{"id":130726,"date":"1996-08-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1996-08-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996"},"modified":"2018-07-11T14:27:51","modified_gmt":"2018-07-11T08:57:51","slug":"k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996","title":{"rendered":"K. Dayanandalal &amp; Ors vs State Of Kerala &amp; Ors on 7 August, 1996"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">K. Dayanandalal &amp; Ors vs State Of Kerala &amp; Ors on 7 August, 1996<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (7),    532\t  1996 SCALE  (5)630<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: S Agrawal<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Agrawal, S.C. (J)<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nK. DAYANANDALAL &amp; ORS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nSTATE OF KERALA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t07\/08\/1996\n\nBENCH:\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\nBENCH:\nAGRAWAL, S.C. (J)\nHANSARIA B.L. (J)\n\nCITATION:\n JT 1996 (7)   532\t  1996 SCALE  (5)630\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>\t    (WITH  CIVIL APPEALS NOS. 7278\/1995,<br \/>\n\t  7279-80\/1995, 10589-90\/1995 &amp; 7281\/1995)<br \/>\n\t\t      J U D G M E N T<br \/>\nS.C. AGRAWAL, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>     These appeals  by special\tleave raise common questions<br \/>\nrelating to  promotion of  Constables as  Head Constables in<br \/>\nthe police force of the State of Kerala.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The aforesaid  promotion is  made from a select list of<br \/>\nConstables who\thave qualified\tin the promotion test. These<br \/>\nselect lists are prepared district wise. In the Kerala State<br \/>\nand Subordinate Service Rules, 1958 (hereinafter referred to<br \/>\nas &#8216;the\t State and Subordinate Service Rules&#8217;) the following<br \/>\nprovisions are made with regard to promotion :\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Rule   28(bb).   Promotion   which<br \/>\n     depends upon  the\tpassing\t of  any<br \/>\n     examination.  :   Promotion  in   a<br \/>\n     service or class which depends upon<br \/>\n     the  passing   of\tany  examination<br \/>\n     (General  of   Departmental)  shall<br \/>\n     ordinarily be  made with  reference<br \/>\n     to the  conditions existing  at the<br \/>\n     time of occurrence of the vacancies<br \/>\n     and not  with reference to those at<br \/>\n     the  rime\t when  the  question  of<br \/>\n     promotion is taken up.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;Rule  28(b)(10).\t The  claims  of<br \/>\n     person who\t qualifies  himself  for<br \/>\n     post,  after  the\tselect\tlist  in<br \/>\n     respect  of   that\t post  has  been<br \/>\n     prepared but  before  the\tdate  of<br \/>\n     occurrence of  the vacancy\t in  the<br \/>\n     higher  post   shall  not\tbe  over<br \/>\n     looked.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     In 1960 the Kerala State Legislature enacted the Kerala<br \/>\nPolice Act,  1960 (hereinafter\treferred to as &#8216;the Act&#8217;) to<br \/>\nconsolidate and\t amend the  law relating  to police force in<br \/>\nthe State  of\tKerala. Section\t 69 of\tthe Act empowers the<br \/>\nState Government  to make  rules consistent  with the act in<br \/>\nrespect of matters referred to in clauses (a) to (d) of sub-<br \/>\nsection (1).  Under clause  (b) such  rules may\t be made  to<br \/>\nregulate the recruitment and conditions of service of police<br \/>\nofficers  other\t than  the  members  of\t the  Indian  Police<br \/>\nService. Such  rules are however, required to be notified in<br \/>\nthe Gazette. On may 17, 1963. the Home (a) Department of the<br \/>\nGovernment of Kerala Issued an order G.O. (Ms) No. 252\/Home-<br \/>\ncontaining rules for making appointments by promotion and by<br \/>\ntransfer to posts in the Police Department In Rule 10 of the<br \/>\nsaid Rules  provisions was  made for  promotion to  posts of<br \/>\nHead constables and of corresponding  rank. In clause (1) of<br \/>\nRule 10,  it was provided that promotion tests shall be held<br \/>\non a  district basis  for assessing  the fitness of eligible<br \/>\nConstables  as\tHead  Constables  and  that  Constables\t who<br \/>\nquality in the test shall be included in the Select List for<br \/>\npromotion as  Head Constables.