# GOVT. OF A.P. AND ANR v. G. JAY A PRASAD RAO AND ORS - **Citation:** [2007] 4 S.C.R. 256 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2007-03-21 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7384-7388 of2003 - **Bench:** A.K. Mathur, Tar Un Cha Iterjee - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/govt-of-a-p-and-anr-v-g-jay-a-prasad-rao-and-ors-22741 - **Pages:** 23 ## Headnote Service Law: Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Service Rules, 1998: Note 2 to Rule 3 and_ Proviso to Rule 6-Constitutional validity ofInspectors of police and Deputy Superintendents of Police-Method. of appointment-Accelerated promotion-By an amendment to the Rule a scheme was introduced for accelerated promotion for the outstanding work D in the field of anti-extremist operation as an incentive for these ofjicersConstitutional validity of amendment challenged before State Administrative Tribunal-Tribunal struck down the amendment being violative ~f Arts. 14, 16 and 21-High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal and held that the amendment did not satisfo the test of reasonable classification and it farther observed that fortuitous circumstances cannot be made a basis for E creating a separate class within the class-c--Correctness of-Held: The F classification is apparent which can be differentiated from the class of persons who are prepared to sacrifice their lives as against the persons who want to do the routine policing duties-This cannot be said to be a fortuitous classification-The c/ass.ification is based on rational principle-Moreover; F guidelines have beenji-i1med to check against arbitra1y promotion by picking and choosing among the persons belonging to the same category-Hence, amendment to the Rules declared valid-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 14, 16 and 21. G H Practice and Procedure: Validity of Rules-Challenge to-Impleadment of necessary partiesRequirement of-Held: It is not necessary to imp/ead all persons who are likely to be affected as parties as it is not possible to identify who are likely to be affected-Hence, it is not necessary to implead necessary parties when the validity of Rules is challenged 256 " .... ,. + .. t .> --....../. GOVT. OF A.P. v. G. JAY A PRASAD RAO 257 The respondents were all Inspectors of Police working at various places A and in various wings in the police Department in the State. Most of them were working as Inspectors of Police in the city of Hyderabad. The Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Service Rules, 1998 were amended by insertion of Note 2 to Rule 3 and proviso to Rule 6. By this amendment a scheme was introduced for accelerated promotion for the outstanding work in the field of anti- B extremist operation as an incentive for the officers . The respondents challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment of the Rule before the State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal declared Note 2 to Rule 3 of the Rules and Proviso to Rule 6 being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and struck it down. In appeal, the High Court, while affirming the decision of the Tribunal, held that the amendment did not satisfy the test of reasonable classification and it further observed that fortuitous circumstances cannot be made a basis for creating a separate class within the class. Hence the appeals. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that despite these incentives, few officers were prepared to accept the highly risky and challenging job; that after introduction of accelerated promotion scheme naxal activities had considerably decreased to the extent of I/3rd from 1997-2001 and that detailed guidelines were issued for screening by three-tier committees. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the present appeal as well as the original applications filed before the State Administrative Tribunal and the High Court should be dismissed on the question of nonjoinder of parties. The following question arose before the Court:- Whether t_he amendment of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Service Rules, 1998 and insertion of Note 2 in Rule 3 as well as proviso to Rule 6 could be declared ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.oflndia? Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. It may be said at the outset that the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Service Rules, 1998 were amended, looking to the dire need of the State, in order to give incent ## Text _Characters 0–39,867 of 55,135. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39867 for what follows._ A B c GOVT. OF A.P. AND ANR. v. G. JAY A PRASAD RAO AND ORS. MARCH 21, 2007 [A.K. MATHUR AND TAR UN CHA ITERJEE, JJ.] Service Law: Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Service Rules, 1998: Note 2 to Rule 3 and_ Proviso to Rule 6-Constitutional validity ofInspectors of police and Deputy Superintendents of Police-Method. of appointment-Accelerated promotion-By an amendment to the Rule a scheme was introduced for accelerated promotion for the outstanding work D in the field of anti-extremist operation as an incentive for these ofjicersConstitutional validity of amendment challenged before State Administrative Tribunal-Tribunal struck down the amendment being violative ~f Arts. 14, 16 and 21-High Court affirmed the decision