Ahmedabad: Gujarat High Court on Wednesday dismissed petitions filed by 101 constables who were held ineligible to sit in promotional exam for the post of police sub-inspector (PSI), while their batchmates and juniors from other districts crossed the eligibility threshold because they got quick promotions on account of comparatively smaller establishment strength or greater promotional vacancies.The petitioners, unarmed constables recruited in 2011-12, moved HC after they were held ineligible to apply for the posts of PSI in 2025 because they had not completed 15 years in service, or five years as head constables. They challenged the PSI recruitment rules disqualifying them because their batchmates and some of their juniors, recruited as constables in 2016-17, became eligible to apply for the PSI post. This was because they got quick promotions on account of their appointment in districts with smaller department strength and higher promotional vacancies.The petitioners questioned Clause 2(b)(ii) of the Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed) Recruitment Rules, 2020, and Clause 3 of the Special Competitive Examination Rules, 2024, that provide the matter of a constable’s promotion to be operated at district level. They contended that because of different departmental strengths in different districts, some candidates have to face more hardship. Justice Niral Mehta rejected the contention and stated, “Such a circumstance by itself cannot be a ground to declare Rule 2(2) of the Recruitment Rules, 2008, as illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory… Mere hardship or disadvantage to a particular employee cannot be a ground to invalidate the Rule unless a clear case of violation of the constitutional provisions is made out.”The high court further stated, “The petitioners belong to a district cadre service. Promotions from the post of constable to head constable are admittedly governed by district-wise seniority, which has remained the governing principle ever since their appointment. The petitioners accepted their appointments with full knowledge of the cadre structure and the manner in which promotions were to be regulated. The allocation of districts pursuant to the centralised recruitment process was never challenged at the relevant point of time. Once district-wise seniority is accepted as the basis for promotion, a comparison between employees belonging to different district cadres is legally impermissible.”