\tClause (ii)  of Rule 10 made<br \/>\nthe following provision :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;(ii) The\tranking in  the &#8216;Select&#8217;<br \/>\n     list of  Constables who  qualify at<br \/>\n     the promotion  tests  shall  be  in<br \/>\n     those who\tqualify at  the test  on<br \/>\n     the  same\t date  will   be  ranked<br \/>\n     according to  length of  continuous<br \/>\n     service as constables.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     It appears\t that promotion\t tests\twere  held  for\t the<br \/>\npurpose of  promotion of  Constables to\t the  rank  of\tHead<br \/>\nConstables in  various district\t in 1978 and select lists of<br \/>\nConstables who\thad qualified  in that\ttest were  prepared.<br \/>\nMany Constables,  though senior,  failed to  qualify in\t the<br \/>\npromotion test\tand their  names were  not included  in\t the<br \/>\nselect list,  while the\t names\tof  their  juniors  who\t had<br \/>\nqualified in  the test were included. Another promotion test<br \/>\nwas held  in 1981.  The names  of senior  Constables who had<br \/>\nfailed to  qualify in  the test\t held in  1978, but  who had<br \/>\nqualified in  the test\theld in\t 1981, were  included in the<br \/>\nselect list  that was  prepared in  1981. In accordance with<br \/>\nclause (ii)  of Rule 10 as contained in G.O. order dated may<br \/>\n17, 1963,  Constables in  preference to\t their seniors whose<br \/>\nname were  not included in the select list prepared in 1978,<br \/>\nalthough they were promoted as Head Constables in preference<br \/>\nto their seniors whose names were not included in the select<br \/>\nlist of\t 1978 but  were included in the select list of 1981.<br \/>\nSome of\t the senior  constables who  were thus superseded by<br \/>\ntheir juniors  in the  matter of  promotion to the post Head<br \/>\nConstables in district Ernakulam filed a writ petition (O.P.<br \/>\nNo. 5298  of 1982  regarding promotion of Constables as Head<br \/>\nConstables was assailed. On behalf of the petitioners in the<br \/>\nsaid writ  petition reliance  was placed  on the  provisions<br \/>\ncontained in  Rules 28(b)(i)(10) and 28(bb) of the State and<br \/>\nSubordinate Service  Rules. It was submitted that since they<br \/>\nwere senior  as constables  and had  also qualified  in\t the<br \/>\npromotion test in 1981 before the passing of the order dated<br \/>\nJuly  9,   1982,  they\twere  entitled\tto  be\tpromoted  in<br \/>\npreference to their juniors since the vacancies had occurred<br \/>\nafter the  preparation of the select list of 1981. On behalf<br \/>\nof the\tState as  well as contesting respondents in the said<br \/>\nwrit petition,\tit was\turged that Rule 28(b)(10) and 28(bb)<br \/>\nof  the\t  State\t and   Subordinate  Service   rules  had  no<br \/>\napplication in the matter of promotion of Constables as Head<br \/>\nconstables and\tthat the  said\tpromotion  was\tgoverned  by<br \/>\nclause (ii)  of Rule  10 of  the Rules\t issued\t under order<br \/>\ndated May  17, 1963,  The said\twrit petition was allowed by<br \/>\nthe learned single Judge by Judgment dated December 5, 1984,<br \/>\nThe contention that the State that Subordinate Service Rules<br \/>\nwere not applicable in the matter of promotion Constables as<br \/>\nHead Constables was rejected and it was observed that it was<br \/>\nnot shown  that the  order dated May 17, 1963 was made under<br \/>\nArticle 309 of the Constitution of India and that though the<br \/>\nmatter was  adjourned a\t number\t of  times,  the  Government<br \/>\npleader was  not able to produce the original files relevant<br \/>\nto the\torder dated  May 17,  1963 , it was further observed<br \/>\nthat the  order dated  May   17, 1963  did not\tspecifically<br \/>\nstate that  it was  an order  passed in\t exercise  of  power<br \/>\nvested\tin   the  Government\tunder  Article\t309  of\t the<br \/>\nConstitution of\t India and no material was placed before the<br \/>\ncourt to  substantiate the plea that the order dated May 17,<br \/>\n1963 was  passed  in  exercise\tof  that  Jurisdiction.