of the Tribunal and held that the amendment did not satisfo the test of reasonable classification and it farther observed that fortuitous circumstances cannot be made a basis for E creating a separate class within the class-c--Correctness of-Held: The F classification is apparent which can be differentiated from the class of persons who are prepared to sacrifice their lives as against the persons who want to do the routine policing duties-This cannot be said to be a fortuitous classification-The c/ass.ification is based on rational principle-Moreover; F guidelines have beenji-i1med to check against arbitra1y promotion by picking and choosing among the persons belonging to the same category-Hence, amendment to the Rules declared valid-Constitution of India, 1950, Arts. 14, 16 and 21. G H Practice and Procedure: Validity of Rules-Challenge to-Impleadment of necessary partiesRequirement of-Held: It is not necessary to imp/ead all persons who are likely to be affected as parties as it is not possible to identify who are likely to be affected-Hence, it is not necessary to implead necessary parties when the validity of Rules is challenged 256 " .... ,. + .. t .> --....../. GOVT. OF A.P. v. G. JAY A PRASAD RAO 257 The respondents were all Inspectors of Police working at various places A and in various wings in the police Department in the State. Most of them were working as Inspectors of Police in the city of Hyderabad. The Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Service Rules, 1998 were amended by insertion of Note 2 to Rule 3 and proviso to Rule 6. By this amendment a scheme was introduced for accelerated promotion for the outstanding work in the field of anti- B extremist operation as an incentive for the officers . The respondents challenged the constitutional validity of the amendment of the Rule before the State Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal declared Note 2 to Rule 3 of the Rules and Proviso to Rule 6 being violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution and struck it down. In appeal, the High Court, while affirming the decision of the Tribunal, held that the amendment did not satisfy the test of reasonable classification and it further observed that fortuitous circumstances cannot be made a basis for creating a separate class within the class. Hence the appeals. On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that despite these incentives, few officers were prepared to accept the highly risky and challenging job; that after introduction of accelerated promotion scheme naxal activities had considerably decreased to the extent of I/3rd from 1997-2001 and that detailed guidelines were issued for screening by three-tier committees. On behalf of the respondents, it was contended that the present appeal as well as the original applications filed before the State Administrative Tribunal and the High Court should be dismissed on the question of nonjoinder of parties. The following question arose before the Court:- Whether t_he amendment of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Service Rules, 1998 and insertion of Note 2 in Rule 3 as well as proviso to Rule 6 could be declared ultra vires of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.oflndia? Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. It may be said at the outset that the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Service Rules, 1998 were amended, looking to the dire need of the State, in order to give incentive to the Police Officers for voluntarily coming forward to meet the menace of extremist operations. The purpose is a laudable c D E F G H ---{._ 258 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 4 S.C.R. A one and nobody can take exception to this. In order to provide this incentive service Rules had to be amended. Those persons who are prepared to volunteer and take more risk in life why such kind of persons should not stand to gain as against those persons who do not want to take risk in their lives. As a matter of fact those who take risk in their lives and prefer to face hazardous B duties, such kind of persons form a class and such class of persons stand differentiated from other class of person who are not prepared to take risk in their lives and want to continue with the normal police duties and seek their promotion in due course of time. (Para 17) (272-D-GJ >- A; Ravi Paul v. Union of India, [1955) 3 SCC 300 and Havaldar Bhagat c Singh v. State of Ha.")lana, (1996J 8 SCC 649, referred to. 1.2. It is true that the Inspectors of Police form one category but in the same category it can have two classes, one who is desirous of taking risk in his life and does service to the society by taking hazardous assignment as against other persons who want to continue with their usual police duties. D Such classification cannot be-looked down upon as arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The classification is apparent which can be differentiated from the class of persons who are prepared to _._ sacrifice their lives as against the persons who want to do the routine policing .. duties. This cannot be said to be a fortuitous classification. The classification E is based on rational principle. Thus, the object which is sought to be achieved in the present case is to meet the challenge of the naxals and. to invite youth and courageous persons to accept