles laid down in rule 13.1. Sergeants are eligible for
            promotion in the appointments reserved for European Inspectors.
                   (2) Temporary vacancies in the rank of Inspector shall be
E           filled by the officiating promotion of officers on F list by the
            authorities empowered by rule 13.4 to make the appointment. Such
            officiating promotions shall be made in accordance with the
            principles laid down in sub-rule 13.12(1) in the case of E list, and
            the second part of that rule shall, mutatis mutandis, govern the
F           scrutiny of the work of F list officers and the removal from that
            list of the names of those who are found unfit for the rank of
            inspector.
                  (3) No officer whose name is not on F list shall be appointed
            to officiate as Inspector without the special sanction of the
G           Inspector-General. When no officer on F list is available in the
            range for a vacancy which the Deputy Inspector-General is
            required to fill, application shall be made to the Inspector-General
            to appoint a man from another range.”
            15. On the other hand, the respondents placed reliance on Rule
      13.14, which is to the following effect:-
H
    SURESH KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                                291
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

            “13.14. Promotions to and in the selection grades of               A
      Sub-Inspectors. - (1) Promotion to the various selection grades
      of Sub-Inspectors shall be made by Superintendents of Police
      and the Assistant Superintendent, Government Railway Police,
      as vacancies in the sanctioned establishment of such appointments
      occur in accordance with the principle laid down in Rule 13.1.
                                                                               B
             (2) No Sub-Inspector shall be considered eligible for
      promotion to a selection grade unless he has at least eight years’
      approved service as an upper subordinate, of which at least five
      shall have been in the rank of Sub- Inspector, and unless he is
      thoroughly efficient and competent to hold charge of a police
      station of first class importance. No Sub-Inspector who has been         C
      punished by reduction, stoppage of increment, or forfeiture of
      approved service for increment, shall be eligible for promotion to
      a selection grade. Exceptions to this rule may be made only with
      the sanction of the Inspector- General in recognition of distinguished
      service and exemplary conduct.                                           D
             (3) Sub-Inspectors promoted to the 4th selection grade shall
      be on probation for one year and may be reverted without formal
      departmental proceedings during or on the expiry of the period of
      their probation if they fail to maintain an exemplary standard of
      conduct and efficiency.                                                  E
             Provided that the competent authority may, if it so thinks fit
      in any case, extend the period of probation by one year in the
      aggregate and pass such orders at any time during or on the expiry
      of the extended period of probation as it could have passed during
      or on the expiry of original period of probation.”                       F
       16. We may now notice the Government Order dated 29.04.1987
issued by the State of Haryana, which communicates the decision of the
State Government that “the present system of selection grades as it
exists for the employees of Groups B, C & D has been discontinued”.
The effect of the G.O. dated 29.04.1987 was that there was no entitlement      G
of a Sub-Inspector or any police personnel belonging to Group C to
claim selection grade. The statutory Rule 13.1 provides that promotion
from one rank to another and from one grade to another in the same
rank shall be made by selection tempered by seniority. The use of
expression “specific qualifications whether in the nature of training
                                                                               H
292             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     courses passed or practical experience, shall be carefully considered in
      each case” indicate that qualifications for promotion are not contained
      in Rule 13.1 and they have to be found out from other part of the Rules.
      Rule 13.1 governs both promotions, from one rank to another, and from
      one grade to another. Thus, Rule 13.1 regulates promotion within the
      grade and from one grade to another. Rule 13.14 contains the heading
B
      “promotions to and in the selection grades of Sub-Inspectors”. Rule
      13.14(2) provides that no Sub-Inspector shall be considered eligible for
      promotion to a selection grade unless he has at least eight years’ approved
      service as an upper subordinate, of which five years shall have been in
      the rank of Sub-Inspector. Now, coming to Rule 13.15 which deals with
C     “List F-Promotion to Inspectors”, Rule 13.15(1) deals with
      recommendations on behalf of Sub-Inspectors considered fit for promotion
      to the rank of Inspector to be submitted with their annual confidential
      reports on the 15th April each year to Deputy Inspector-General by
      Superintendents of Police in Form 13.15(1).
D            17. Rule 13.15(4) provides that Sub-Inspectors admitted to List
      ‘F’ will be placed in that list in order according to their date of permanent
      promotion to selection grade. Thus, date of permanent promotion to
      selection grade is criteria which was required to be followed for promotion
      to Inspector and as required by Rule 13.14(2) no Sub-Inspector shall be
      considered eligible for promotion to a selection grade unless he has at
E     least eight years’ approved service as an upper subordinate, of which at
      least five years shall have been in the rank of Sub-Inspector.
               18. Thus, promotion to selection grade of a Sub-Inspector was
      pre-condition for including the name of a Sub-Inspector in List ‘F’ which
      is a list from which promotion to Inspector was to be made. Even though
F     scheme of grant of selection grade was done away by the State vide its
      common order dated 29.04.1987, the exercise of promotion to Inspector
      from Sub-Inspector even after 29.04.1987 was done on the basis of
      requirement of Rule 13.14(2), i.e., names of only those Sub-Inspectors
      were included in List ‘F’ who have eight years of approved service as
G     an upper subordinate to their cadre. The promotion to selection grade
      was contemplated under the Rules by following eligibility and criteria as
      laid down in the Rules. The submission of the respondents is that after
      the State Government withdrew the scheme of selection grade by the
      Government order dated 29.04.1987 all statutory provisions regarding
      grant of selection grade became redundant. Even if no selection grade
H
    SURESH KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                               293
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

