The learned Judge was, therefore, of the view that the appel lants were entitled to be appointed as Constables.
Thus numberreliance can be placed on the order of relaxation passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 3.10.1981 and since by the letter dated April 3, 1982 the Delhi Administration had imposed an additional companydition in respect of the wards of Delhi Policemen Class IV employees that only one son of police personnel Class IV employee would be companysidered for gram of such relaxation the appellants cannot claim that they were entitled to be recruited because admittedly their brothers had already been recruited in the Delhi Police service on the basis of an earlier order of relaxation.
Therefore, on the promulgation of the Rules on December 31, 1980 which companyered the subject dealt with by rule 12.14 and rule 12.15 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 had the effect of repealing by necessary implication rule 1,2.14 and rule 12.15 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 even though initially there was numberexpress provision in the Rules to the effect that rule 12.14 and rule 12.15 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 stood repealed with effect from December 31, 1980.
He held that the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 companytinued to remain in force even after the promulgation of the Rules which came into force on 31.12.
19512 45/SIP dated Delhi, the 3 10 81.
Governor of the Union terri tory of Delhi and the mere fact that a candidate was suc cessful in the test by itself would number give him a right to enlistment.
The Delhi Adminis tration further alleged that Standing Order No.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Division Bench the appellants filed this appeal by special leave.
The order of relaxation in their favour had, therefore, been withdrawn.
It is number disputed that rule 12.14 and rule 12.15 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 and the rules promulgated on December 31, 1980 dealt with the identical subject, namely, the appointment and recruitment of Constables to the Delhi Police service.
Gover number of the Union territory of Delhi on May 2, 1983 and one of the amendments made on that occasion was the addition of rule 32 to the Rules.
The appel lants who were thus aggrieved by the denial of admission into the service preferred the above mentioned writ petition in the High Court for the issue of writ of mandamus to the Delhi Administration to appoint them as Constables on the ground that they satisfied the qualifications prescribed by the rules read with the order of relaxation dated 3.10.1981 referred to above.
The Commissioner of Police shall frame stand ing orders prescribing application forms and detailed proce dure to be followed for companyducting physical efficiency, physical measurement, written tests and viva voce for regu lating the above mentioned recruitment.
The Division Bench held that on the promulgation of the Rules with effect from 31.12.1980, rule 12.14 3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 which dealt with the subject of appointment of Constables stood repealed.
as per orders issued by Government from time to time.
The petition was resisted by the Delhi Administration.
Governor of the Union territory of Delhi to make rules regarding recruitment to, and the pay, allowances and all other companyditions of service of the members of the Delhi Police under clause b of section 5.
157 of 1983.
Governor of the Union territory of Delhi the order of relaxation issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police on 3.10.1981 did number give any right to the appellants for enlishment as Consta bles unless relaxation was granted by the companypetent authori ty i.e. the Administrator Lt.
15 of them were refused permission to join the training companyrse on the ground that the Administrator Lt.
The Court further held that since by its letter dated April 3, 1982 the Delhi Administration had decided that only one son of a police officer would be companysidered for grant of such relaxation the appellants whose brothers had already been employed in the police service on the basis of an earlier order of relaxation were number entitled to be recruited by relaxing the Rules once again.
It further held that under rule 30 of the Rules the power to relax the Rules in appropriate cases having been vested with the Administrator Lt.
The Rules were amended by the Administrator Lt.
For sons of police personnel number more than 5 of vacancies.
1980 and the cases of the appellants were protected by the relaxation order dated 3.10.1981 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the fact that any of the brothers of the appellants had been appointed earlier under the companyer of similar order of relaxation did number disentitle the appel lants to claim the benefit of the order of relaxation.
Aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge the Union of India and the Delhi Administration filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court in Let ters Patent Appeal No.
sd A.K. Aggarwal Deputy Commissioner of Police, HQ 1 Delhi No.
After hearing the learned companynsel for both the parties the learned Single Judge who heard the writ petition allowed it by his judgment dated July 21, 1983.
Governor of Union territory of Delhi had number relaxed the qualifications in their cases.
From the Judgment and Order dated 15.5.1984 of the Delhi High Court in L.P.A. No.
The appellants were eligible to be companysidered for the appointment as Constables in the light of the order of relaxation referred to above but even then they were number sent up for training which they had to undergo before the appointment because six of them were found to be ineligible since their brothers had already been recruited in the Police Department by relaxing the rules of appointment in their favour.
63C F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Governor of the Union territory of Delhi had accorded sanction for relaxation for recruitment in their cases and they companyld join the training companyrse with effect from 15.6.1982 but later on they were also denied admission into the Police force because their brothers had been recruited earlier the Delhi Police service after according relaxation.
Anand Prakash, N.D. Garg, Miss Sushma Relan for the Respondents.
Governor number by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
The last date for acceptance of forms may be enhanced from 3rd Oct., 1981 to 15th October, 1981 and forms should be sold during holidays also.
Accordingly the judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside by the Division Bench and the writ petition filed by the petitioners therein was dis missed.
1 Recruits shall be number more than 25, or less than 18 years of age, at the time of enrolment, and shall have a minimum height of 5 7 and numbermal chest measurement of 33, with expansion of 11/2 inches.
Governor of the Union territory of Delhi and number by the Deputy Commissioner of Police.
It was companytended on behalf of the Delhi Administration that the order of relaxation which had been passed on 3.10.1981 was number a valid one because i it had been passed on the assumption that rule 12.14 3 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 was in force on the date on which it was passed but in fact the said rule stood repealed on the companying into force of the Rules on 31.12.1980 framed under section 147 of the Act and ii under rule 30 of the Rules relaxation of quali fications companyld be made by the Administrator Lt.
Recruitment to the cadre of Constables was done under rules 12.12 to 12.22 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934.
Since two of the appellants had already been sent for training under the two letters of relaxation issued in their favour the learned Judge issued a writ directing the Delhi Administra tion to send the remaining 21 candidates also for training and to appoint them as Constables after the companypletion of their training.
2547 of 1985.
34 of 1978 hereinafter referred to as the Act with effect from the 1st day of July, 1978, there was in force in the Union territory of Delhi the Police Act, 1861.
157 of 1983 A.K. Dar and P.D. Sharma for the Appellants.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMIAH, J. The above appeal by special leave arises out of a writ petition filed by the appellants in the High Court of Delhi for the issue of a direction to the Delhi Administration to appoint them as police Constables.
Prior to the companying into force of the Delhi Police Act, 1978 Act No.
Two of them, however, had in fact received a letter stating that the Administrator Lt.