this challenge. It is true that some may get an opportunity to serve and some may not but that is exigencies of service. W-0oden equality is not possible. Similarly placed persons cannot be treated dissimilarly. But that is not the case here. (Para 17J [272-F-H; 273-A-BJ F + 2. The scheme/guidelines issued under the Rules by the State ""' Government are properly insulated against arbitrariness or discrimination. Therefore, in order to consider the case of accelerated promotion the matter has "to be examined at various channels, first at the Unit head, thereafter a committee headed by the Chief Secretary to the State Government at the State G level and after his prolonged examination a person will be eligible for accelerated promotion. Therefore, these guidelines have been made in order " to check that there should not be any arbitrary promotion and there should not be any picking and choosing among the persons belonging to the same ~~ category. {Para 18) (273-B-C; 274-A-B) H I { _ _fGOVT. OF A.P. v. G. JAY A PRASAD RAO 259 ... 3.l. It is true that sometime it may operate as fortuitous circumstance A '¥ that some get an opportunity and some may not g~t the same. But by that fortuitous circumstance the rule cannot be held to be bad. It is possible that in implementation of the rule, some arbitrariness or some favouritsm may be shOwn that can be challenged as an individual action. Therefore, one has to make a distinction between the validity of the Rules and the misuse of the B Rules. In case of misuse of the rule, that individual action can be challenged and it can be challenged on its merits but by that the whole scheme which has .... been introduced for the laudable purpose cannot be said to be bad. (Para 19] ~ Ram Sharan v. The Dy. Inspector General of Police, AIR (1964) SC 1559 and S.J. Paras Kumar v. S./. Ram Charan, (2004) 6 SCC 88, relied on. c 3.2. There is no gainsaying that those who have performed in extreme situation they deserve better treatment but this has to be done within the four corners of the Rules. In order to achieve that objective in view, this accelerated promotion was conceived and necessary amendments were made in the Rules and scheme/guidelines were issued by the State. Therefore, reading the D amended rules with the scheme/guidelines together it leaves no manner of .. doubt that such an amendment cannot be said to be discriminatory or arbitrary . ~ (Para 211 4. It is true that when the validity of the rules is challenged it is not necessary to implead all persons who are likely to be affected as party. It is E not possible to identify who are likely to be affected and secondly, the question ofvalidity of the rule is a matter which is decided on merit and ultimately, if the rule is held to be valid or invalid, the consequence automatically flows. Therefore, the original application filed before the State Administrative t Tribunal or for that matter before the High Court does not suffer from the F .-' vice of non-joinder of necessary party. (Para 25) (278-C-D) Union of India v. E.S. Soundara Rajan, AIR (1980) SC 959; Makhanlal Waza v. State of Jammu & Kashmir; (1971) l SCC 749; The General Manager, Southern Railway, (1974) 4 SCC 335 and A. Janardhana v. Union of India, (1983) 3 sec 601, referred to. G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7384-7388 of2003. -f From the Order dated 4. I0.2002 of the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in W.P. Nos. 16809, 17119, 17122, 17127 & 17139/2002. H 260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 4 S.C.R. A R. Sundaravardan, P. Vinay Kumar, and D. Bharathi Reddy for the B Appellants. M.L. Verma, A.T.M. Rangaramanujam, R. Chandra Shekar Reddy, Satish Galla, Satya Mitra, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, Gouri Karunadas·; Anti Gupta, and Rani Jethmalani for the Respondents. The Judgment of. the Court was delivered by A.K. MA THUR, J. I. These appeals ar~· directed against the order dated 4th October, 2002 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderab_ad in batch of Writ Petitions filed by the State C against the common order passed by Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Tribunal') in batch of original applications on 12th July, 2002 in OA No. 946112001 & others. 2. The respondents herein were the petitioners before the Tribunal. D They were all Inspectors of Police working at various places and in various wings in the police Department in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Most of them were working as Inspectors of Police in the city of Hyderabad. They approached the Tribunal with a prayer to declare insertion ofNote-2 of Rule 3 and proviso to Rule 6 of the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil) Service Rules, E 1998 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Rules of 1998') issued by G.O. Ms. No. 267, Home (Police-E) Department, .dated 26th November, 2001 by amendment of Rule as arbitrary and discriminatory being violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. •· 3. By this amendment a scheme was introduced for accelerated promotion F for the outstanding work in the field of anti extremist operation . The Note 2 appended to Rule 3 reads as under: G "Note 2: The Government may consider the cases of deserving Inspectors of Police and Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil), for accelerated promotions to