Vertical Mobility and Selection Process in Police Department

The High Court’s judgment addressed the issue of vertical mobility and the selection process for promotion within the police department. The case focused on the eligibility criteria for Constable Drivers to be considered for promotion to Head Constable Motor Transport, highlighting aspects of seniority and the requirement for another selection process. This blog delves into the legal analysis provided by the court, discussing the interpretation of rules governing promotions and the application of constitutional principles. Stay informed on the complexities of promotions in the law enforcement sector.


  • The Seniority list of Constable Drivers was prepared on 14.05.2015.
  • The Appellants filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of judicature at Allahabad aggrieved by the Rules introducing the selection for appointment to the post of Head Constable Motor Transport.
  • The Appellants were initially appointed as Constables in the State of Uttar Pradesh and later appointed as Constable Drivers after selection and training.
  • The State Government framed the Uttar Pradesh Police Motor Transport Unit Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2015 to govern the selection, promotion, training, appointment, merit, etc., of the Motor Transport Unit of the Police Department.
  • Posts of Inspector, Motor Transport, Sub-Inspector, Motor Transport, Head Constable, Motor Transport, Constable Driver, and Head Constable Driver constitute the cadre of Motor Transport Subordinate Service.
  • The High Court’s judgment dated 24.10.2017 dismissed the Writ Petition.

Also Read: Legal Analysis on Seniority Fixation in Contempt Petitions


  • Introduction of another selection process for the purpose of being appointed as Head Constable Motor Transport by making Constable Drivers and Head Constable Drivers eligible for consideration is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
  • Appellants have been stagnating in the post of Constable Drivers for a long period of time.
  • The vertical mobility of Constable Drivers is by promotion as Head Constable Motor Transport and thereafter, Sub-Inspector and Inspector Motor Transport on the basis of seniority.
  • The main grievance of the Appellants is that they have already undergone a selection process for their lateral movement as Constable Drivers.

Also Read: Interpretation of Section 80-IA Deductions


  • Appellants are concerned about the creation of 1000 posts of Sub-Inspector Drivers and do not want Head Constable Drivers to go through another selection process for promotion.
  • They believe that all Constable Drivers should be eligible for promotion based on seniority without requiring a selection process.
  • Referring to the Rules, they argue that the post of Head Constable Motor Transport is not highly technical.
  • The cadre has only 283 posts of Head Constable Motor Transport, considered a highly technical position by the government.
  • Moving to Head Constable Motor Transport would allow for vertical mobility to higher positions like Sub-Inspector Motor Transport and Inspector Motor Transport.
  • Posts of Head Constable Drivers and Sub-Inspector Drivers are typically filled through promotions based on seniority, but the challenge is that a selection process is required for promotion to Head Constable Motor Transport.
  • Constable Drivers can be promoted to Head Constable Drivers based on seniority.

Also Read: Judicial Analysis on Selection Process


  • No interference with the judgment of the High Court
  • Judgment of the High Court upheld
  • Appeal dismissed
  • Applicants must go through selection process if they desire to be appointed as Head Constable Motor Transport


Case Number: C.A. No.-000325-000325 / 2021

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *