Promotion to those working in same post for 20 yrs necessary to increase efficiency: HC

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: High Court of Karnataka said that promotions of police officers were necessary “to increase efficiency and to increase promotional avenues to those who are working in the same post for 20 years.”

It directed the authorities to consider the applications of constables and a head constable who had sought promotions to higher rankings of head constables and assistant sub-inspector respectively.

The High Court bench of Justice G Narendar and Justice CM Poonacha set aside the rejection of their applications by senior police authorities and the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal which had upheld the rejection.

Sri Krishna, a head constable, S Shivakumar, Shivananda HL and R Dharmendra, all police constables had applied for promotion after the State issued a notification in April 2010 to upgrade the posts of police constables to head constables (if they had served for 18 years) and the posts of Head Constables to Assistant Sub Inspectors (if they had served for 25 years) to facilitate opportunities of promotion.

The Government of Karnataka then issued a Notification dated 9.12.2016 restructuring the total existing strength of police i.e., the posts of Assistant Sub Inspectors, Head Constables and Police Constables in the ratio of 1:3:6 and accordingly to upgrade the respective posts to facilitate opportunities of promotions.

The three constables and the head constable in the case submitted representations to consider their request for promotion in terms of the 2016 notification.

This was rejected by the Superintendent of Police. Being aggrieved, they filed Applications before the Tribunal, which were rejected by the common order dated 16.7.2019.

Being aggrieved, they approached the High Court. Senior advocate Vigneshwara S Shastri, appearing for them argued that in another similar case a division bench of the HC has considered Rule 6 of the Karnataka Government Servants' (Seniority) Rules, 1957 and the basis of the said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case.

The Government advocate however argued that a plain reading of Rule 6 would not entitle the Petitioners for seniority as they had been transferred in those posts on their own requests.

The HC in its judgement said that “it is necessary to note that the Notification dated 9.12.2016 under which the Petitioners are seeking relief has also been issued pursuant to the report of the 7th National Police Commission, to increase efficiency and to increase promotional avenues to those who are working in the same post since 20 years.