the next higher ranks in recognition of their outstanding work in the field of anti-extremist operation irrespective of their seniority as an incentive by following the relevant procedure as specified by the Government from time to time in this regard." And the Proviso to Rule 6 reads as ·under: H "Provided that in the case of the accelerated promotions, the minimum I ~- J- - -f· GOVT. OF A.P. v. G. JA YA PRASAD RAO [AK.MATHUR, J.] 261 service as specified above shall not apply." A 4. By virtue of these amendments in Service Rules of 1998, some Officers got accelerated promotions on account of their performance in extremist areas. The tribunal after elaborate consideration of the matter acceded to the prayer of the petitioners (respondents herein) and declared Note 2 to Rule 3 of the Rules and Proviso to Rule 6 being violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the B Constitution and struck it down. 5. Aggrieved against this Order, a batch of writ petitions were filed before the High Court. 6. The stand taken by the State before the Tribunal as well as before C the High Court was that the State of Andhra Pradesh in order to tackle the menace of terrorism conceived this scheme as an incentive for the officers so that more and more officer could come forward to meet this menace to the society and therefore, as a measure of incentive this scheme was conceived by the State. It was .pointed out that the scheme is neither arbitrary nor D discriminatory and it is a scheme for a special class/category of persons who do the daring job in containing the menace of terrorism by naxal groups. Therefore, it is not discriminatory. It was also pointed out that a scheme had been prepared whereby the cases of such persons were screened at two to three levels and the guideline was issued by Government Order Ms No. 280 on 17.9.2002. As per this guideline, the Unit Officers/ Superintendents of E Police<::ommissioners of Police shall assess the outstanding work done in the Anti-Extremist Operations by the Police Officers working under them. They shall recommend the cases to the Director General & Inspector General of Police for consideration through their immediate superior Officer. The Unit Officers/Superintendents of Police/ Commissioners of Police while forwarding F the recommendations of deserving cases shall broadly be guided by the under mentioned conditions, viz., that the Police Officer shall have; (i) been an approved Probationer; (ii) performed outstanding work in the filed of Anti, Extrimist Operations, (here the quality of work turned out shall be taken as criteria); G (iii) uniformly satisfactory records; and (iv) clean defaulter sheet for the last (6) years without any major Punishments through out the service. H 262 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 4 S.C.R. A These are the guiding factors. The recommended cases shall be reviewed by the Superior Officers and shall be forwarded to the Director General & Inspector General of Police with his remarks. The Director General & Inspector General of Police shall send all such cases received from the various Unit Officers/ Superintendents of Police/Commissioners of Police to the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Intelligence Department for scrutiny B and his remarks. The Additional General of Police/Inspector General of Police of Intelligence department will in tum send such cases to the Special Intelligence Branch (SIB) of the Intelligence Department which exclusively · monitors the Anti-Extremists Operations of the State for scrutiny and recommendations. Thereafter, the Inspector General/Deputy Inspector of Police C of the Special Intelligence Branch will scrutinize all such cases thoroughly as to the quality of each such case and forward back the special remarks. The same shall be forwarded to the Director General & Inspector General of Police by the Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police, Intelligence Department with his remarks. All such cases shall be placed before a Departmental Committee which shall have the; D E F 1. Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police (L&O), ... Chairman 2. Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police(Admn.) ... Member 3. Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police (Intelligence) Member 4. Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police · (Grey House) ... Member 5. Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police (Special Intelligence Branch) ... Member 7. After scrutiny by the High Level Committee the matter will be referred to State Government. It was also clearly mentioned that the aforesaid committee while forwarding the cases will keep in mind the guidelines mentioned above. G The Additional Director General of Police/Inspector General of Police may order accelerated promotion on the basis of such recommendation from the rank of Police Constable to Sub-Inspector of Polic~ to the next higher rank. The cases of the Police Officer and above the rank of Inspector of Police shall be forwarded to the Government by the Director General & Inspector General of Police for consideration of Accelerated Promotions and that shall be H considered by a High Level Committee constituted by the Government. That }- _i-- GOVT. OF A.P. v. G. JA YA PRASAD RAO [A.K.MATHUR, J.] 263 . "1-- Committee shall be headed by (i) Chief Secretary