\t The<br \/>\nlearned single\tJudge held  that Rule  10(ii) of  the  Rules<br \/>\nissued under   order  dated May\t 17, 1963 could not override<br \/>\nthe provisions\tcontained in  Rule 28(b)(10)  read with rule<br \/>\n28(bb) of  the State  and Subordinate Service Rules and that<br \/>\non date\t of the\t occurrence of\tthe vacancies  in July, 1982<br \/>\npromotion to  the post of Head Constables could be made only<br \/>\nin accordance  with Rule  28(BB) and  28(b)(10). The  single<br \/>\nJudge, therefore,  quashed the\torder  dated  July  9,\t1982<br \/>\nregarding  promotion of the respondents in the writ petition<br \/>\nas Head Constables and directed that the matter of promotion<br \/>\nof Head\t Constables must  be considered\t in accordance\twith<br \/>\nRule 28(b)(10)\tread with  Rule\t 28(bb)\t of  the  State\t and<br \/>\nSubordinate Service Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Writ Appeal  No. 591  of 1984  filed against  the\tsaid<br \/>\njudgment of  the learned  single Judge\twas dismissed by the<br \/>\nDivision Bench\tof the High Court by Judgment dated April 9,<br \/>\n1987. The  contention that  the order  dated  May  17,\t1963<br \/>\nshould be  construed as a statutory  rule made under Section<br \/>\n69 of  the Act was rejected for the reason that there was no<br \/>\nevidence to  show that\tthe said  order had been notified in<br \/>\nthe Gazette. The learned Judges observed that they had given<br \/>\nopportunity to\tthe counsel  for the  appellant and  to\t the<br \/>\nGovernment Pleader  to produce\ta copy\tof the Gazette where<br \/>\nthe order dated May 17, 1963 was published but they were not<br \/>\nable to trace out any Gazette and the Government Pleader was<br \/>\nnot able to state whether it was published in any Gazette at<br \/>\nall. It\t was, therefore,  held that  the order dated May 17,<br \/>\n1963 could  bot be  treated as\trule under Section 69 of the<br \/>\nAct. The  learned Judges  have stated  that  the  Government<br \/>\nPleader did  not urge  that the\t order dated  May  17,\t1963<br \/>\ncontains rules\tmade under the proviso to Article 309 of the<br \/>\nConstitution. Proceeding  on the  basis that the order dated<br \/>\nMay 17, 1963 was an executive order only, the learned Judges<br \/>\nheld that  the provisions  contained in\t it cannot  have any<br \/>\nvalidity since\tthey are  in conflict  with  the  principles<br \/>\ncontained in  Rule  28(bb)  of\tthe  State  and\t Subordinate<br \/>\nService rules  inasmuch as  the order  dated  May  17,\t1963<br \/>\nrequires that  the ranking  in the select list of Constables<br \/>\nshall be  in accordance\t with the  date of  passing the test<br \/>\nalthough  the  statutory  rule\tdoes  not  provide  for\t the<br \/>\nsupersession of\t a senior  who is  found to  be eligible and<br \/>\nsuitable on  the date  of vacancy,  by a  junior who  became<br \/>\neligible  or   acquired\t the  necessary\t test  qualification<br \/>\nearlier. It  was, therefore,  held that fore vacancies which<br \/>\narose in  July 1982  the case  of the writ petitioners would<br \/>\nnot have  been overlooked  and\tnot  preferential  treatment<br \/>\nshould have  been given\t to their juniors on the only ground<br \/>\nthat they  became test qualified earlier. The Government was<br \/>\ndirected to  consider whether  on the facts and in the light<br \/>\nof Rule\t 28(bb) the  petitioners in  the writ  petition were<br \/>\nqualified and  eligible to  be promoted\t in  1982  when\t the<br \/>\nvacancies arose.  The High Court, however, observed that the<br \/>\ndeclaration give  and the  decision rendered  regarding\t the<br \/>\neffects of the order dated May 17, 1963 would not affect any<br \/>\npromotions made\t to the\t post\tof Head\t Constables prior to<br \/>\nJuly 20, When the said writ petition was filed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Another writ  petition (O.P. No. 3982) was filed by two<br \/>\nConstables in  district Ernakulam  who had bee superseded in<br \/>\nthe matter of promotion as Head Constables by their Juniors.<br \/>\nThe said writ petition was allowed by another learned single<br \/>\nJudge of  the High  Court by judgment dated January 10, 1985<br \/>\non the\tbasis of the judgment of the learned single Judge in<br \/>\nO.P. No. 5298 of 1982.\n<\/p>\n<p>     After the\tdecision of the learned single Judge in O.P.<br \/>\nNo. 3923  of 1982,  the State  Government issued  a circular<br \/>\ndated November\t24, 1986 to review the promotions made after<br \/>\nAugust 9,  1981 in  accordance with the decision in O.P. No.<br \/>\n3923 of\t 1982.