Holding

Preference for sons or relatives of police personnel based solely on descent is unconstitutional, and the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 were repealed by the 1980 Rules, rendering the relaxation order invalid.

Summary

The petitioners, sons and wards of Delhi police personnel, applied for constable posts and relied on a 3 October 1981 order of relaxation issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police. They were denied training because their brothers had already been recruited and because the relaxation had not been granted by the Administrator (Lt. Governor). The Supreme Court held that the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, which gave preference to relatives, were repealed by the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980, and that any relaxation could be made only by the Administrator under rule 30. The Court further held that a preference based solely on descent violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Accordingly, the petitioners were not entitled to appointment and the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (rule 12.14(3)) remained in force after the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980 came into effect.
Whether the order of relaxation dated 3 October 1981 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police was valid under the applicable rules.
Whether the provision granting preference to sons and near relatives of police personnel is constitutionally valid under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 16(1), s. Article 16(2)
Delhi Police Act, 1978s. 147, s. 149

Subjects

constitutional lawequalityArticle 16Delhi Police RulesPunjab Police Rulespreferencerelaxation orderdiscrimination by descentpublic employment

Judgment

YOGENDER PAL SINGH & OTHERS
A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JANUARY 23, 1987

[E.S. VENKATARAMIAH AND K.N. SINGH, JJ.] B

Punjab Police Rules, 1934, Rule 12.14. (3) constitutional validity
of-Authorising the grant of preference of appointment in favour of
sons and near relatives of persons serving in the police service,
whether-Constitutional-Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 16(2)
and Article 14(1).
c
Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules, 1980,
Whether supersedes the earlier Punjab Police Rules, 1934, though it is
deemed to be in force by virtue of section 149(2) of the Delhi Po/ice Act,
1978--Construction of a New law.
D
Delhi Police Act, 1978, sections 147 and 149--Scope and effect of,
explained-Ru/es 30and32 of the 1980 Police Rules.

The Delhi Police Act, 1978 (Act 34178) which came into force with
effect from I. 7.1978 by virtue of section 149 thereof repealed the earlier
Act of 1861. However, the f'll'St proviso to section 149(1) provided that E
all rules and standing Orders (including the Punjab Police Roles, as in
force in Delhi) made under the Police Act, 1861 would be in so far as
they were consistent with the Act may be deemed to have been respec-
tively made under the Act. Consequently the said 1934 Rules continued
to be in force even after the commencement of the Act. By virtue of the
anthority vested under section 147(2)(a) of the 1978 Act, the Lt. Gover- F
) nor of Delhi promulgated the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruit-
\ ment) Rules, 1980. The said Rules which came into effect from 31.12.80
were amended twice-in 1983 and 1985. By the newly added Rule 32 on
2.5.83, all provisions contained in the Punjab Police Rules as applicable
to the Union Territory of Delhi were-repealed. While under the earlier
Rule 12: 14 (3) of the Punjab Police Rules, sons and near relatives of G
persons who have done good service in Punjab Police or in the Army had
preference in recruitment, under the new Rule 9(vi)(d)(ii) relaxation of
~· the age limit alone was provided for "for sons of police personnel who
I
die in service". Despite this Rule position, the Deputy Commissioner of
Police Headquarters (I), Delhi, by bis order dt.3.10.81, relaxed the
rules relating to the qualifications in favour of the sons or wards of Delhi H

49
50 SUPREME COURT aEPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

Policemen upto the limit of 7'h% of the total selection. Accordingly the
A
police authorities in charge of the selection of candidates recommended ~
259 candidates out of a total of 420 candidates who came within the
category of ';Vards of Policemen/Class IV employees to the Delhi Ad-
ministration for seeking approval of the competent authority.

B All the 23 appellants were eligible to be considered for the
appointment as Constables In the light of th~ order of relaxation
dated 3.10.81, but even they were not sent up for training which they had
to undergo before the appointment because six of them were found to be
r-
ineligible since their brothers had already been recruited in the Police
Department by relaxing the' rules of appointment in their favour. 15 of
them were refused permission to join the training course on the ground
·4: ,-
c that the Administrator (Lt. Governor of Union territory of Delhi) bad
not relaxed the qualifications in their cases. Two of them, however, had \.
in fact received a letter stating that the Administrator (Lt. Governor of
the Union territory of Delhi) had accorded sanction for relaxation for
recruitment in their cases and they could join the training course with
D effect from 15.6.1982 but later on they were also denied admission into
the Police force because their brothers had been recruited earlier in the
Delhi Police service after according relaxation. The order of relaxation
in their favour had, therefore, been withdrawn. The appellants who
were thus aggrieved by the denial of admission into the service prefer- ,-\.
red the writ petition in the High Court for the issue of writ of man-
E damus to the Delhi Administration to appoint them as Constables on the
ground that they satisfied th'' qualifications prescribed by the rules read
with the order of relaxation elated 3.10.1981.

