Departmental promotion

Civil servant was aggrieved of deferring her promotion till the amendment of Punjab Special Education Department (Directorate of Special Education) Service Rules, 2006

Validity

Arbitrary obstruction, unwarranted delay, capricious interference, unjustified hindrance, manipulation or undue delay in career progression of a civil servant erodes independence and morale of civil bureaucracy, transforming it into an instrument of political patronage, a phenomenon that is antithetical to the ethos of Constitutional democracy and democratic governance

Such interference fosters networks of favoritism and erodes impartiality and credibility of civil service

It is therefore imperative that service laws must be transparent, predictable, and uniformly applied, to ensure equal treatment

Purity of service can be obtained only if promotions are made on merit without favouritism or nepotism

Decision of Departmental Promotion Committee of withholding promotion till such time that Punjab Special Education Department (Directorate of Special Education) Service Rules, 2006 were suitably amended was not sustainable

Supreme Court directed Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the case of civil servant for promotion to the post of Lecturer Physical Education on merits and decide the same within one month from the receipt of this judgment

Appeal was allowed

Civil servant was aggrieved of deferring her promotion till the amendment of Punjab Special Education Department (Directorate of Special Education) Service Rules, 2006

Validity

Arbitrary obstruction, unwarranted delay, capricious interference, unjustified hindrance, manipulation or undue delay in career progression of a civil servant erodes independence and morale of civil bureaucracy, transforming it into an instrument of political patronage, a phenomenon that is antithetical to the ethos of Constitutional democracy and democratic governance

Such interference fosters networks of favoritism and erodes impartiality and credibility of civil service

It is therefore imperative that service laws must be transparent, predictable, and uniformly applied, to ensure equal treatment

Purity of service can be obtained only if promotions are made on merit without favouritism or nepotism

Decision of Departmental Promotion Committee of withholding promotion till such time that Punjab Special Education Department (Directorate of Special Education) Service Rules, 2006 were suitably amended was not sustainable

Supreme Court directed Departmental Promotion Committee to consider the case of civil servant for promotion to the post of Lecturer Physical Education on merits and decide the same within one month from the receipt of this judgment

Appeal was allowed.

Declaration of Assistant Sub-Inspector (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 as ultra vires of Police Order, 2002

Authorities, invited applications for departmental promotion as Assistant Sub-Inspector from in-service graduate constables and Head Constables having a clean service record; and having three years service and age from 18 to 35 years

Fixation of upper age limit of 35 years vide Assistant Sub-Inspector (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011 framed by authorities for departmental promotion of in-service graduate constables and Head Constables under second proviso to Art.7(3) of Police Order, 2002, had been challenged by the candidate constables being ultra vires of the main statute

Contention of candidate constables was that no age limit had been provided in Art.7(3), second proviso of Police Order, 2002, but authorities while framing the impugned Rules, had fixed the upper age limit as 35 years, which was in direct conflict with provisions of the main statute

Admittedly under Art.7(3), second proviso of Police Order, 2002 no age limit was provided for departmental promotion in 25% quota to the rank of Assistant Sub-Inspector, but said departmental promotion was subject to rules and through selection by appropriate Public Service Commission from graduate constables or Head constables having clean service record

Under provisions of Art.112 of the Police Order, 2002, Provincial Police Officer had the powers to frame rules with the approval of Government but approval and publication of such rules in official Gazette was mandatory

Impugned rules had not been gazetted, therefore, same could not be deemed to be valid and enforceable rules

Impugned rules, i.e. "Assistant Sub-Inspector (Appointment, Promotion and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2011" were declared without lawful authority, in circumstances.