\tThereafter, fresh select lists were prepared<br \/>\nand promotions\twere made  on the  basis of  the said select<br \/>\nlists whereby  those who  were promoted\t as Head  Constables<br \/>\nearlier were sought to be reverted. Feeling aggrieved by the<br \/>\norders of  reversion, some  of the  affected Head Constables<br \/>\napproached the\tHigh Court  by filing  writ petitions  which<br \/>\nhave been  dismissed by\t the High  Court. This appeals arise<br \/>\nout of those writ petitions. They relate to the districts of<br \/>\nPalghat, Connanore and Malappuram.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shri P.S. Poti, the learned senior counsel appearing in<br \/>\nsupport of  the appeals, has, in the first place, urged that<br \/>\nthe State,  and subordinate Service Rules are not applicable<br \/>\nto the\tmembers of  the police\tforce in Kerala. The learned<br \/>\ncounsel has  pointed out  that initially in the Kerala civil<br \/>\nServices  (Classification,  control  and  Appeal  ),  Kerala<br \/>\nPolice Service\twas included in Schedule I and Kerala Police<br \/>\nSubordinate Service  was included  in Schedule\tII, and\t the<br \/>\nsaid rules  were applicable to the Kerala Police Service and<br \/>\nthe Kerala  Police Subordinate\tService .  Subsequently,  by<br \/>\nnotification dated May 26, 1958, the 1957 Rules were amended<br \/>\nand Kerala  Police Service  was deleted\t from Schedule I and<br \/>\nthe Kerala  Police  subordinate\t Service  was  deleted\tfrom<br \/>\nSchedule II.  The submission  was that\tsince the members of<br \/>\nthe Kerala Police Subordinate Service were also not governed<br \/>\nby the\tState and  Subordinate Service Rules which were made<br \/>\non December  17, 1958, After the aforementioned notification<br \/>\ndated May  26, 1958,  We do  not  find\tany  merit  in\tthis<br \/>\ncontention. Merely  because the\t Kerala\t Police\t Subordinate<br \/>\nService had  been excluded  from the ambit of the 1957 Rules<br \/>\nby notification\t dated May 26, 1958, it cannot said that the<br \/>\nState Subordinate  Service Rule, which are independent Rules<br \/>\nmade vide  notification dated  December 17,  1958,  are\t not<br \/>\napplicable to  the members  of the kerala Police subordinate<br \/>\nService. The  question of  Applicability of  the  State\t and<br \/>\nSubordinate Service has to be determined on the basis of the<br \/>\nprovisions contained  in the  State and\t Subordinate Service<br \/>\nRules, and  not on the basis of the 1957 Rules. We find that<br \/>\nthe provision  with regard to the applicability of the State<br \/>\nand Subordinate\t Service Rules in contained in rule 1 of the<br \/>\nGeneral\t Rules\tcontained  in  Part  II\t of  the  State\t and<br \/>\nSubordinate Service Rules which reads as under :-\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;Rule 1, Scope of General Rules.&#8212;<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     The rules\tin this part shall apply<br \/>\n     to\t all   State   and   Subordinate<br \/>\n     services and  the\tholders\t of  all<br \/>\n     posts,   whether\t temporary    or<br \/>\n     permanent\tin   any  such\tservice,<br \/>\n     appointed thereto\tbefore, or after<br \/>\n     the date  on which\t these rule come<br \/>\n     into force\t as provided in sub-rule\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (b) of  Rule 1  in part I except to<br \/>\n     the  extend  other\t wise  expressly<br \/>\n     provided (a)  by or  under any  law<br \/>\n     for the time being in force, or (b)<br \/>\n     in respect\t of any\t member of  such<br \/>\n     service by\t a contract or agreement<br \/>\n     subsisting between such member  and<br \/>\n     the State Government.&#8221;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>     The language of the said Rule is wide and comprehensive<br \/>\nenough to include all State and Subordinate services and all<br \/>\npost whether  temporary or  permanent except  to the  extent<br \/>\notherwise expressly  provided by  or under  any law  for the<br \/>\ntime being in force or in respect of any member such service<br \/>\nby contract  or agreement.  Shri Poti  has not\tbeen able to<br \/>\nshow any  law or  statutory rule  whereby the members of the<br \/>\nKerala Police  Subordinate Service  have been  excluded from<br \/>\nthe ambit  of the  state and  Subordinate Service  Rules. we<br \/>\nare, Therefore, of the view that member of the Kerala Police<br \/>\nSubordinate  Service\t are   Governed\t by  the  State\t and<br \/>\nSubordinate Service Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Shri Poti has next submitted that even if the State and<br \/>\nSubordinate Service  Rules were held to be applicable to the<br \/>\nmembers of  the Kerala\tPolice subordinate Service, the said<br \/>\nRules have  no application  in the  matter of  promotion  of<br \/>\nConstables as  Head Constables\tin view\t of the rules issued<br \/>\nunder order  dated May\t17. 