A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court allowed the writ
-r-.
petition and held that the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 continued to re- •
F main ln force even after the promulgation of the Rules which came into '·
force on 31.12.1980 and the cases of the appellants were protected by
the relaxation order dated 3.10.1981 issued by the Deputy Commissioner
of Police and the fact that any of the brothers of the appellants had been
appointed earlier under the cover of similar order of relaxation did not
disentitle the appellants to claim the benefit of the order of relaxation.
G
Aggrieved by the said decision, the Union of India and the Delhi y
Administration fded a Lette:rs Patent Appeal. The appeal was allowed
holding; (a) that on the promulgation of the Rules with effect from
31. 12.1980, rule 12.14.(3) of the Punjab Police· Rules, 1934 which dealt
with the subject of appointment of Constables stood repealed; (b) that
H under Rule 30 of the Rules tile power to relax the Rules in appropriate
YOGENDER PAL SINGH v. U.O.l. 51

cases having been vested with the Administrator. (Lt. Governor of the A
Union territory of Delhi) the order of relaxation issued by the Deputy
Commissioner of Police on 3.10.1981 did not give any right to the appel-
lants for enlistment as Constables unless relaxation was granted by the
competent authority i.e. the Administrator (Lt. Governor of the Union
territory of Delhi) and the mere fact that a candidate was successful in
the test by itself would not give him a right to enlistment; (c) that since B
by its letter dated April 3, 1982 the Delhi Administratio!l had decided
that only one son of a police officer would be considered for grant of
such relaxation the appellants whose brothers had already been
employed in the police service on the basis of an earlier order of relaxa-
tion were not entitled to be recruited by relaxing the Rules once again,
Hence the appeal by special leave.
c
Dismissing the appeal, the Court,

HELD: 1.1 The claim made by the appellants for the relaxation
of the Rules in their cases only because they happen to be the wards or
children or relatives of the police officers has got to be negatived since 0
their claim is based on 'descent' only and others will thereby be dis-
criminated against as they do not happen to be the sons of police offi-
cers. Any preference shown in the matter of public employment on the
ground of descent only has to be declared as unconstitutional. [6SF-G J

1.2 While it may be permissible to appoint a person who is the son E
of a police officer who dies in service or who is incapacitated while
rendering service in the Police Department, a provision which confers a
preferential right to appointment on the children or wards or other
relatives of the police officers either in service or retired merely because
they happen to be the children or wards or other relatives of such police
officers would be contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution. Opp11rW- F
nity to get into public service should be extended to all the citizens
equally and should not be confined to any extent to lb• descendants or
relatives of a person already in the service of the St!lte or who has
retired from the service. [64B-D I

Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v. The State of Andhra Prafiesh & G
Others, [ 1961] 2 SCR 93 I, applied.

2. I It is well settled that when a compete11t aµth11rity ml!lles a new
law which is totally Inconsistent with t!ie e11rlier law !111!1 lb!lt lbe twP
cannot stand together any longer It must lie C!l!lstr!!et! tbllt t!ie earlier
law had been repealed by necessary lmplicati11!1 by tile 1!1ter law, Apply. H
52 '\ SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.
l
ing the above test it bas to be held in this case that rule 12.14 and rule
A 12. IS of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 stood repealed with effect from
December JI, 1980 and rule 32 of the Rules which was introduced by
way of amendment on May 2, 1983 had not the effect reviving rule 12.14
and rule 12.15 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and Keeping them alive
beyond December 31, 1980 upto May 2, 1983. [63A·Cl
B
. 2.2 Rule 32 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment)
Rnles, 1980 bad been introduced by way of abundant caution, although
in fact the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 ceased to be in force on 31.12. 1980
and the mere addition of Rule 32 did not have the effect of keeping the
1934 Rules alive after 31.12.80. [62D-E]
c 2.3 Section !49(2) of the Delhi Police Act no donbt provided that
the rules framed under the Police Act of 1861 would continue to be in
force after the Act came into force in so far as they were consistent with
the Act but at the same time section l.J7 of the Act authorised the
Administ~ator (Lt. Governor of the Union territory of Delhi) to make
D rules regarding recruitment to, and the pay, allowances and all oher
conditions of service ofthe members of the Delhi Police under clause (b)
of section 5. It is not disputed that rule 12. 14 and rule 12.15 of the
Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and the rules promulgated on December 31,
1980 dealt with the identical subject, namely, the appointment and
recruitment of Constables to the Delhi Police service. Therefore, on the
E promulgation of the Rules on December 31, 1980 which covered the
subject dealt 'with by rule 12. 14 and rule 12.15 of the Punjab Police
Rules, 1934 had the effect of repealing by necessary implication rule
12.14 and rule 12.15 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 even though
initially there was no express provision in the Rules to the effect that
-, rule 12.14 and rule 12.15 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 stood
_F ·-'-repealed with effect from December 31, 1980. [62D-H; 63A]

