As per case facts, petitioners, who are Head Constables, sought direction to be deputed for the Intermediate School Course, having been denied selection despite their eligibility, allegedly due to past ...
No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
108 (5 cases) CWP-28155-2025
Date of Decision:15.10.2025
HC Rakesh Kumar …Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others …Respondents
With
Sr.
No.
Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)
2. CWP-27790-2025 Risha and another State of Haryana and
others
3. CWP-28229-2025 Vikram and others State of Haryana and
others
4. CWP-28230-2025 HC Vijay Pal and
another
State of Haryana and
others
5. CWP-28610-2025 Rakesh Kumar State of Haryana and
others
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL
Present: - Mr. C.R. Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
(in CWP-28155-2025 & CWP-28230-2025)
Mr. Surinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners
(in CWP-27790-2025)
Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners
(in CWP-28229-2025)
Mr. Sunil Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner
(in CWP-28610-2025)
Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar,
Additional Advocate General, Haryana
***
JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)
1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with
the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common
order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from
CWP-28155-2025.
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -2-
2. The petitioner through instant petitions under Articles 226/227
of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to the respondents to depute
them for Intermediate School Course.
3. The petitioner joined Haryana Police Force as Constable on
02.06.2008. He cleared B-1 Test in the year 2014 in Batch No.61. He was
brought on List ‘C’ w.e.f. 28.01.2017. His name figured at Serial No.36 in
the final result of Lower School Course. He was awarded punishment of
stoppage of two future annual increments with temporary effect vide order
dated 03.02.2017 passed by Deputy Commissioner of Police, Faridabad. He
preferred an appeal against order of punishment. His appeal was dismissed
vide order dated 18.07.2017 passed by Commissioner of Police, Faridabad.
He was promoted as Head Constable w.e.f. 30.06.2019 vide order dated
05.12.2019. The respondent later on approved his promotion w.e.f.
19.03.2019 vide letter dated 12.01.2023. The respondent again vide letter
dated 22.08.2023 made his date of promotion as Head Constable w.e.f.
03.09.2019. The respondent collected list of eligible and willing candidates
for Intermediate School Course in April’ 2023. The petitioner was not
deputed for Intermediate School Course though his batchmates were deputed
for said course. The respondent in 2025 again compiled list of eligible and
willing Head Constables for Intermediate School Course. The respondent
vide letter dated 11.09.2025 circulated list of 44 Head Constables for
Intermediate School Course, 2025. The petitioner was again not selected for
Intermediate School Course.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that Rule 13.9 of
Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short
‘PPR’) governs promotion from the post of Head Constable to Assistant
Sub-Inspector. As per said Rule applicable to State of Punjab, selection for
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -3-
admission to the promotion course is made from amongst all confirmed
Head Constables. Only Head Constables who have passed Middle Standard
Examination and are below the age of 45 years are eligible for Intermediate
School Course. In Rule 13.9 applicable to State of Haryana, there is no
prescribed eligibility for enlisting a Head Constable for Intermediate School
Course. A Full Bench of this Court in Head Constable Sardul Singh v.
Inspector General of Police, Punjab and others, 1970 SCC OnLine P&H
158 has clearly held that selection for Intermediate School Course does not
form part of the process of promotion from post of Head Constable to
Assistant Sub-Inspector. It merely makes a Head Constable eligible for
promotion. No Head Constable can be deprived from Intermediate School
Course if he is otherwise eligible. A Division Bench of this Court in State of
Punjab and others v. Kirpal Singh and others, AIR 1970 P&H 395 set
aside instructions issued by Director General of Police, Punjab with respect
to Intermediate School Course. The petitioners are not claiming promotion
whereas they are claiming enlistment for Intermediate School Course. They
would be promoted as per parameters laid down in Rule 13.1 of PPR.
Character or integrity can be considered at the stage of promotion.
5. Affidavit dated 14.10.2025 of Mr. O.P. Singh, Director General
of Police, Haryana filed in CWP No.28155 of 2025 is taken on record.
Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.