was to be provided to any of the personnel of the Police force after          A
29.04.1987, the criteria which was adopted for in rank promotion was
followed by the State for promotion to the next rank. The Rules contained
in Chapter XIII have to be given a conjoint and meaningful reading to
advance object and purpose of the Rules. The Rules provided a mode
and manner for assessment of an official to move forward by means of
                                                                              B
a grant of selection grade and thereafter by the next step on the next
rank. The criteria in the Rules for assessing a person that he was entitled
for grant of selection grade cannot be said to be meaningless with no
purpose after withdrawal of the selection grade. The grant of selection
grade, in the rank in which Police official was there, is a step for making
eligible officer to move to the higher rank. Can the argument be accepted     C
that promotion of Sub-Inspector to Inspector has been on the basis of
seniority alone? Whether there shall be no cap of experience when a
Sub-Inspector is considered to be promoted to next higher rank in grade,
i.e., Inspector? If we accept the submission of the counsel of the
respondents that the requirement as contained in Rule 13.14(2) is no
                                                                              D
longer applicable after withdrawal of selection grade, there will be no
requirement of any experience to any Sub-Inspector for becoming an
Inspector which was never the intendment of the statutory Rules. For
promotion to Sub-Inspector to selection grade eight years’ approved
service was contemplated which was with intent that sufficient
experience is gained by a Police personnel to be considered for promotion     E
to Inspector who is to man a Police Station and has to discharge other
important functions. It is relevant to notice that no amendments in the
statutory Rules were made after 29.04.1987 and even after notification
was issued dated 24.12.2001 substituting Rule 12.3. The case of the
State before the High Court and before this Court is that even after
                                                                              F
29.04.1987 till 2017 Rules were enforced, all Sub-Inspectors, including
direct and promotees were uniformly dealt with by insisting the
requirement of eight years’ approved service as the upper subordinate
for the purposes of inclusion of their names in List ‘F’.
       19. The selection grades are in the nature of promotional scale,
therefore, the criteria provided for promotion to selection grade can very    G
well be taken as criteria for further promotion which is the spirit of the
Rules followed uniformly by the State while effecting the promotion.
The object and purpose of the Rules and methodology for evaluating the
Police personnel to move in the higher rank in the same or to the next
rank cannot be lost sight nor can be ignored merely because the scheme        H
294            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     was withdrawn on 29.04.1987. No error has been committed by the
      State in continuing the evaluation of the Sub-Inspectors on the basis of
      criteria as provided in Rule 13.14 while effecting promotion.
             20. This Court has laid down time and again that while construing
      statutory Rules such construction should be adopted which may give
B     effect to the intention or object of the Rule and no such interpretation be
      put which may make the Rule ineffective. We may refer to the judgment
      of this Court in State of Gujarat and Another vs. Justice R.A. Mehta
      (Retired) and Others, (2013) 3 SCC 1, where this Court laid down
      following in paragraphs 96, 97 and 98:
C                  “96. In the process of statutory construction, the court must
            construe the Act before it bearing in mind the legal maxim ut res
            magis valeat quam pereat which means it is better for a thing to
            have effect than for it to be made void i.e. a statute must be
            construed in such a manner so as to make it workable. Viscount
            Simon, L.C. in Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries
D           Ltd. [1940 AC 1014 : (1940) 3 All ER 549 (HL)] stated as follows:
            (AC p. 1022)
                        “… if the choice is between two interpretations, the
                narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose
                of the legislation, we should avoid a construction which would
E               reduce the legislation to futility and should rather accept the
                bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would
                legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective
                result.”
                  97. Similarly in Whitney v. IRC [1926 AC 37 (HL)] it was
F           observed as under: (AC p. 52)
                       “… A statute is designed to be workable, and the
                interpretation thereof by a court should be to secure that object,
                unless crucial omission or clear direction makes that end
                unattainable.”
G
                  98. The doctrine of purposive construction may be taken
            recourse to for the purpose of giving full effect to statutory
            provisions, and the courts must state what meaning the statute
            should bear, rather than rendering the statute a nullity, as statutes
            are meant to be operative and not inept. The courts must refrain
H           from declaring a statute to be unworkable. The rules of
    SURESH KUMAR v. THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.                                295
               [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      interpretation require that construction which carries forward the       A
      objectives of the statute, protects interest of the parties and keeps
      the remedy alive, should be preferred looking into the text and
      context of the statute. Construction given by the court must
      promote the object of the statute and serve the purpose for which
      it has been enacted and not efface its very purpose. “The courts
                                                                               B
      strongly lean against any construction which tends to reduce a
      statute to futility. The provision of the statute must be so construed
      as to make it effective and operative.” The court must take a
      pragmatic view and must keep in mind the purpose for which the
      statute was enacted as the purpose of law itself provides good
      guidance to courts as they interpret the true meaning of the Act         C
      and thus legislative futility must be ruled out. A statute must be
      construed in such a manner so as to ensure that the Act itself
      does not become a dead letter and the obvious intention of the
      legislature does not stand defeated unless it leads to a case of
      absolute intractability in use. The court must adopt a construction
                                                                               D
      which suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy and “to
      suppress subtle inventions and evasions for continuance of the
      mischief, and pro privato commodo, and to add force and life to
      the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of
      the Act, pro bono publico”. The court must give effect to the
      purpose and object of the Act for the reason that legislature is         E
      presumed to have enacted a reasonable statute. (Vide M. Pentiah
      v. Muddala Veeramallappa [AIR 1961 SC 1107] , S.P. Jain v.
      Krishna Mohan Gupta [(1987) 1 SCC 191 : AIR 1987 SC 222]
      , RBI v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.
      [(1987) 1 SCC 424 : AIR 1987 SC 1023], Tinsukhia Electric
                                                                               F
      Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam [(1989) 3 SCC 709 : AIR
      1990 SC 123] , SCC p. 754, para 118, UCO Bank v. Rajinder
      Lal Capoor [(2008) 5 SCC 257 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 263] and
      Grid Corpn. of Orissa Ltd. v. Eastern Metals and Ferro Alloys
      [(2011) 11 SCC 334] .)”
      21. The principle of construction of statutory Rules as laid down        G
above would apply to the interpretation of Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
We are of the opinion that the High Court did not commit any error in
construing the Rules in the manner as was construed by the High Court.
We endorse the view of the High Court interpreting the Punjab Police
Rules, 1934. Chapter XIII of the Rules have to be conjointly and               H
296              SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 3 S.C.R.


A     harmoniously construed and when we construe Rules 13.1, 13.14 and
      13.15, we do not find any error in State promoting the Sub-Inspectors to
      Inspectors who have eight years’ approved service to their credit, at
      least five years being as Sub-Inspectors. Thus, the High Court has rightly
      upheld the promotion orders of private respondents. No ground is made
      out to interfere with the judgment of the High Court in these appeals.
B
      The appeals are dismissed.

      Devika Gujral                                             Appeals dismissed.



C




D




E




F




G




H