2.4 The appellants cannot rely npon rule 12. 14(3) of the Punjab
Police Rules, 1934 which provided that "sons and near relatives of
person who have done good service in the Punjab Police or in the Army
shall, subject to the consideration imp0sed by rule 12. 12 have prefer-
G ence over the other candidates for police employment". Under rule 30
of the Rules any relaxation should be made by the Administrator (Lt.
Governor of the Union territory of Delhi) and not by the Deputy Com-
missioner of Police. Thus uo reliance can be placed on the order of
relaxation passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 3.10.1981
and since by the letter dated April 3, 1982 the Delhi Administration bad
H imposed an additional condition in respect of the wards of Delhi
YOGENDER PAL SINGH v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.l 53

Policemen/Class IV employees that only one son of police personnel/
~/ A
Class IV employee would be considered for grant of such relaxation the
' appellants cannot claim that they were entitled to be recruited because
admittedly their brothers had already been recruited in the Delhi Police
service on the basis of an earlier order of relaxation. [63C-F]

CIVIL APPELLAIB JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2547 B
of 1985.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.5.1984 of the Delhi High
Court in L.P.A. No. 157 of 1983

S.A.K. Dar and P.O. Sharma for the Appellants.
c
Anand Prakash, N.D. Garg, Miss Sushma Relan for the Res-
pondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
D
VENKATARAMIAH, J. The above appeal by special leave
arises out of a writ petition filed by the appellants in the High Court of
Delhi for the issue of a direction to the Delhi Administration to
,). appoint them as police Constables.

Prior to the coming into force of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 (Act E
No. 34 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with effect from
the Ist day of July, 1978, there was in force in the Union territory of
Delhi the Police Act, 1861. On the commencement of the Act, the
Police Act, 1861 ceased to be in force in Delhi by virtue of section 149
of the Act. The first proviso to section 149(1) of the Act, however,
provided that all rules and standing orders (including the Punjab Police F
Rules, as in force in Delhi) made under the Police Act, 1861 would be
in sofar as they were consistent with the Act be deemed to have been
respectively made under the Act. Accordingly the Punjab Police
Rules, 1934 as in force in Delhi which had been enacted under the
Police Act, 1861 continued to be in force even after the commence-
ment of the Act. Chapter 12 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 con- G
tained the rules relating to the appointments and enrolments of
Assistant Superintendents of Police, Deputy Superintendents of
Police, Inspectors, Sergeants, Assistant Sub-Inspectors, Range
Auditors, Head Constables and Constables. Recruitment to the cadre
of Constables was done under rules 12.12 to 12.22 of the Punjab Police
Rules, 1934. RuJ,es 12.14 and 12.15 dealt with the status of the recruits, H
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.
I
A the qualifications; age and the physicial standards which the recruits ,
had to satisfy. Rules 12.14 and 12.15 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 I"'
read as follows:

"12.14. Recruits-Status of. (1) Recruits shall be of good
character and great care shall be taken in selecting men of a
B type suitable for police service from candidates presenting
themselves for enrolment.
}·
(2) The enlistment in the police of Gurkhas of
Nepalese nationality is absolutely forbidden. The enlist-
ment of Gurkhas, who can prove British nationality or con-
tinuous domicile, is permitted, but only with the formal
c sanction of the Deputy Inspector-General. Before giving
sanction the Deputy Inspector-General should verify the
nationality of the proposed recruit by a reference to the
recruiting Offic1!r for Gurkhas,

D (3) Sons a.nd near relatives of persons who have done
good service in the Punjab Police or in the Army shall,
subject to the consideration imposed by rule 12.12 have
preference over the other candidates for police employ-
ment.

E 12.15. Recruits-age and physical standards of. (1)
Recruits shall be not more than 25, or less than 18 years of
age, at the time of enrolment, and shall have a minimum
height of§' -7" and normal chest measurement of 33", with
expansion of l l/2 inches. These physical standards shall not
be relaxed without the general or special sanction of the
F Deputy Inspector-General. A general reduction of the
standard may be allowed by Deputy Inspectors-General in
the case of special castes or classes, which provide desirable
recruits, but whose general height does not come up to that
prescribed. In such cases a standard of chest measurement
and general physique shall be fixed, which will permit the
G enlistment of strong and well-proportioned youths of the
class in question.

(2) The greatest care shall be taken to ensure that the
age of every police officer is correctly recorded at the time
of his enrolment and appointment. The record then made
H becomes of utmost importance when the question arises of
YOGENDER PAL SINGH v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 55

an officer's right to pension, and is accepted as decisive in A
the absence of full proof both that the original entry was
wrong and that the date of birth originally given was due to
a bona fide mistake.

A copy of this rule shall be pasted inside the cover of
B
the recruit register (form 11.13) and the attention of the
Civil Surgeon shall be drawn to it."

Section 147 of the Act authorises the Admiifistrator (Lt. Governor of
the Union territory of Delhi) to make rules for carrying out the
purposes of the Act. Clause (a) of section 147 (2) of the Act expressly
states that such rules may provide for recruitment to, and the pay, c
allowances and all other conditions of service of the members of, the
'( Delhi police under clause (b) of section 5. In exercise of the said power
the Administrator (Lt. Governor of the Union territory of Delhi)
promulgated the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules,
1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") providing for the
D
appointments of Inspectors, Sub·Inspectors, Assistant Sub· Inspectors,
Head Constables and Constables. Rule 9 of the Rules laid down the
procedure for the recruitment of the Constables. The said rule, as it
was originally promulgated, read as follows:

"9. Recruitment of Constables.-Delhi being a cosmopo-

-
E
litan city, it is imperative to attract condidates from all
parts of the country.

(ii) The recruitment of constables shall be done twice
a year in the months of January and July by the Board to be
nominated by Commissioner of Police as per rule 8.
F
(iii) The Commissioner of Police may also order
special recruitment at any time if there are sufficient
number of vacancies and the panels prepared earlier have
exhausted.
G
(iv) A panel shall be drawn up of selected candidates
on the basis of existing and anticipated vacancies. This
panel shall be valid till the next recruitment is held.

(v) Physical, educational, age and other standards
for recruitment to the rank of constables shall be as under:· H
I
56 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

(a) Age 18-21 years Relaxable by 5 years for \
A
(i) Scheduled Caste/Schedu- ""
led Tribes candidates
(ii) Sportsmen of distinction·.
(iii) Ex-servicemen s per
B
rule 28 of these rules.

(b) Height • 170 Centi- Relaxable by 4 centimeters
I
rneters for residents of Hill area '
e.g. Gurkhas, Garwalis. --r-'"- \.

c (c) Chest 170 Centi- Relaxable by 2 centimeters
meters for residents of hill areas. y

(d) Educa- Matric/ Relaxable up to 9th pass
tional Higher only for:-
Qualifi- Secondary (i) Bandsmen, buglers,
D
cation 10th of mounted Constables, drivers,
10 plus 2 despatch riders etc.
(ii) for sons of police per-
sonnel who die in service. A

E (e) Physical Sound state No relaxation permissible.
standard of health, free
from defect/
·-
deformity/
disease, vision
6/12 without
-'r··
I
F glasses both
eye,s, free
from colour
blindness.

(f) Reserva- (i) For Scheduled Castes,
G tion of Scheduled Tribes, Ex-service-
vacancies men etc. as per orders issued by ~
Government from time
to time.
(ii) For sons of police
H personnel not more than
5% of vacancies.
YOGENDER PAL SINGH v. U.0.l. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 57

(vi) The Commissioner of Police shall frame stand- A
ing orders prescribing application forms and detailed pr-0-
cedure to be followed for conducting physical efficiency,
physical measurement, written tests and viva-voce for reg-
ulating the above mentioned recruitment.

