74 CWP N02914 of2010 elw rt JnthellighCourtofPutliabiIndIlaryana at IOateofdecisionl11 082Ol 0 1CWPN029140f2010 1 Vs StatcofIlaryana and others 2 CWP No6427 of2009 1 r KrishanKunlar and olhcrs Vs StateofHaryana andothrrs 0 3 CWlN03329 of2010 C0 RajbirSinghandothcrsVs Stateof l Iaryana Jnd othcrs C0 I 4CWPNo403of2009 Prem Singh Vs Statcof Ilaryana anclothcrs Z r2 5 CWP N03401 of2010 l tlC Kulbir Singhand ailutherVs Sli fHaryanaaild otllcrs 6 CWP No7536 02010 5 02 KaptanSingbVs Statc andothcrs e 7 7 CWP No7203 of2010 Z Om DeshRajand othersVs Statcclfl laryaria atld olhers 8 CWPN0S147 of2010 IIiC Ram Mehiir and othersVs Stateofl1aryana and othcrs 9 CWP No6443 of2009 C Jai Pal and anotherVs State01Ilaryana andotliers 10 CWPNo6619 of2009 Satyawan EliC Vs State ofHaryunaand others 11CWP No10487of2009 Head Constablc Ashok Kumar Vs StateofHaryanaand olhcrs 12 CWP N012237 of2009 W Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 CWPN029140f2010 m2 Fl NarenderKumar ConstableVs StateofIlaryana andothers 13 CWP No 12248of2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs Stateof Haryana and others 14 CWP No 12253of2009 SubhashChanderEHC Vs StateoflIaryana and others m 15 CWP No16975 of2009 C 0 KrishanKumarEHC Vs State andothcrs CaO 16 CWP No 18430of2009 I 0 Panna Lal EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others I 17 CWP No18863 of2009 C Z RajKuinar and onotherV5 te ofHnt lna and l I a C 18CWPNo89190f2009 I Kamal Parkash EHC Vs StateofHai and others 08 19 CWP Ntl636 of2010 CO et LadyConstableRajbalaVs StateofHaryana andothcrs e Z 20 CWP No 2775 of2010 CL Rishi ParshadandothersVs State and others 21CWPNo2875of2010 LadyConstableSumanVs Statc andothers 22 CWP No968 of2010 Ve Sada Ram EHC Vs State ofI1aryana andothers 23 CWP N033380f2010 KaptainSinghand another Vs StateofHaryana and others 24 CWPN033670f2010 EHC Mohan Lal Vs Statc ofFIaryana and others Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 76 CWP No914 of2010 e3 r 25 CWP N03556 of2010 HansRanl andothcrsVs Stateofllaryana andothers 26 CWP NoA258 of2010 Hari Krishan HC Vs Financial Coininissioncr LePrincipalSccrcttiry to GovernmentofHi3ryana andotllers 27 CWP NoA274 of2010 m CL AmarSinghEHC Vs State andothers 0 28 CWP NoA749 of2010 C I Mohinder SinghEASI andanotherVs StateofHaryana and others C 29 CWPNoA765 of2010 Cr Z ChhajuRaln and anotherVs State and others t 30 CWP NoA960 of2011 C RajbirSinghand othersVs StateofHatyana and otlcrs I 08 31CWPNo963of2010 CCl SatbirSinghVs StateofHaryana and olhcrs W2 32 CWP N03923 of2010 Z Ll Jaivir SinghandothersVs StateofHaiyana and othcrs 33 CWP No6031 of2010 Hardayal HC and othersVs Statc and othcrs Ce CORAM1 IlONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLl Present Mr SK Redhu Mrikram SinghMr111 Yadav MrlOinesh Malik Mrritam Saini Mrurender Lambli MrRP SinghAdvocatesfor the pctitiollers MRS Kundu Addl AG Haryanafortherespondcnts PERMOD KOHLI J Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 CWP N02914 tlf2010 4 On thebasisof coinmon aild identical1SSUCSboth on factsaild law all thesepctitions are beingdecidcdbythiscominon ordcr The cntire controvcrsyrelates to the of Rule 133 ofthe Punjab Police RuIes 1934 as to theStateof and amended vide PunjabPolice Haryana Rules 2001 m r hereinafterreferred to as tlle Rulesl This rulc relatesto dcputation 0 Lower School Course and for enlisting of the eligibleofficers in List 131 C for their The amendedrule subjectrnattcr of debate in the C5 presentwrit petitionsis hereunder et 133Sclection of candidatesfor admission to Z l ses at thi rlice Training 6lI Iist C BinForm l lshalibemaintainedby cacll I Police It shall includc the c8 r10 names of all constablcsselectedfor admissiull e m2 to the Lower School Course to be held at the Z ClL Police TralningCollegeSelecticlil to thc list 13 shall be made 111the month of Januarycach 1 1 ycariind shall be limited to the numberof SCatS 1 allottedto the district for theyear Thc llUmber c of seats in Lower School Course in a year sllnll be on the basis of existingvacancies