Supreme Court of India
Rajesh Kumar Singh vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 February, 2021Author: L. Nageswara Rao
Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, S. Ravindra Bhat
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.325 of 2021
Rajesh Kumar Singh & Ors.
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
…. Respondent (s)
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The Appellants were initially appointed as Constables in
the State of Uttar Pradesh. Pursuant to an advertisement
issued for filling up the posts of Constable Drivers, the
Appellants participated in the selection test. They were
selected and on completion of training they were appointed
as Constable Drivers. Seniority list of Constable Drivers was
prepared on 14.05.2015. In supersession of Government
orders, the State Government in exercise of the power under
Section 2 read with Section 46 (11) of the Police Act, 1861
framed Uttar Pradesh Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate
Officers Service Rules, 2015 (hereinafter, ‘the 2015 Rules’) to
govern the selection, promotion, training, appointment, merit
etc. and other conditions of service of the Motor Transport
1 | Page
Unit of the Police Department. Posts of Inspector, Motor
Transport, Sub-Inspector, Motor Transport, Head Constable,
Motor Transport, Constable Driver and Head Constable Driver
constitute the cadre of Motor Transport Subordinate Service.
The post of Head Constable Driver Motor Transport according
to the 2015 Rules, shall be filled up by selection from
amongst Head Constables Drivers and Constable Drivers.
Aggrieved by the Rules introducing the selection for
appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport,
the Appellants filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of
judicature at Allahabad. By a judgment dated 24.10.2017,
the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition. Dissatisfied with
the judgment of the High Court, the Appellants are before
2. Mr. V. Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for
the Appellant submitted that the vertical mobility of
Constable Drivers is by promotion as Head Constable Motor
Transport and thereafter, Sub-Inspector and Inspector Motor
Transport on the basis of seniority. The Appellants who were
initially recruited as police Constables went through a
selection process for being appointed as Constable Drivers.
Introduction of another selection process for the purpose of
2 | Page
being appointed as Head Constable Motor Transport by
making Constable Drivers and Head Constable Drivers
eligible for consideration is arbitrary and violative of Article
14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the
Appellants have been stagnating in the post of Constable
Drivers for a long period of time.
3. Ms. Garima Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent State of Uttar Pradesh argued that the post of
Constable Driver is a technical post and the posts of Head
Constable Motor Transport, Sub-Inspector Motor Transport
and Inspector Motor Transport are highly technical. She
contended that a Constable has to go through a process of
selection to become a Constable Driver. To address the
stagnation of the Constable Driver, several posts of Head
Constable Drivers have been created. However, for being
appointed to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport,
Constable Drivers and Head Constable Drivers who are
eligible to be considered are required to go through a process
of selection. Thereafter, they will be entitled to be
considered for promotion as Sub-Inspector Motor Transport
and Inspector Motor Transport on the basis of seniority. She
argued that there are 12,000 posts of Constable Drivers at
3 | Page
present. 2498 posts of Head Constable Drivers have been
created to which Constable Drivers are eligible for promotion
on the basis of seniority. There are only 283 posts of Head
Constables Motor Transport which is a highly technical post
which can be filled up by selection from Constable Drivers
and Head Constable Drivers. To address the concern of the
Head Constable Drivers and Constable Drivers who are not
appointed to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport that
there are no avenues for promotion, there is a proposal to
create 1000 posts of Sub-Inspector Drivers. Head Constable
Drivers shall be entitled to be promoted to the post of Sub-
4. The 2015 Rules has a cadre consisting of 9126
Constable Drivers, 1098 Head Constable Drivers, 283 Head
Constable Motor Transport, 99 Sub-Inspector Motor Transport
and 9 Inspector Motor Transport. Rule 5 (c) which has been
challenged by the Appellants in the Writ Petition provides for
appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport
by selection from amongst Constable Drivers and Head
Constable Drivers as per the procedure prescribed in
appendix to the Rules. Rule 10 prescribes the procedure for
selection and appointment to the post of Head Constable
4 | Page
Motor Transport which is also assailed in the Writ Petition.
The main grievance of the Appellants is that they have
already undergone a selection process for their lateral
movement as Constable Drivers. It is impermissible to make
them to go through yet another selection process for
appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport.
According to the Appellants, all Constable Drivers should be
eligible to be promoted either as Head Constable Drivers or
as Head Constable Motor Transport on the basis of seniority
without going through any selection process. Referring to
the appendix to the Rules, the Appellants submitted that
there is nothing highly technical about the post of Head
Constable Motor Transport.
5. It is clear from the structure of the cadre that there are
only 283 posts of Head Constable Motor Transport which
according to the Government is a highly technical post.
Though the said post carries the same pay scale as Head
Constable Drivers, lateral movement as Head Constable
Motor Transport would provide an opportunity of vertical
mobility as Sub-Inspector Motor Transport and Inspector
Motor Transport. Addressing the concerns of Drivers, 1098
posts of Head Constable Drivers have been created and there
5 | Page
is a proposal to create 1000 posts of Sub-Inspector Drivers.
The posts of Head Constable Drivers and Sub-Inspector
Drivers are filled up by promotion on the basis of seniority.
6. Rule 5 and 10 of the 2015 Rules are primarily
challenged on the ground that the Appellants are forced to
undergo a selection process for appointment to the post of
Head Constable Motor Transport. The selection process is
mandated due to the posts of Head Constable Motor
Transport being highly technical. The Rules are neither
discriminatory nor arbitrary. Constable Drivers can be
promoted on the basis of seniority to Head Constable Drivers.
If they desire to be appointed as Head Constable Motor
Transport, then they have to go through selection process.
No interference with the judgment of the High Court is
7. The judgment of the High Court is upheld and the
Appeal is, accordingly dismissed.
[L. NAGESWARA RAO]
February 18, 2021.
6 | Page