The Rules were amended by the Administrator (Lt. Governor of B
the Union territory of Delhi on May 2, 1983 and one of the amend-
ments made on that occasion was the addition of rule 32 to the Rules.
The new rule 32 of the Rules read as follows:

"All provisions contained in the Punjab Police Rules as
applicable to the Union territory of Delhi, relating to C
appointments and recruitment of employees are hereby
repealed, subject to the provisions as contained in the pr-0-
visos to sub-section (1) and (2) of section 149 of the Delhi
Police Act, 1978."

The Rules were again amended in 1985. On that occasion rule 9 D
of the Rules which provided for the recruitment of the Co!lstables was
amended but we are not concerned with these amendments made in
the year 1985 since we are concerned in this case with the rules which
were in force prior to the above said amendment. Rllle 30 of the Rules
which is relevant for purposes of this case reads as follows:
E
"30 Power to relax.-When the Administrator is of
the opinion that it is necessary or expedient so to do, he
may, by order, for reasons to be recorded in writing, relax
any of the provisions of these Rules with respect to any
\ class, category, or persons or posts or in an individual
\
case." F

As stated at the commencement, this appeal arises out of the writ
petition bearing no. C.W .P. No. 1891 of 1982 on the file of the High
Court of Delhi filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said
writ petition was filed by 23 petitioners, who were applicants for the
posts of Constables in the Delhi Police Force governed by the Act.. G
They prayed for the issue of a writ to the Delhi Administration to
appoint them as Constables and for other consequential reliefs. None
of them was fully qualified to be recruited as a Constable under the
Rules. But being the sons of Delhi policemen, they depended upon an
order dated 3.10.1981 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police
Headquarters (I) Delhi under which he had relaxed the rules relating H
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 2 S.C.R.

to the qualifications in favour of the sons or wards of Delhi policemen.
A The relevant part of the said order dated 3.10.1981 reads thus:

"The wards of Delhi policmen should be given the
following concessions in age, educational qualifications and
physical standards, etc., for recruitment as Constables in
Delhi Police:-
,_,
'
1. Age U pto 25 years
2. Educational 9th Pass ~·
Qualifications ' "'-
\
3. Height §' -5"
c 4. Chest -2" Relaxation.
\----
All those wards of Delhi Police Personnel who con-
form to the qualifications laid down above should be
allowed to appe:ar in the physical and written tests. Their
b forms should be: accepted as it was being done before the
introduction of New Rules.

The last date for acceptance of forms may be en- ·
hanced from 3rd Oct., 1981 to 15th October, 1981 and .l.
fortlis should be sold during holidays also.
E
sd/-A.K. Aggarwal
Deputy Commissioner of Police, HQ (1) Delhi

No. 19512-45/SIPdatedDelhi, the·3-10-81." ·1\""-
F The appellants were eligible to be considered for the appoint-
ment as Constables in the light of the order of relaxation referred to
above but even then they were not sent up for training which they had
to undergo before the appointment because six of them were found to
be ineligible since their brothers had already been recruited in the
Police Department by relaxing the rules of appointment in their
G• favour. i5 of them were refused permission to join the training course
on the ground that the Administrator (Lt. Governor of Union territory ·~
of Delhi) had not teiaxed the qualifications in their cases. two of
them, however, had ill fatt tc!ceived a letter stating that the Adminis-
trator (Lt. GovHlillt llf the Union territory of Delhi) had acrorded
sanction for teiaxatiot\ for r<:ctuitment in their cases and they ruulll
H join the ttai11l11g routse with effect from 15.6.1982 but later on they
YOGENDER PAL SINGH v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.} 59

..,/ were also denied admission into the Police force because their brothers
A
had been recruited earlier the Delhi Police service after according
relaxtion. The order of relaxation in their favour had, therefore, been
withdrawn. The appellants who were thus aggrieved by the denial of
admission into the service preferred the above mentioned writ petition
in the High Court for the issue of writ of mandamus to the Delhi
Administration to appoint them as Constables on the ground that they B
satisfied the qualifications prescribed by the rules read with the order
-\. of relaxation dateCI 3.10.1981 referred to above.

