Gauhati High Court Calls For Equal Opportunity Of Promotion For Inspectors Of Armed And Unarmed Branch Of Mizoram Police

The Gauhati High Court recently held that proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 2008, shall be interpreted in a manner which provides equal opportunity of promotion to the Inspectors of the Armed Branch as well as Un-armed Branch of the Mizoram Police.

The division bench of the Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice Suman Shyam observed:

“It is a salutory principle of law of interpretation of statute that Court should make every effort to preserve the validity of a legislation and should only declare a law invalid as a last resort. By adopting a harmonious construction of the rules, we are of the opinion that proviso to Rule 6(1) is required to be read down so as to render the same constitutionally valid. The rules ought to be interpreted in a manner which provides equal opportunity of promotion to the Inspectors of Armed Branch as well as Un-armed Branch of the Mizoram Police.”

The four Inspectors (Armed Branch) of the Mizoram Police challenged the proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Mizoram Police Service Rules, 2008 (Rules, 2008) before the High Court on the ground that the same is ultra vires the Constitution.

The Rule 6(1) of Rules, 2008 reads as follows:

“6. Recruitment to the service after commencement of these Rules shall be by the following methods, namely:

1) 50% of the total sanctioned strength of the posts in the Junior Grade of the Service shall be filled up by selection from amongst the officers who have served in the cadre of Inspector of Police under the Government of Mizoram not less than 5 (five) years regular service in the Grade, provided that out of this percentage, one post of Assistant Commandant from each Mizoram Armed Police Battalion/ Indian Reserve Battalion shall be the promotional posts of Inspectors of Mizoram Armed Police Battalion/ Indian Reserve Battalion. Promotions shall be made by Selection from Inspectors of Mizoram Armed Police Battalion/ Indian Reserve Battalion who have served not less than 5 (five) years in the Grade.”

According to the petitioners, although there are more than 54 posts of Assistant Commandants in the Junior Grade, yet, after the introduction of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2008, the Inspectors belonging to the Armed Branch of Mizoram Police can be promoted only against the 08 posts of Assistant Commandants earmarked under proviso to Rule 6(1) and no further. As such, the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2008, according to the writ petitioners is unfair, discriminatory and hence, liable to be struck down by the Court.

The Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that y since the Inspectors of Armed Branch and Unarmed Branch, forming the feeder cadre for filling up 50 percent of promotional posts, from a composite cadre, there is no scope for any further discrimination amongst them for the purpose of promotion.

On the other hand, the Advocate General of Mizoram contended that merely because a particular service rule may cause hardship to a category of employees, the same cannot be a justifiable ground to strike down the same. It was further argued that unless it is found to be a glaring case of violation of constitutional provisions, the law made by the Parliament or State Legislature ought to be upheld by the Court.

The Counsel appearing for the private respondents submitted that if the proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2008, is interfered with by the Court, then in that event the promotional avenues of his clients belonging to the Unarmed Branch would be significantly reduced, thus prejudicially affecting their interest.

The Court noted that by adding a proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2008, the number of posts in the rank of Assistant Commandants that can be filled up by promoting the Inspectors from the Armed Branch have been restricted only to 08 posts whereas, for the Inspectors of the Unarmed Branch their promotional avenues have been kept open in respect of all other posts in the Junior Grade.

“……from a comparative analysis of Rule 6(1) under both the Rules, we find that whereas, under the provisions of Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 1997 there was a provision so as to ensure that at least 08 (eight) posts of Assistant Commandants would always be filled up by promoting the Inspectors from the Armed Branch, subject to their fulfilling the other requirements under the Rules, by adding the proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2008, the authorities have now restricted the scope of promotion of the Inspectors of Armed Branch only to those 08 (eight) posts of Assistant Commandants,” the Court said.

The Court further observed that proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2008, does not appear to be in consonance with the object sought to be achieved by the main provision of Rule 6(1) which lays down that 50 percent of the total sanctioned strength of the posts in Junior Grade shall be filled up from amongst the Inspectors of Police serving under the Government of Mizoram having not less than 05 years of regular service in the cadre.

“In other words, we are of the opinion that there is an element of repugnancy and to that extent, ambiguity in the rules when Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2008 is read along with the proviso thereto. It is to be noted herein that Rule 6(1) per se does not make any distinction amongst the Inspectors of Armed Branch and Un-armed Branch for the purpose of filling up 50% of the vacancies in Junior Grade by way of promotion but the proviso to the said rule does so,” it noted.

It was remarked by the Court that it will be highly discriminatory and unfair to restrict the promotional avenues of the Inspectors of the Armed Branch to only the 08 posts of Assistant Commandants while leaving all the other promotional posts in the Junior Grade open for being filled up by the Inspectors from the Un-armed Branch.

“After a comprehensive analysis of the rules, we are of the view that proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2008 is wholly inconsistent with the object sought to be achieved by the Rules of 2008, more particularly, Rule 6(1) of the Rules of 2008,” the Court observed.

However, it was held by the Court that the proviso to Rule 6(1) of the Rules, 2008 ought to be interpreted in a manner which provides equal opportunity of promotion to the Inspectors of Armed Branch as well as Un-armed Branch of the Mizoram Police.

“Such an interpretation of the rules, in our opinion, would not only make the Rule 6(1) workable but the same will also prevent the rules from being struck down by the Court on the ground of the same being in conflict with Part III of the Constitution of India,” the Court said.

Thus, the Court held that the petitioners (belonging to Armed Branch) shall be entitled to be considered for promotion against the earmarked vacancies in the Junior Grade, in addition to the 08 posts envisaged by proviso to Rule 6(1) of 2008 Rules and at par with the Inspectors of the Unarmed Branch, subject to their fulfilling the eligibility norms and any other conditions laid down by the Rules, 2008.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Gau) 62

Case Title: F. Lalhminglina and 3 Ors. v. The State of Mizoram & 4 Ors.

Case No.: WP(C)/2986/2017

Click Here To Read/Download Order