6. Status report by way of affidavit dated 14.10.2025 of Dr. Arpit
Jain, I.P.S. Deputy Commissioner of Police, Headquarters, Gurugram (in
CWP No.27790 of 2025) on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6 is taken on
record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -4-
7. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that Director General
of Police, Haryana (for short ‘DGP’) in exercise of power conferred by
Section 50(n) and 50(p) of Haryana Police Act, 2007 (for short ‘Police Act’)
has power to issue WAN messages. The competent authority has decided not
to depute Head Constables for Intermediate School Course who are suffering
from currency of punishment. The petitioners herein are facing or had faced
punishment of forfeiture of increment, thus, cannot be deputed for
Intermediate School Course. Judgment of full bench of this Court in Head
Constable Sardul Singh (supra) is inapplicable in the instant case because
petitioners herein have been subjected to punishment.
8. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for both sides
and perused the record with their able assistance.
9. From the perusal of record, it is evident that Rule 13.9 of PPR,
applicable to State of Haryana, provides that a confirmed Head Constable
would be eligible for Intermediate School Course provided he has passed
Middle Standard Examination and is below the age of 45 years. In Rule
13.9, applicable to State of Haryana, there is no such condition. Rule 13.9
applicable to both the States is reproduced in juxtaposition as below: –
State of Punjab State of Haryana
(1) List 'D' shall be maintained
in two parts for Head
Constables in Card Index
Form No. 13.9 in each district.
Selection for admission to the
promotion course for Head
Constable at the Police
Training College, will be made
from amongst all the confirmed
Head Constables. No Head
(1) A list shall be maintained in
each district in card index Form
13.9(1) of those head constables
who have passed the lower
school course and the
Intermediate school course at
the Police Training School and
are approved by the Deputy
Inspector-General as eligible
for officiating or substantive
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -5-
Constable shall be eligible for
admission to the promotion
course for Head Constable at
the Police Training College,
unless
(1) He has passed Middle
Standard examination.
(2) He is below the age of
forty years on the day of
commencement of the next
course.
(2) The names of the Head
Constables who qualify at
Police Training College in the
Promotion Course for Head
Constables will be entered in
Part-I of list `D' as soon as
they qualify the same. While
entering the names in this part
they will maintain their
seniority inter se. The names of
the outstanding Head
Constables who have not
passed the Promotion Course
of Head Constables at Police
Training College due to being
over age but otherwise are of
exceptional merit and are
considered suitable may, with
the approval of Inspector
General of Police, be entered
in Part II of list `D'. No more
than 10 per cent of the posts of
Assistant Sub Inspectors both
permanent and temporary will
be filled from the names of
Part II of list 'D'. This part will
not at any time contain names
promotion to the rank of
assistant sub-inspector. No head
constable shall be admitted to
this list who is not thoroughly
efficient in all branches of the
duties of a constable and head
constable and of established
integrity.
(2) Officiating promotion to the
rank of assistant sub-inspector
shall be made from the list
prescribed in sub-rule (1), as
far as possible in rotation, so as
to give each man a trail in the
duties of the higher rank.
Substantive promotion shall be
made by the Deputy Inspector-
General in accordance with the
principles prescribed in rule
13.1, and officiating promotion
shall be made in accordance
with sub rule 13.4 (2).
(3) Half-yearly reports in Form
13.9(3) on all head constables
in this list shall be furnished on
the 15
th
April and the 15th
October, to the Deputy
Inspector General.
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -6-
more than two per cent of the
cadre strength of Assistant
Sub-Inspectors in a range, both
temporary and permanent.
(3) Annual Confidential
Reports of all the Head
Constables in Parts I and II of
list `D' shall be furnished to the
Deputy Inspector General of
Police by the 15th day of April,
each year in Form No. 13.9
(3).
(4) Promotion to the rank of
Assistant Sub Inspector shall
be made in accordance with
the seniority of the Head
Constables on list `D', which
may be ignored by the
Superintendent of Police in
exceptional circumstances only
for reasons to be recorded in
writing with the approval of
the Deputy Inspector General
of Police.
10. A conspectus of afore-stated Rule reveals that in Rule 13.9 of
PPR, applicable to State of Haryana, there is no stipulated condition for
enlisting a Head Constable for Intermediate School Course. Both sides have
not cited any Rule of PPR which governs or prescribes terms and conditions
for deputing a Head Constable for Intermediate School Course. Competent
authority, if permitted by law, may clarify the position e.g. Section 37B of
Central Excise Act, 1944 empowers Central Board of Excise and Customs to
issue orders, instructions and directions for the purpose of uniformity in the
classification of excisable goods or with respect to levy of excise duty on
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -7-
such goods or for the implementation of any other provision of the Act.
