Allahabad High Court
Ramesh Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. And Others on 20 July, 2011
Bench: Rajes Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
COURT NO.39
CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO.39622 OF 2011
Ramesh Singh and others. ....Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others. .....Respondents
Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.
Heard Sri Amit Sthalekar, learned counsel for the petitioners and S/Sri Y.K. Srivastava and Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsels.
In the present writ petition, the petitioners are challenging the clause (b) of U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Rules, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules, 2008"), which provides physical efficiency test. This clause requires that the candidate selected under clause (a) shall be required to appear in physical efficiency test of qualifying nature. The male candidates shall be required to complete a run of 10 kilometres in 75 minutes and the female candidates a run of 5 kilometres in 45 minutes.
The petitioners are the Head Constables. Under the promotion quota of 25% the petitioners appeared in the examination for the post of Sub-Inspector. All the petitioners have succeeded in the written examination and are subject to the physical efficiency test.
The contention of the petitioners is that they have been appointed in the police department in the year 1987. Since 2000 though there were vacancies but no step had been taken to fill up the vacancies on the post of Sub-Inspector. In the year 2008 the Rules namely, Rules, 2008 has been framed which provided that both, Constable and Head Constables, who have completed three years of service are eligible to appear in the examination. The petitioners appeared in the written examination and qualified. Now the petitioners have been called for the physical efficiency test.
The contention of the petitioners is that by passage of time their age has increased and it is not possible for them to run 10 kilometers in 75 minutes.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this condition is applicable both to the Constables as well as to the Head Constables. The Constables are more younger than the Head Constables. Even in the case of physical efficiency test of the Constables some of the Constables died. Therefore, this condition of physical efficiency test in the case of Head Constable is not reasonable condition and is liable to be modified. He further submitted that the Director General of Police has also recommended the Government to relax the aforesaid condition and it is reported in the Pioneer Newspaper dated 10.07.2011. He further submitted that the vacancies occurred between 2000 to 2008 are to be filled on the basis of the procedure prevailing at the time of creation of the vacancies and not under the present Rules, 2008 as amended time to time.
Sri Y.K. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel submitted that Rules, 2008 has been amended by notification no.203/(1)6/pu-10/27(7)/2008TC, dated 05.04.2010 and Rule 30 has been inserted. Rule 30 has been subsequently, amended by The Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector And Inspector (Civil Police) Service (Third Amendment) Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the "Amended Rules"), which provides: (1) that the provisions of these rules shall have effect notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other rules, Government order or Administrative instructions, made or issued by the State Government; (2) The orders of the Government issued from time to time with regard to matters connected with or incidental to the selection, promotion, training, appointment, determination of seniority and confirmation etc. of Sub Inspectors and Inspectors of Civil Police in Uttar Pradesh Police Force shall stand rescinded and revoked ab-initio. Under the aforesaid rules all the Government orders have been rescinded and can not be looked into. He submitted that this question came up for consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Gopal Gupta and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein the question of promotion from Sub-Inspectors to Inspector was involved and with regard to the aforesaid amendment it has been held that all the earlier Government Orders, Rules etc. have been rescinded and the promotion shall be made in accordance to the amended Rules. He further submitted that the condition of physical efficiency test namely, the running of 10 kilometres in 75 minutes is not unreasonable condition. Sub-Inspector and Inspector should be physically fit, which is essential for the police force. Unless they are physically fit, they can not discharge their duties properly and, therefore, the said condition can not be said to be unreasonable.
I have considered the rival submissions. The rules are not under challenge in the present writ petition. Rules, 2008 has been amended by notification no.203/(1)6/pu-10/27(7)/2008TC, dated 05.04.2010, by which Rule 30 has been inserted. Rule 30 has been subsequently amended by Amended Rules, wherein it has been stated that all the rules, Government Order or Administrative instructions have been rescinded. Therefore, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the conditions, which are prevalent at the time of vacancy are to be considered can not be accepted. Moreover, the petitioners appeared in the written examination under the Rules, 2008 and submitted themselves in the examination and, therefore, they can not claim that these rules are not applicable to them. No such ground has also been taken in the writ petition. Therefore, the argument stands rejected.
Now coming to the question whether the condition of physical efficiency test namely, running of 10 kilometer in 75 minutes is reasonable or not. I do not see that this conditions is unreasonable. The post of Sub-Inspector is an important post in the hierarchy of police force. The efficient working of the police force depends upon the physical fitness of the policeman and in case they not physically fit, they can not discharge their functions properly. Therefore, I do not see that the condition of physical efficiency test, namely, running of 10 kilometers in 75minutes can be said to be unreasonable. The validity of Rule is not challenged. The requirement of running of 10 kilometers in 75 minutes for physical efficiency test is under Rule. This condition must has been provided on the consideration of various factors. Therefore, there is absolutely no reason to interfere in the matter.
It is seen that the external physical appearance of some of the policemen are not in consonance with the fitness requirement. They do not appears to be physically efficient and normally seen sitting at the corner of crossing under the shed or sleeping during the duty hours. This may be on account of lack of physical fitness. Physical fitness plays a very important role in the discharge of their assigned duties and there should be no compromise in this regard.
In my view, there should be periodical physical test of Constables and other police officers particularly those who are in field atleast after interval of six months. In case their physically fitness is not found to be proper and upto the requirement, necessary action may be taken in accordance to law.
With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands dismissed.
The certified copy of this order may be provided to the learned Standing Counsel for forwarding the same to the Director General of Police, Lucknow for necessary action.
Dt.20.07.2011.
R./