;t- The petition was resisted by the Delhi Administration. It was
contended on behalf of the Delhi Administration that the order of
relaxation which had been passed on 3.10.1981 was not a valid one
because (i) it had been passed on the assumption that rule 12.14(3) of
c
'I the Pun jab Police Rules, 1934 was in force on the date on which it was
passed but in fact the said rule stood repealed on the coming into force
of the Rules on 31.12.1980 framed under section 147 of the Act and (ii)
under rule 30 of the Rules relaxation of qualifications could be made
by the Administrator (Lt. Governor) not by the Deputy Commissioner D
of Police. The Delhi Administration further alleged that Standing
Order No. 212 of 1981 had been issued in connection with the recruit-
ment of Constables in Delhi Police and clause 10 of the said Standing
-4 Order No. 212 read as follows:

- "10. RELAXATION:

(i) No relaxation in qualifications/standards mentioned in
this Standing Order shall be given except in the cases and
E

i- manner as laid down in the Delhi Police (Appointment and
\ Recruitment) Rules, 1980.
• F

(iii) Children of Police officers of subordinate tank serving
or those who die in office will be granted 5 marks in the
. written test as bonus. Relaxation in other standards will not
be given excepting with the sanction of competent autho· G
~ rity."
'
Standing Order No. 212 of 1981 referred to above was further
amended as follows:

"The wards of the Delhi Policemen will, however, be given H
60 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

the following concessions in age, educational qualifications
A and physical standards, to enable them to take the physical
and written tests:-

(1) Age Upto 25 years
(2) Educational 9th Pass
B
Qualification
(3) Height 5' -5" r
(4) Chest 2 inches -}-_,_
relaxation I

However, their enlistment would be done only in case
c of relaxation being granted by the competent authority and .,
y-
mere fact that a candidate has qualified in the test will not
in itself give him a right to enlistment."

The Delhi Administration, however, agreed to grant relaxation
D to the wards of Delhi Policemen/Class IV employees only upto the
limit of 7 1/2% of the total selection. Accordingly the Police
authorities in charge of the selection of candidates recommended cases
of 259 candidates out of a total of 420 candidates who came wHhin the
category of wards of Policemen/Class IV employees (within the limit
of 7 112 % of the total selection) to the Delhi Administration for seeking
E approval of the competent authority mi the basis of the following
criteria:

F

(iii) Selection of the remammg candidates to be
done, in order of merit in the tests within the maximum
G permissible limit of 7 11/2 % provided that they do not need
relaxation in more than two standards.

(iv)_ With regard to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes candidates who are the wards of Delhi Police per-
sonnel, the lowering of the limit of qualifying percentage
H would also be applicable in addition.
YOGENDER PAL SINGH v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.l 61

The aforesaid recommendations having been accepted by the
~ A
competent authority the police authorities allowed the candidates
whose cases were covered by the above criteria and the fixed per-
centage of 7 l'h % of such appointment to join the training course.
Since the case of the appellants were not covered by the above criteria
they were treated as being not eligible to be appointed as Constables.
B
After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties the
1 learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition allowed it by his
judgment dated July 21, 1983. He held that the Punjab Police Rules,

----r- 1934 continued to remain in force even after the promulgation of the
Rules which came into force on 31.12.1980 and the cases of the appel-
!ants were protected by the relaxation order dated 3.10.1981 issued by
the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the fact that any of the
c
-1 brothers of the appellants had been appointed earlier under the cover
\
of similar order of relaxation did not disentitle the appellants to claim
the benefit of the order of relaxation. The learned Judge was, theFe-
fore, of the view that the appellants were entitled to be appointed as
Constables. Since two of the appellants had already been sent for D
training under the two letters of relaxation issued in their favour the
learned Judge issued a writ directing the Delhi Administration to send
the remaining 21 candidates also for training and to appoint them as
.A. Constables after the completion of their training.

Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge the Union E
of India and the Delhi Administration filed an appeal before the Divi-
sion Bench of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 157 of
1983. The Division Bench held that on the promulgation of the Rules
'·
r \
with effect from 31.12.1980, rule 12.14(3) of the Punjab Police Rules,
1934 which dealt with the subject of appointment of Constables stood
\ repealed. It further held that under rule 30 of the Rules the power to F
relax the Rules in appropriate cases having been vested with the
Administrator (Lt. Governor of the Union territory of Delhi) the
order of relaxation issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on
3.10.1981 did not give any right to the appellants for enlishment as
Constables unless relaxation was granted by the competent authority
i.e. the Administrator (Lt. Governor of the Union territory of Delhi) G

- ~ and the mere fact that a candidate was successful in the test by itself
would not give him a right to enlistment. The Court further held that
since by its letter dated April 3, 1982 the Delhi Administration had
decided that only one son of a police officer would be considered for
grant of such relaxation the appellants whose brothers had already
been employed in the police service on the basis of an earlier order of H
62 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 2 S.C.R.