Similar provisions are existing in Customs Act, 1962 and Central Goods and
Services Act, 2017. For the ready reference, Section 37B is reproduced as
below: -
“37B. Instructions to Central Excise Officers.- The Central
Board of Excise and Customs constituted under the Central
Boards of Revenue Act, 1963 (54 of 1963), may, if it considers
it necessary or expedient so to do for the purpose of
uniformity in the classification of excisable goods or with
respect to levy of duties of excise on such goods or for the
implementation of any other provision of this Act, issue such
orders, instructions and directions to the Central Excise
Officers as it may deem fit, and such officers and all other
persons employed in the execution of this Act shall observe
and follow such orders, instructions and directions of the said
Board:
Provided that no such orders, instructions or directions
shall be issued--
(a) so as to require any Central Excise Officer to
make a particular assessment or to dispose of a
particular case in a particular manner; or
(b) so as to interfere with the discretion of the
Principal Commissioner of Central Excise or
Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) in
the exercise of his appellate functions.”
[Emphasis supplied]
11. The State Legislature repealed Police Act, 1861 and introduced
Haryana Police Act, 2007 w.e.f. 01.11.2008. Section 50 of Police Act
empowers DGP to make regulations or issue orders not inconsistent with the
provisions of the Act or Rules made thereunder. Section 50 of 2017 Act
reads as: -
“
50. Regulations.- The Director General of Police shall be
competent to make regulations or issue orders, not
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -8-
inconsistent with the provisions of this Act or the rule framed
thereunder regarding.-
(a) prevention and investigation of crime;
(b) maintenance of law and order;
(c) regulation and inspection of the police
organization and of the work performed by the
police officers;
(d) regulating the issue and use of arms and
ammunition;
(e) wearing of uniform;
(f) prescribed the places of residence of the
members of the police service;
(g) institution, management and regulation of any
Non-Government fund for the purpose
connected with the police administration or
welfare of police personnel;
(h) regulation, deployment, movements and
location of the police;
(i) assigning duties to officers of all ranks and
grades, and prescribing the manner and the
conditions subject to which, they shall exercise
and perform their respective powers and duties;
(j) regulating the collection and communication of
intelligence and information by the police;
(k) prescribing the records registers and forms to
be maintained and the returns to be submitted
by different police units and officers;
(l) community policing;
(m) functioning of police stations and other units;
(n) training of the police force and management of
training institutions;
(o) generally, for the purpose of administering this
Act and for rendering the police more efficient,
and preventing abuse of power or neglect of
duties by them;
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -9-
(p) covering any aspect of police administration
which is not covered under the provisions of
this Act or rules framed thereunder.”
12. From the perusal of above quoted section, it is evident that DGP
has power to make regulations or issue orders not inconsistent with the
provision of the Act and Rules framed thereunder regarding any aspect of
the police administration which is not covered by the Act or Rules made
thereunder.
13. Clarifications/circulars/instructions issued by Government are
not binding upon Courts which are supposed to interpret and rely upon
statutory provisions. A five Judge Bench of the Apex Court in CCE v.
Ratan Melting & Wire Industries, (2008) 13 SCC 1 has held that
circulars/clarifications issued by Government are not binding upon Court
which has to declare what the particular provision of statute says and it is not
for the executive. The Court has held:
“7. Circulars and instructions issued by the Board
are no doubt binding in law on the authorities under
the respective statutes, but when the Supreme Court or
the High Court declares the law on the question arising
for consideration, it would not be appropriate for the
court to direct that the circular should be given effect to
and not the view expressed in a decision of this Court
or the High Court. So far as the clarifications/circulars
issued by the Central Government and of the State
Government are concerned they represent merely their
understanding of the statutory provisions. They are not
binding upon the court. It is for the court to declare
what the particular provision of statute says and it is
not for the executive. Looked at from another angle, a
circular which is contrary to the statutory provisions
has really no existence in law.”