1963. The submission is that the<br \/>\nsaid rules made under section 69 of the Act. This contention<br \/>\nof Shri\t Poti cannot be accepted for the reason that Section<br \/>\n69 of  the Act requires that the rules should be notified in<br \/>\nthe Gazette  and it  has not been shown that the order dated<br \/>\nMay 17,\t 1963 was  published in\t the Gazette.  Shri Poti has<br \/>\ninvited our  attention to certain circular making amendments<br \/>\nin the\trule issued  under order  dated May 17, 1963.  which<br \/>\nwere published in &#8216;Kerala Police Gazette&#8217;. The submission is<br \/>\nthat the publication of these circulars in the Kerala Police<br \/>\nGazette indicates  that the  rules issued  under order dated<br \/>\nMay 17,\t 1963 were  in the  nature of  statutory rules\tmade<br \/>\nunder Section  69 of  the Act.\tWe are unable to accept this<br \/>\ncontention. The\t Kerala Police\tGazette is  a publication of<br \/>\nthe  Office  of\t Inspector  General  of\t Police\t issued\t for<br \/>\ndepartmental use  only. It  contains various  circulars\t and<br \/>\nstanding orders\t issued by  the State  Government as well as<br \/>\nthe circulars  and  standing  orders  issued  by  the  State<br \/>\nGovernment as  well as the circulars issued by the Inspector<br \/>\nGeneral of  police and\tother  useful  information  for\t the<br \/>\nmember of  the police  force. The said Kerala Police Gazette<br \/>\ncannot be equated with the State Gazette published under the<br \/>\nauthority  of  the  State  Government.\tThe  requirement  in<br \/>\nSection 69  of the Act regarding the rules being notified in<br \/>\nthe Gazette  postulates publication  in\t the  Kerala  Police<br \/>\nGazette\t (which\t  too  is  not\testablished)  would  not  be<br \/>\nsubstitute for\tthe  requirement  of  Section  69  regarding<br \/>\npublication in the State Gazette. In our opinion, therefore,<br \/>\nthe rules  issued under\t order dated  May 17, 1963 cannot be<br \/>\nheld to\t be rules  made under  Section 69 of the Act and the<br \/>\norder dated  May 17,  1963 must\t be treated  as an executive<br \/>\norder only. Since the provisions contained in Rule 10(ii) of<br \/>\nthe Rules  contained in\t the said order are in conflict with<br \/>\nthe provisions\tmentioned in  Rules 28 (b)(10) and 28(bb) of<br \/>\nthe State  of Subordinate Service Rules, the said provisions<br \/>\nin Rule\t 10(ii)\t could\tnot  be\t applied  and  promotion  of<br \/>\nConstables  as\t Head  Constables  could  be  made  only  in<br \/>\naccordance with\t Rules 28(b)(10) and 28(bb) of the State and<br \/>\nSubordinate Service  Rules. We,\t therefore, do\tnot find any<br \/>\ninfirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court and the<br \/>\nappeals are liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court<br \/>\ndated April  9, 1987  in Writ  Appeal No  591 of 1984 if has<br \/>\nbeen indicated\tthat the  declaration given and the decision<br \/>\nrendered therein regarding the effect of the order dated May<br \/>\n17, 1963 would not affect any promotions made to the post of<br \/>\nHead Constables\t prior to  July\t 20,  1982,  when  the\twrit<br \/>\npetition was  filed. The  date of  the filing  of  the\twrit<br \/>\npetition, i.e.,\t July 20,  1982, was  chosen as\t the cut off<br \/>\ndate and  promotions made prior to that date on the basis of<br \/>\nRule 10(ii)  of the  Rules issued  under order dated May 17,<br \/>\n1963 have not been disturbed. Having regard to the fact that<br \/>\npromotions were\t being made in accordance with the direction<br \/>\ncontained in  Rule 10(ii)  of the  rules issued\t under order<br \/>\ndated May 17, 1963 and the legal position with regard to the<br \/>\nvalidity of  the said  direction  was  not  clear  till\t the<br \/>\ndecision of  the learned  single Judge\tin O.P.\t No. 5298 of<br \/>\n1982. we are of the opinion that promotions of Constables as<br \/>\nHead Constables\t made prior  to the  date of the decision of<br \/>\nthe learned  single Judge  in O.P.  No. 5298  of 1982, i.e.,<br \/>\nDecember 5, 1984, on the basis of the direction contained in<br \/>\nRule 10(ii)  of the  Rules issued  under order dated May 17,<br \/>\n1963 should  remain undisturbed.  It is, therefore, directed<br \/>\nthat the  promotions of\t Constables as\tHead Constable\tmade<br \/>\nprior to  December 5,1984 on the basis of Rule 10(ii) of the<br \/>\nrules issued  under order  dated May  , 1963  shall  not  be<br \/>\naffected. But,\tat the same time, it is made clear that this<br \/>\nprotection that has been given in respect of such promotions<br \/>\nwould not  operate to  the prejudice  of the  Constables who<br \/>\nwere otherwise\tentitled to  the be so promoted under Rules,<br \/>\n28(b)(10) and  28(bb) of  the State  and Subordinate Service<br \/>\nRules. Such Constables should be given promotion due to them<br \/>\nin accordance  with said  rules. It is further directed that<br \/>\nthe Constables\twho were given promotions as Head Constables<br \/>\non the\tbasis of  Rule 10(i) of the Rules issued under order<br \/>\ndated May  17, 1963 would not be entitled to claim seniority<br \/>\nin the\tcadre of  Head Constables  over Constables  who were<br \/>\nentitled to  such promotion  as Head Constables on the basis<br \/>\nof Rules  28(b)(10) and\t 28(bb) of the State and Subordinate<br \/>\nService Rules.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The appeals are disposed of accordingly, No order as to<br \/>\ncosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India K. Dayanandalal &amp; Ors vs State Of Kerala &amp; Ors on 7 August, 1996 Equivalent citations: JT 1996 (7), 532 1996 SCALE (5)630 Author: S Agrawal Bench: Agrawal, S.C. (J) PETITIONER: K. DAYANANDALAL &amp; ORS. Vs. RESPONDENT: STATE OF KERALA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/08\/1996 BENCH: AGRAWAL, S.C. (J) BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-130726","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>K. Dayanandalal &amp; Ors vs State Of Kerala &amp; Ors on 7 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"K. Dayanandalal &amp; Ors vs State Of Kerala &amp; Ors on 7 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1996-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-07-11T08:57:51+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"K. Dayanandalal &amp; Ors vs State Of Kerala &amp; Ors on 7 August, 1996\",\"datePublished\":\"1996-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-11T08:57:51+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996\"},\"wordCount\":3038,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996\",\"name\":\"K. Dayanandalal &amp; Ors vs State Of Kerala &amp; Ors on 7 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1996-08-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-07-11T08:57:51+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"K. Dayanandalal &amp; Ors vs State Of Kerala &amp; Ors on 7 August, 1996\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"K. Dayanandalal &amp; Ors vs State Of Kerala &amp; Ors on 7 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"K. Dayanandalal &amp; Ors vs State Of Kerala &amp; Ors on 7 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1996-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-07-11T08:57:51+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"K. Dayanandalal &amp; Ors vs State Of Kerala &amp; Ors on 7 August, 1996","datePublished":"1996-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-11T08:57:51+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996"},"wordCount":3038,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996","name":"K. Dayanandalal &amp; Ors vs State Of Kerala &amp; Ors on 7 August, 1996 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1996-08-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-07-11T08:57:51+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/k-dayanandalal-ors-vs-state-of-kerala-ors-on-7-august-1996#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"K. Dayanandalal &amp; Ors vs State Of Kerala &amp; Ors on 7 August, 1996"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130726","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=130726"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/130726\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=130726"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=130726"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=130726"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}