A relaxation were not entitled to be recruited by relaxing the Ruies once
again. Accordingly the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set
aside by the Division Bench and the writ petition filed by the petition-
ers therein was dismissed.

Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench the appellants
B filed this appeal by special foave.

The first point which requires to be considered is whether the
Punjab Police Rules, 1934 in so far as they related to the recruitment
to the post of Constables was concerned were in force after the pr-0-
mulgation of the Rules on 31.12.1980. It is urged on behalf of the
appellants that since rule 32 which provided that "all provisions con-
c tained in the Punjab Police Rules as applicable to the Union territory
of Delhi, relating to the appointments and recruitment of employees
are hereby repealed, subject to the provisions as contained in the
provisos to sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 149 of the Delhi Police
Act, 1978" had been introduced by an amendment of the Rules on
0 May 2, 1983 it must be presumed that the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 in
so far as they related to the recruitment and appointment of Cons-
tables remained in force till May 2, 1983. The contention of the Delhi
Administration is that the said rule had ben introduced by way of
abundant caution although in fact the Pun jab Police Rules, 1934 had
ceased to be in force on 31.12.1980 and the mere addition of rule 32
E did not have the effect of k1eeping the relevant Punjab Police Rules,
1934 alive after December 31, 1980. We are of the view that the Divi-
sion Bench was right in accepting the plea urged on behalf of the Delhi
Administration in this regard. Section 149(2) of the Act no doubt
provided that the rules fran1ed under the Police Act of 1861 would
continue to be in force after the Act came into force in so far as they
'f··
I.
F were consistent with the Act but at the same time section 147 of the
Act authorised the Adminisitrator (Lt. Governor of the Union terri-
tory of Delhi) to make rules regarding recruitment to, and the pay,
allowances and all other conditions of service of the members of the
Delhi Police under clause (b) of section 5. It is not disputed that rule
12.14 and rule 12.15 of the iPunjab Police Rules, 1934 and the rules
G promulgated on December 31,1980 dealt with the identical subject,
namely, the appointment and recruitment of Constables to the Delhi
police service. Therefore, on the promulgation of the Rules on
December 31, 1980 which covered the subject dealt with by rule 12.14
and rule il2.15 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 had the effect of
repealing by necessary implication rule 12.14 and rule 12.15 of the
H Punjab Police Rules, 1934 even though initially there was no express
YOGENDER PAL SINGH v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 63

provision in the Rules to the effect that rule 12.14 and rule 12.15 of the A
Punjab Police Rules, 1934 stood repealed with effect from December
31, 1980. It is well-settled that when a competent authority makes a
new law which is totally inconsistent with the earlier law and that the
two cannot stand together any longer it must be construed that the
earlier law had been repealed by necessary implication by the later
law. Applying the above test it has to be held in this case that rule B
12.14 and rule 12.15 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 stood repealed
--~ with effect from December 31, 1980 and rule 32 of the Rules which was
introduced by way of amendment on May 2, 1983 had not the effect
reviving rule 12.14 and rule 12.15 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and
keeping them alive beyond December 31, 1980 upto May 2, 1983.
When once this conclusion is reached it follows that the appellants C
cannot rely upon rule 12.14(3) of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 which
provided that "sons and near relatives of person who have done good
service in the Punjab Police or in the Army shall, subject to the consi-
deration imposed by rule 12.12 have preference over the other candi-
dates for police employment". Under rule 30 of the Rules any relaxa-
tion should be made by the Administrator (Lt. Governor of the Union D
territory of Delhi) and not by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
Thus no reliance can be placed on the order of relaxation passed by the
Deputy Commissioner of Police on 3.10.1981 and since by the-letter
dated April 3, 1982 the Delhi Administration had imposed an addi-
tional condition in respect of the wards of belhi Policemen/Class IV
employees that only one son of police personnel/Class IV employees E
would be considered for grant of such relaxation the appellants cannot
claim that they were entitled to be recruited because admittedly their
brothers had already been recruited in the Delhi Police service on the
basis of an earlier order of relaxation. The appellants have not, theFe-
1' fore, made out any case in support of their plea.
\ F
' We should, however, point out at this stage a fundamental defect
in the claim of the appellants, namely, that rule 12.14(3) of the Punjab
Police Rules, 1934 which authorised the granting of preference in
favour of sons and near relatives of persons serving in the police
service became unconstitutional on the coming into force of the Con-
stj!ution. Clauses (1) and (2) of Article 16 of the Constitution which G
are material for this case read thus:-

"16. (1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all
citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment
to any office under the State.
H
64 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

(2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race
A caste, sex, desc:ent, place of birth, residence or any of
them, be ineligilble for, or discriminated against in respect
of, any employment or office under the State."

