Police Service Rules, 1934

  1. R. 12. 2 — Sub-rules (1) & (2) deal with seniority of A.S.P. and D.S.P. — Sub -rule (3) deals with seniority of upper subordinate police ranks — Seniority of an upper subordinate police officer in same cadre shall be determined from the date of first appointment and finally shall be settled from the date of his confirmation on the post held by him — Seniority of any  upper subordinate police officer has to be settled from the date of his confirmation irrespective of the fact that prior to confirmation any upper subordinate police officer was serving in Reserve Police or the other — Appellant was directly appointed as A.S.I. much prior to the private respondents and he was confirmed from the date of appointment, i.e., 7.11.1991 — Any other interpretation is not permissible under law. M. Riaz Khan v.  IG of Police and 19 others 2010 SCR 131 (G)
  2. Rules 12.14, 12.18 — Bare reading of the rules shows that it is for the selection authorities who make selection or promotion, it has no nexus with the appellant, as such the same have no application in the instant case — Appellant was given rapid promotion due to his efficiency and excellent work as recommended by high officials of police department — Appellant was restored back as A.S.I. with all back benefits. Zaheer-ud-din Qureshi v. Inspector General of Police AJ&K & 2 others 2003 SCR 381 (B)
  3. R. 13. 10 — A Head Constable can only be promoted as A.S.I. and not as S.I. on the basis of list E prepared according to the rules. Khizar Mahmood Q. v. AJK Govt. 1992 SCR 223 (B)
  4. Chap.13.15 — Promotion — Provides that Superintendent of Police shall recommended the names of Sub-Inspectors of police suitable for promotion — D.I.G. shall forward their names to I.G.P — Who shall enter suitable persons for promotion in list “F” — A proviso added. — Whereby it was provided that name of Sub-Inspector shall be enter in list”F” if he is confirmed, has qualified Upper School Course and served for at least two years out of district. Inspector General of Police & another v. Muhammad Azam Khan and others 2008 SCR 562 (A)
  5. Only three conditions have been imposed in proviso to R.13.15 — If a Sub-Inspector is not permanent, he has not passed Upper School Course and has not served out of district for two years — His name cannot be intered in list”F” for promotion —  Any order passed against this rule or conditions imposed apart from those provided in proviso — Held: Is bad in law and not sustainable. Inspector General of Police & another  v. M Azam Khan and others 2008 SCR 562 (B)
  6. R. 19. 26 — A.S.I or S.I. with not less than six years service in that rank can be considered for appointment as P.S.I. Khizar Mahmood Qureshi v. AJK Govt. and others 1992 SCR 223 (D)
  7. — chapter xii — appointment and enrollment of Police Force — waiting list — concept of — in the disciplined police force, maintaining a waiting list is not a recognized practice and the concept of appointment from such list is inapplicable — the positions or vacant posts not properly advertised, cannot be filled without following the appropriate procedure — High Court made an error by directing the department to make appointments from the waiting list against the positions not joined by successful candidates and other vacant posts. Home Department & 05 others versus Aqib Farooq & 22 others 2023 SCR 1200 (G)
  8.  — chapter XII — AJ&K Civil Servants Act, 1976 — section 4 — AJ&K Civil Servants (Appointment & Conditions of Service) Rules, 1977 — appointment and enrollment in the police — procedure for — chapter 12.1 provides list of authorities empowered to make appointments in the police force — the Police Act and the Police Rules are not exhaustive enough regarding method of recruitment of police employees, obviously resort have to be made to the provisions of Act, 1976 and rules made thereunder — section 4 of Act, 1976, provides that the appointment in the Civil Service of AJ&K to a civil post in connection with the affairs  of Govt. shall be made in the prescribed manner — Rule 17, of Rules, 1977, provides the method of initial recruitment to the post in grade 1 and above — the police constables/head constables are appointed on the recommendations of Selection Board constituted in accordance with the order of the Inspector General — Home Department & 05 others versus Aqib Farooq & 22 others 2023 SCR 1200  (B)
  9. — chapter xii Public Service Commission, (Procedure) Rules, 1994 — Rule 13 — AJ&K Teachers Recruitment Policy, 2017 — appointment and enrollment in police force — concept of appointment from waiting list — writ petition – High Court on the basis of Rule 13 of PSC Rules, 1994, directed for appointment of Police constable from the merit/waiting list — Court observed that the concept of preparation of waiting list exists in PSC Rules and Teachers Recruitment Policy — under rule 13 of PSC Rules, the waiting list remains valid for 180 days and under stipulated period if any successful candidate fails to join the post, the PSC may recommend the next in the merit position from the waiting list on the initiation of concerned department for appointment against the post which was duly advertised — under the Education Policy, the waiting list remains valid for 1 year — the candidates falling in the waiting list may be appointed against any post which may become vacant after the advertisement in consequence of which the waiting list was prepared — neither Police Act, or Police Rules, nor Act, 1976 nor rule made thereunder provide for maintaining the waiting list — thus held, Rule 13 of  PSC Rules, 1994 is not applicable to the appointments made other than PSC. Home Department & 05 others versus Aqib Farooq & 22 others 2023 SCR 1200 (C & F)
error: Content is protected !!