to Government as Chairman, A (ii) Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department as Member, (iii) Secretary to Government, Home Department as member, (iv) Secretary to Government (Services), General Administration Department as member and (v) Director General & Inspector General of Police, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad as member. The Deputy Secretary or Joint Secretary or Additional Secretary B who is dealing with the police subject in Home Department shall function as Secretary to this Committee. This Committee shall also be guided by the following eligibility conditions namely; the concerned Police Personnel shall have; (i) perfonned outstanding work in the field of Anti-Extremist. c (ii) unifonnly satisfactory record; and (iii) a clean defaulter sheet for the last six years without any Major Punishments through out the service. This committee shall meet once in three months to review such cases. These D ..) guidelines were issued for the performance of accelerated promotions. It is ,, also pointed out that despite these incentive, few officers were prepared to accept the highly risky and challenging job. The Police Personnel right from the Constable to IPS Officer were targeted by the naxals more than 480 laid down their lives including an I.P.S. Officer. It was also pointed out that after E introduction of accelerated promotion scheme naxal activities have considerably decreased to the extent of 1/3rd from 1997-200 l. 8. Though the Tribunal as well as the High Court found that the amendment in Note 2 to Rule 3 as well as proviso to Rule 6 are held to be '1 ultra vires as it has been observed by the High Court that it creates a class F ~ within class. The High Court held that the amendment did not satisfy the test __, of reasonable classification and it further observed that fortuitous circumstance cannot be made a basis for creating a separate class within the class. Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion that the classification made upon such basis cannot be treated as a reasonable classification. It was also observed that fortuitous circumstances cannot be made the basis for creating class out G of large number of persons similarly situated. It was also pointed out that just because some persons were lucky enough to get a posting in the naxal :-1affected area, they got accelerated promotion but others who were not ' fortunate to get a posting in the naxal affected area, they were denied / promotion. It was submitted that even the officers posted in same unit may H I tf ~ 264 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R. . A not get posting in the Police-station where there is naxal affected area and ~ -\f others are lucky enough to get the posting, then they stand to gain and others who are not lucky enough to get posting in that area they will be denied the, oppo~nity. Therefore, it is. discriminatory as there is a class ~ithin class, similarly situated persons are treated dissimilarly i.e. equals are 1B treated .uneql!a.lly. Therefore, this classification, according to the High Court is not reasonable classification and it is not founded on intelligible differentia I· which distinguishes one group from the other. ., '>- 9. Learned counsel' for the appellant-State has pointed out that the .. reasoning given by the High Court is not correct. It is pointed out that the c classification is based on intelligible differentia that those persons who have faced the bullets and tion of Inspector of of Police other than Assistant Commissioner of Police Police (Category-3) c (Headquarters and City Armed Reserve) 3(a) Inspector of Police By appointment by transfer of Subh,1spector of Police in the Andhra D Pradesh Police (Civil Police) Subordinate Service. 3(b) Inspector of Police (Women) By appointment by transfer of SubInspector of Police (Women)in the E Andhra Pradesh (Civil Police) Subordinate Service. Note 1: In every cycle of ten vacancies, the appointment to the post of y Deputy Superintendent of Police shall be as follows namely:- F ~ lst vacancy By Direct Recruitment 2nd vacancy By Promotion 3rd vacancy By promotion 4th vacancy By Direct Recruitment 5th vacancy By Promotion G 6th vacancy By Promotion 7th vacancy By Direct Recruitment -f 8th vacancy By Promotion 9th vacancy By Promotion 10th vacancy By Promotion. H ! -~ 268 SUPREME COURT REPORTS f 2007] 4 S.C.R. A Provided that appointment by transfer to the posts of Inspectors of -< B c Police including Hyderabad City Police shall be made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police concerned, or as the case may be by the Commissioner of Police from a list of candidates approved by the Director General of Police in the order indicated therein. Note 2: The Government may consider the cases of deserving Inspectors of Police and Deputy Superintendents of Police (Civil), for accelerated promotions to the next higher ranks in recognition of their outstanding work in the field of anti-extremist operation irrespective of their seniority as an incentive by following the relevant procedure as specified by the Government from time to time in this regard." So far as the method of recruitment is concerned, a Deputy Superintendent of Police is entitled to be promoted to the post of Additional Superintendent of Police and the Deputy Superintendent of Police is to be recruited by two methods i.e. by