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -10-
In view of above-cited judgment, inescapable conclusion is that
clarifications issued by DGP in the form of instructions are not binding at
least upon this Court. Matter needs to be examined in the light of applicable
rules.
14. From the perusal of PPR, Police Act and Haryana Police (Non-
Gazetted and Other Ranks) Service Rules, 2017, it is evident that petitioners
are Members of ‘service’. PPR are in the form of complete Code which
govern each and every attribute of police officials. There are specific Rules
for appointment, promotion, transfer, disciplinary proceedings,
superannuation, misconduct, punishment, appeal/revision etc. The
appointment and promotion of police officers is governed by PPR. There is
specific Rule with respect to promotion from the post of Head Constable to
Assistant Sub-Inspector i.e. 13.9 of PPR. Section 92 of Police Act empowers
State Government to make Rules for carrying out purposes of the Act.
Section 93 empowers State Government to issue notification to remove any
difficulty arising in giving effect to provision of the Act. Section 93 of the
Police Act reads as: -
“93. Power to remove difficulties.- (1) If any difficulty arises
in giving effect to the provisions of this Act, the State
Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, make
such provisions, as it deems necessary or expedient for
removing the difficulty.
(2) Every notification issued under this section shall, as soon
as may be after it is issued, be laid before the State
Legislature.”
15. There is no Rule prescribing terms and conditions for selecting
Head Constables for Intermediate School Course. The State Government can
make Rules as well as issue notification to clear the clouds, if any. The DGP
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -11-
in the form of letters addressed to different officers has clarified that
officials/officers facing punishment would not be deputed for Intermediate
School Course. The DGP has not issued one letter whereas on different
occasions, different letters have been addressed to officers manning the
District. Copy of one such WAN message dated 18.05.2018 addressed to
Commissioner of Police, Panchkula is reproduced as below: -
“
WAN MESSAGE CRASH
From Police Haryana
To CP/Panchkula
No.7/78/T-2 dated 18.05.2018 () Mease (sic) refer to
your office letter No.5064/A-2 dated 28.04.2018
guideline regarding Intermediate School Course(.). It
is clarified that official under currency of punishment
may not be deputed to Intermediate School Course (.)
Whereas, the officials under suspension and having
adverse remarks may be deputed to the said course
however promotion can only be done in accordance
with relevant rules i.e. merely deputing and passing the
said course will not create any right of promotion
beyond relevant rule(.) Please take further necessary
action accordingly (.).
Sd/- (Rakesh Kumar Arya)
DIG/Administration (H)
For Director General of Police, Haryana
”
16. From the reading of above WAN message, it is evident that it
was issued in the name of DGP whereas it was not issued by DGP. Section
50 empowers DGP to frame regulations or issue orders. The WAN message
in question cannot be relied upon and seems to be contrary to law in view of
following reasons: -
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -12-
i. The WAN messages have been issued by an officer other
than DGP whereas power under Section 50 of Police Act is
conferred upon DGP to issue orders.
ii. Rule 13.9 of PPR as interpreted by Full Bench of this
Court in Head Constable Sardul Singh (supra) requires
that a Head Constable may be promoted to the post of
Assistant Sub-Inspector if he has passed Lower School
Course and Intermediate School Course. Passing of
Intermediate School Course is not part of process of
promotion because promotion is governed by Rule 13.9
and 13.1 of PPR. The Full Bench has clearly held that
every Head Constable on List ‘C’ has right to be sent for
Intermediate School Course in the order of his seniority.
The Court has also held that a candidate, if denied
opportunity to undergo Intermediate School Course, may
at a subsequent stage become unfit because of his age or
physical fitness or any other reason. Relevant extracts of
the judgment read as: -
“15. For the reasons given above, we are of the
opinion that every Head Constable on list ‘C’ has the
right to be sent for the Intermediate School Course in
the order of his seniority determined in accordance
with rule 13.8. While sending the Head Constables for
the Intermediate School Course, the Deputy Inspector-
General of Police shall first send the confirmed Head
Constables and after their list is exhausted, the Head
Constables on probation will be sent and last of all
officiating Head Constables will be sent. This appears
to us to be the most reasonable, fair and equitable way
of complying with the provisions of rule 13.9 of the
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -13-
Police Rules in the interest of all the Head Constables
in the police force, who legitimately aspire for
promotion. Any Head Constable unwilling to undergo
that course will of course be omitted.