While it may be permissible to appoint a person who is the son of
B a police officer who dies in service or who is incapacitated while
rendering service in the Police Department, a provision which confers
a preferential right to appointment on the children or wards or other 'r .
relatives of the police officers either in service or retired merely be-
cause they happen to be children or wards or other relatives of such
police officers would be contrary to Article 16 of the Constitution.
C Opportunity to get into public service should be extended to all the
citizens equally and should not be confined to any extent to the
descendants or relatives of a person already in the service of the State
or who has retired from the service. In Gazula Dasaratha Rama Rao v.
The State of Andhra Pradesh & Others, [1961] 2 SCR 931 the question
relating to the constitutional validity of section 6(1) of the Madras
D Hereditary Village-Offices Act, 1895 (3 of 1895) came up for consi-
deration before this Court. That section provided that where two or
more villages or portions thereof were grouped together or amalga-
mated so as to form -a single new village or where any village was
divided into two or more villages all the village officers of the class
defined in section 3, clause ( 1) of that Act in the villages or portions of
E the villages or village amalgamated or divided as aforesaid would cease
to exist and the new offices which were created for the new village or
villages should be filled up by the Collector by selecting the persons
whom he considered best qualified from among the families of the last
holders of the offices which had been abolished. This Court held that
the said provision which reiiuired the Collector to fill up the said new
F offices by selecting persons from among the families of the last holders
of the offices was opposed to Article 16 of the Constitution. The Court
observed in that connection at pages 940-941and946-947 thus:

"Article 14 enshrines the fundamental right of equality be-
fore the law or the equal protection of the laws within the
G territory of India, It is available to all, irrespective of
whether the person claiming it is a citizen or not. Article 15
prohibits discrimination on some special grounds-reli-
gion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. It is
available to citizens only, but is not restricted to any em-
ployment or office under the State. Article 16 cl. (1),
H quarantees equality of oportunity for all citizens in matters
YOGENDER PAL SINGH v. U.0.1. [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 65

relating to employment or appointment to any office under A
the State; and cl. (2) prohibits discrimination on certain
grounds in respect of any such employment or appoint-
ment. It would thus appear that Art. 14 guarantees the •
general right of equality; Arts. 15 and 16 are instances of
the same right in favour of citizens in some special circum-
stances. Articles 15 is more general than Art. 16, the latter B
being confined to matters relating to employment or
appointment to any office under the State. It is also worthy
of note that Art. 15 does not mention 'descent' as one of
the prohibited grounds of discrimination, whareas Art. 16
does. We do not see any reason why the full ambit of the
fundamental right guaranteed by Art. 16 in the matter of
employment or appointment to any office under the State
c
should be cut down by a reference to the provisions in Part
XIV of the Constitution which relate to Services or to pr-0-
visions in the earlier Constitution Acts relating to the same
subject ............................................ .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Pages 940-941). D

There can be no doubt that s.6(1) of the Act does
embody a principle of discrimination on the ground of des-
cent only. It says that in choosing the person to fill the new
offices, the Collector shall select the persons whom he may E
consider the best qualified from among the families of the
last holders of the offices which have been abolished. This,
in our opinion, is discrimination on the ground of descent
only and is in contravention of Art. 16(2) of the Constitu-
tion." (Pages 946-947).
F

We are of opinion that the claim made by the appellants for the
relaxation of the Rules in their cases only because they happen to be
the wards or children or relatives of the police officers has got to be
negatived since their claim is based on 'descent' only, and others will
thereby be discriminated against as they do not happen to be the sons G
of police officers. Any preference shown in the matter of public employ-
ment on the grounds of descent only has to be declared as unconstitu-
tional. The appellants have not shown that they were otherwise eligi-
ble to be recruited as Constables in the absence of the order of relaxa-
tion on which they relied. Hence they cannot succeed.
H
66 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A We, however, make :it clear that this judgment shall not affect
the appointments of sons or wards of police officers already made by
relaxing the Rules and they shall remain undisturbed .
• In the result the appeal fails and it is dismissed. There shall,
however, be no order as to c:osts.
B
S.R. Appeal dismissed.

y-