K.N. PILLAI v. STATE OF GUJARAT

reproduce them again here. Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah learned AGP submitted that qualifications for the post of Wireless Operators and Electricians are different and therefore, the petitioners are not justified in claiming the reliefs mentioned in the petition on the ground that post of Wireless Operator is equivalent to that of Electrician. According to her the State Government has the power to frame Rules for regulating the conditions of service of persons recruited as Wireless Operators in the police department in view of the provisions of clause (b) of Section 5 of Bombay Police Act 1951 and therefore, the rules cannot be regarded as illegal. What was emphasised on behalf of the respondents was that the duties and responsibilities of Wireless Operators are more onerous in comparison to the duties of Electricians and therefore, the statutory provision requiring a Wireless Operator to pass qualifying examination to earn promotion to the post of Head Wireless Operator is legal.

It was also argued that all the Wireless Operators are treated equally and requirement that the Wireless Operators should pass qualifying examination to earn promotion to the post of Head Wireless Operator being legal the petition should be dismissed. #. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties. Section 5(b) of the Bombay Police Act 1951 provides that subject to the provisions of the Act recruitment pay allowances and all other conditions of service of the police force shall be such as may from time to time be determined by the State Government by general or special order. In exercise of powers conferred by clause (b) of section 5 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 the Government has made Rules. The object of the examination which is directed to be held is to assess the competence, aptitude and antecedents of the Wireless Operators. A Wireless Operator before he can be promoted to the post of Head Wireless Operator has to pass the examination and the examination is to be conducted to adjudge the suitability of a candidate.

Rule 75 of Gujarat Police Manual provides that to be eligible for appointment by direct selection to the post of Wireless Operator a candidate must have passed SSC and possess one of the following technical qualifications; i. certificate of competency class II as Wireless Operator conducted by Ministry of Communications, Government or India, or ii. certificate in Wireless telegraphy course conducted by the Department of Technical Education, Gujarat State or former Bombay State, iii. National trades certificate in the trade of Wireless Operators awarded after two years training at the Industrial Trading Institute by Director General of Employment and Training or equivalent or iv. National apprenticeship certificate in the trade of Wireless Operators awarded by Director General of Employment and Training or equivalent or has gone through the basic Wireless Operator's training in Defence Forces and obtained a proficiency of class II of Army Signals or equivalent.

As far as Electrician is concerned Rule 77 stipulates that before a candidate can be appointed to the post of Electrician he should have (a) working knowledge of English besides a Second Class Wireman licence of the Public Works Department and (b) sound knowledge of maintenance of Small Petrol Engines, Dynamotors Generators and Batteries . Therefore, the eligibility of a candidate for being appointed to the post of Wireless Operator and that of the Electrician are quite different. In the circumstances the petitioners are not entitled to make a grievance that Electrician has not to pass any qualifying examination for promotion to the post of Radio Mechanic and the Rule stipulating that a Wireless Operator can be promoted to the post of Head Wireless Operator on passing the qualifying examination is bad in law. The fact that there are about 88 promotional posts of Radio Mechanics available to 89 Electricians; whereas less number of posts are available for promotion to Head Wireless Operators cannot be taken into consideration while adjudging validity of these statutory Rules.

It may be noted that the Rules in question are being uniformly applied to all the Wireless Operators. The provision made in Rule 6.1 that a Wireless Operator who fails to pass the relevant examination within the specified period and specified chances shall be liable to have his increment withheld until he passes the examination cannot be termed as either unreasonable or arbitrary. As is evident, the new Rules have been brought into force in order to adjudge the suitability of Wireless Operators who have to perform responsible and accountable duties on the promotional post of Head Wireless Operator. The syllabus prescribed for the Wireless Operators' examination as well as the syllabus for the Head Wireless Operators' examination cannot be regarded as having no nexus to the duties to be performed by the Wireless Operator or by the Head Wireless Operators as the case may be. Which syllabus should be prescribed for the post in question is a policy matter to be determined by the competent authority having regard to the duties and responsibilities to be performed by the incumbents.

In such matters the court cannot sit in appeal and the Court is least equipped to determine such questions. The provisions of Art. 14 or Art.16 do not exclude the laying down of selective test nor do they preclude the Government from laying the qualifications for promotional post in question. The State which encounters diverse problems arising from variety of circumstances is entitled to lay down conditions of efficiency and other qualifications for securing the best services for being eligible for promotion in its different departments. In the present case, the object which is sought to be achieved by the provisions reproduced earlier is the requisite efficiency in the cadre of Head Wireless Operator. The Government is the proper judge of its requirement. The Wireless Operator and Electricians in my opinion clearly constitute different classes and this classification is sustainable on intelligible differentia which has a reasonable connection with the object of efficiency sought to be achieved.

Promotion to Head Wireless Operator is is guided by merit cum seniority. It is therefore, difficult to find fault with the provision which places in one group all these Wireless Operators who have to qualify for promotion by passing the requisite examination. Reasonable promotional opportunity is made available to Wireless Operators. On over all view of the matter I am satisfied that no ground is made out by the petitioners to claim declaration that the Rules framed by the Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (b) of Section 5 of the Bombay Police Act 1951 are in any manner illegal or offend the provisions of either Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. Under the circumstances the petition cannot be allowed and the same is liable to be dismissed. ##. For the foregoing reasons the petition fails and is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. (J.M.Panchal.J) govindan