direct recruitment or by promotion from the Inspector. of D Police. The Inspector of Police can be appointed by transfer of Sub-Inspector of Police in the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil Police) Subordinate Service and Inspector of Police (Woman) can be posted by transfer of Sub-Inspector of Police (Woman) in the Andhra Pradesh Police (Civil Police) Subordinate Service. Note 2 contemplates additional method of recruitment by way of accelerated promotion out of the Inspectors of ·Police and Deputy Superintendents of E Police to the next higher rank i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police in recognition of their outstanding work in the field of anti-extremist operation irrespective of their seniority as an· incentive measure as per the procedure laid down by the Government of Andhra Pradesh from time to time. Rule 4 makes reservation of appointment. F Rule 5 lays down age and qualification with which we are not concerned. Rule 6 deals with minimum service wh'ich will be relevant for our consideration. It reads as under : G H "6. Minimum Service : No person shall be eligible for appointment by transfer or promotion unless he is an approved probationer and has put in service in the category from which promotion or transfer is made as specified below : (a) not less than five years for a Deputy Superintendent of Police to be promoted as Additional Superintendent of Police (Non-cadre), I _J-- -t GOVT. OF A.I'. v. G . .IA YA PRASAD RAO [A.K.MATHUR. J.J 269 (b) not less than six years for Sub-Inspector of Police and for A Inspector of Police to be promoted as Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police respectively. Provided that in the case of the accelerated promotions, the minimum service as specified above shall not apply." B As per Rule 6, a Deputy Superintendent of Police will not be entitled for promotion as Additional Superintendent of Police unless he has put in five years of service and not less than six years of service for Su_b-lnspector of Police and Inspector of Police to be promoted as Inspector of Police and Deputy Superintendent of Police respectively, meaning thereby that a Sublnspector of Police in order to be promoted as Inspector of Police will have C to put in six years of service and likewise an Inspector of Police will have to put in six years of service to be promoted as Deputy Superintendent of Police. The proviso to Rule 6 reads as under : " Provided that in the case of the accelerated promotions, the minimum service as specified above shall not apply. " D Therefore, for accelerated promotion, the requirement of minimum service has been dispensed with. Rule 7 deals with probation and for direct recruitment to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-2) the period of probation shall be two years and six months on duty within a continuous E period of three years. Rule 9 deals with tests which are not relevant for our purpose in the present controversy. Rule I 0 deals with the unit of appointment. It has relevant bearing on the issue involved in the present case. Therefore, it is reproduced as under : " 10.Unit of appointment For purposes ofrecruitment, appointment, discharge for want of vacancy, re-appointment, seniority, promotion, transfer and posting and appointment as full member to the posts specified in column (2) of the table below, the unit c,f appointment shall be as specified in column (3) thereofF G A B c D E F G 270 .. .). SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R. Category (I) (a) Inspector of Police (b) Inspector of Police (Woman) TABLE Post (2) Zone-I Zone~n Zone-Ill Zone-IV Zone-V Zone-VI Unit of appointment (3) Comprising Srikakulam Vizhmaragam and! Visakhapatllam districts Comprising EastGodavari, West Godavari and Krishna Districts Comprising.Guntur; Prakasam:and·Nellore. Districts: Comprising:Chittor, Cuddapah,. Anantapur· and Kumool Districts. Comprising·Adilabad, Karimnagar;Warangal And Kliammam ·Districts: Comprising;Nii.am·atfad,. Mahaboobnagar; Medak, Nalgonda. ami: Ranga· Reddy DistriCts: A:rea:under.tHe::jurisdiCtion Ofthe·Commissioner of - Police; Hyderab-ad;'" Rule: 11 deals with transfer and postings which· reads as under: 1 L Transfer and postings: (a) A member of the service shall be· liable:to serve: in any part of the State of Andina Pradesh or whell' so ordered: by the State Government in any part of India; outside in: the:said State: Provided that nothing contained in. this. sub"rule: shall effect the H operation of the provisions of Chapter-XII im Part-VII of the ... 'r I .JGOVT. OF A.P. v. G. JAY A PRASAD RAO [AK.MATHUR, J.] 271 Fundamental Rules in regard to transfer of officers to Foreign Service: A Provided further that no such member shall be posted or transferred to any post unless he possesses such special qualifications and has passed such special tests as may be prescribed for such post in these rules. (b) A direct recruit Deputy Superintendent of Police, Category-2 shall be transferred and posted at Assistant Commandant, Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalions and shall remain in the Battalions compulsorily for a period of three years. The Service rendered in the Andhra Pradesh Special Police Battalion shall be counted for the B purpose of reckoning qualifying service for select list. C (c) The transfers and postings in the case of Additional Superintendent of Police (Non-Cadre) and Deputy Superintendent of Police, shall be made by the Government. (d) In the case of Inspectors of Police, the transfers and postings D shall be made within the unit specified in rule-10, by the Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Inspector General of Police concerned except in the case of Units IV and V. The transfer and postings in the case oflnspectors of Police in Units-IV and V shall be made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool and Warangal, respectively." 