16. For the reasons given above, these petitions are
accepted and the respondents are directed to consider
the cases of the petitioners along with other Head
Constables for being sent for the Intermediate School
Course at the Police Training College, Phillaur, in
order of seniority as stated above. The selection for the
new course starting in June, 1970 and subsequent
courses shall be made on this basis. In view of the
difficult nature of the points of law involved, the parties
are left to bear their own costs.”
The respondent by impugned messages has made
petitioners ineligible for Intermediate School Course which
is impermissible in law. The impugned messages are in
stark contradiction of aforesaid judgment.
iii. Deputy Inspector General of Police in the name of DGP
has issued WAN message which by no stretch of
imagination can be called as order passed under Section 50
of 2017 Act. There is some procedure for issuing orders
under a particular Section which is absent in the instant
case.
iv. The respondent has relied upon Clause (n) of Section 50 of
Police Act. Said clause needs to be read with other clauses.
All the clauses empower DGP to make regulations or issue
orders with respect to law and order and administration of
Police Department. The training of police force and
management of training institutions cannot include
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -14-
different promotional courses like Lower School Course,
Intermediate School Course and Upper School Course.
These courses are contemplated by Punjab Police Rules,
1934 which fall within definition of ‘existing law’ as
contemplated by Article 366(10) of Constitution of India.
v. DGP has not issued order under Section 50 which is
evident from language of the WAN messages. It is
clarification issued by an officer. As the State Government
in exercise of power conferred by Police Act has not issued
clarification by way of notification to remove difficulties,
clarification issued by DGP is beyond his jurisdiction. He
could not issue clarification relating to matters covered by
PPR. Action of DGP amounted to amendment of Rule 13.9
of PPR which was impermissible in law and beyond his
jurisdiction. Amendment in Rules and clarification to
remove difficulties can be made/issued by State
Government.
vi. Section 4(3) of Police Act provides that pay, allowances,
service conditions, mode of recruitment of Police
Personnel shall be such as may be prescribed from time to
time. Power under Section 4 can be exercised by State
Government. Intermediate School Course being linked
with promotion is integral part of service conditions, thus,
any provision with respect to service conditions can be
made either by way of Rules framed under Section 4(3) of
Police Act or would be governed by PPR or Civil Service
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -15-
Rules. There is no question to regulate conditions of
service by way of orders issued by the DGP.
vii. As per Section 50(p) of Police Act, DGP has power to
issue orders covering any aspect of police administration.
Impression ‘police administration’ has not been defined
under Police Act or PPR, however, from the reading of
Section 8, 9 and 10 of Police Act, it is evident that police
administration means creation of Police Commissionerates,
Police Ranges and Police Districts for the purpose of
administration. Thus, in the name of police administration,
the respondent has no power to issue orders under Section
50(p) governing service conditions of the subordinate rank
officers.
viii. From the perusal of different clauses of Section 50 of
Police Act, it is evident that DGP has power to control,
manage and regulate members of service for the
maintenance of law & order and proper administration. He
has no power to regulate conditions of service of police
officers.
ix. As per Section 50, power of DGP is subject to provisions
of Police Act as well as Rules made thereunder. From the
preceding paragraphs, it is evident that respondent has
issued impugned order contrary to Police Act as well as
PPR.
17. In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of
the considered opinion that respondent cannot keep petitioners away from
CWP-28155-2025 & connected cases -16-
Intermediate School Course on the basis of aforesaid WAN messages. They
are eligible for enlistment as per seniority, thus, should be deputed for
Intermediate School Course.
18. In the backdrop, petitions are allowed. The respondents are
hereby directed to depute the petitioners for ongoing Intermediate School
Course. In the event, they are not be deputed for ongoing course, they shall
be enlisted in the subsequent Intermediate School Course, however, would
be deemed to have passed said course along with candidates who at present
are undergoing Intermediate School Course.
19. It is made clear that respondent would consider case of
Devender Malik (petitioner No.2 in CWP No.27790 of 2025) in the light of
above observations and his entitlement.
(JAGMOHAN BANSAL)
JUDGE
15.10.2025
Mohit Kumar
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Legal Notes
Add a Note....