15. Reading of Rules 10 and 11 says that there are six zones in the State comprising of various districts and so far as posting of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police is concerned, it has to be made by the State Government though there is no bar to posting any member E of the service in any part of the State of Andhra Pradesh but for the convenient administrative control the State has been divided into various zones and each F zone is headed by Deputy Inspector General of Police or Inspector General of Police, as the case may be. So far as the transfer and posting of Inspector of Police is concerned, it has to be made within the unit as specified in Rule 10, by the Commissioner of Police and Deputy Inspector General of Police concerned except in the case of Units IV and V. The transfer and postings G in the case of Inspectors of Police in Units IV and V shall be made by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kurnool and Warangal, respectively. Rule I2 lays down uniforms grant etc. We are not concerned with other part of the Rules. I 6. Now, in this backdrop of the administrative set up we will have to H 272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R. A examine the amendment and the guidelines which have been issued by the Government of Andhra Pradesh by G .O.Ms. No.267 dated 26.11.200 I. So far as the posting of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional Superintendent of Police is concerned that is within the_ power of the State Government and so far as the Inspector of Police is concerned, it is within B the power of Inspector General of Police i.e. the Police Commissioner or by the Deputy Inspector General of Police. We are primarily concerned in the present case with regard to the accelerated promotion of the Inspectors of '" Police to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and Additional -""- Su.perintendent of Police. The State of Andhra Pradesh is divided into various zones as pointed out above and some of them are very s~nsitive areas. It has C been pointed out that some zones i.e. Zones V & VI are by and large affected by the extremist operations. Therefore, it was submitted that some who could get posting in naxal area, he may stand to benefit and on account of that fortuitous circumstance he may get accelerated promotion and march over the persons similarly situated. D 17. Now, coming to the question whether this amendment of the rules and insertion of Note 2 in Rule 3 as we!l as proviso to Rule 6, could be declared ultra vires of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. It may be said at the outset that these rules were amended looking to the dire need of the State in order to give some incentive to the Police Officers for voluntarily E coming forward to meet the menace of extremist operations. The purpose is laudable one and nobody can take exception to this. In order to provide this incentive service Rules had to be amended. Those persons who ·are prepared to volunteer and take more risk in life why such. kind of persons should not stand to gain as against those persons w_ho do not want .to talce risk in.their life. As a matter of fact those wh~ take risk in their life and prefer to face F hazardous duties, such kind. of persons forms a class and such 9lass of persons stand differentiated from other class of persons who are not prepared to take risk in their life and want to continue with the normal police duties and seek their promotion in due course of time. It is true that the Inspectors of Police form one category but in the same category it can have two classes, G one who is desirous of taking risk in their life and do service to the society by taking hazardous assignment as against other persons who want to con'tinue with their usual police duties. Such Classification cannot be looked down as arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India. The classification is apparent which can be differentiated from the class of persons who are prepared to sacrifice their life as against the persons who want to H do the routine policing duties. This cannot be said to be fortuitous 'r - -IGOVT. OF A.P. v. G . .IA YA PRASAD RAO [A.K.MATHUR. J.] 273 classification. The classification is based on rational principle. Thus the A object which is sought to be achieved in the present case is to meet the challenge of the naxals and to invite youth and courageous persons to accept this challenge. It is true that some may get an opportunity to serve and some may not but that is exigencies of service. Wooden equality is not possible. Similarly placed person cannot be treated dissimilarly. But that is not the case B here. 18. We have already highlighted above the scheme/ guidelines issued under the Rules by the State Government. The guidelines are properly insulated against arbitrariness or discrimination.