and the vacancies likelyto be created within one vear V1 111 the respectiveunit 550 of the seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course shall be Olled in on the basis of a coinpetitivc Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 CWP No2914 of2010 5 9 examination 351 on the basis of cummfitness alld 10Ioon the basisof consisteilt in Gold or Silver Medal in All lndia Police NlectlNationalGamesor displayof braveryduringthe course of of 0 offlcial duty Selectionof personsagainst55Io 0 I seats 111listllowerschool on the basis of mcrlt C I shall be done by a Prolnotioll Z Comrnittccon thebasisofl r C 1 Examinatit7 f servicesand C C Oll 2 A compctll icst callcd B oo testl1111 ee Z tl a1Prade b9Law andpracticalpolicework and 3 An Interviewo 2 l All constables of thcir C educational shall be eligibleto appearfor B l test if theyarc under thc age of 35 years and have completed5 vcars of service on 1 day of Januaryof thc year ln which selection is made 1owevcr i f a Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document P4 79 CWP No914 of2010 4 VJ constable to rescrved catcgory who is recruitedafter attaining the agc of 27 years as per Gclvernmenlinstructionslorders then he shall be allowed 10 appcar for n11111111Ulll three consecutive chances a8cr a C offive ycarsofservice evcn iflle 0 has crossed the age of 35 years up to a C I mlllllllUm of 10years C5 I 4r Z iil All Constables of tlicir 5t m education ualiflcationsshall bc eligiblclo Q I be broughtOll List B1 seniority cum nlerit c6 basis if tht are under the agc of 40 years CQ and have 5 yearsof service oll the m3 Z flrst dayof Januaryof thc vear ln Whiclo V Clm selectionis madc 07 The StateofHaryanaissuedinstructionsdated 13022007 the 1111111111Ullllllerit to fulOIl the criteria for senioritve U 1 cumltness relyinguponthc observationsof this Court iil the casc of C Naresh Kumar Vs State of Harvana and others CWP No3952 of 20041decided on 0511 2004 Director General of Police Haryana issued these instructions prescribingrninimum bench marks for selection to BI list under 35lo quota The relevant cxtract of the instructions dated 13022007 lnnexure I79 iil CWP No6427 of Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 1 yr CWP No914 of2010 7m 2009 is hereunder 3 In view ofthe Honble High 111theNaresh Kumar case 6supralit has becn decidedto flx thc bench marksfor f5tnessundcr 35Io quota The m c of servicerccord shouldbe madc 0 C on the basis of education trainng courses passedcominendation certillcates and lcnglh C5 of serviceetc as givenin PPR 137 All lhe e Z tdlldidatcs n obtai ininimuln 31 nlarks m or more would be dcemed to bc fit for C Z selection of 131 seats against35Yoquotiion lllc 08 basisof inteese seniority of the candidatesllld CQ Cr for aIl suchcandidatesintersc would VaW3 Z be the sole criteria for dcputingOll thcir ttiril CL under 35Io quota111Vlew of thc explicitordcr of 17IghCourt Pleasc take fullhcr nccessary 7 actioll 91 The validityof thesc instructionshasbeenupheldIoytllIS Court in Hawa Singh Vs StateofHaryana and others lWP No 194 of20051decidedon 14052008 There are three sets of writ petitionsundcr consideration The sarne are broadlycategorisedin the followingmannerl a9 the eligibilityofthe candidates who appeared in 55010merlt Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 1 1 J CWP N02914 of2010 8 promotion quotaunderRule 133 621l to be consideredfor under35Io on basis underrulc 133 210il even if theyhavefailed under 55Ioqilota b1 considerationofthe candidateswith lessthan 35 yearsofageas on Ist dayof January of thc yearin which selection is inadein 35Io 1 l quotaof 0 C intese of thecandidatcs on thebasisof benchnlarks C in terms of DGPs instructionsdated 1302007 C5 I From thereading ofRule 13 ll it emergesas followsl Z a9 that 550Ioof the seats allotted to a unit 111 thc Lowcr School m Course are nleant to be ftlled 111 on thc basis of L I examination 08 b 35Ioofthe seats on the basis and CQ c 9 10Io seats on the basisof consistent 111 W2 Z etc tl Selection against550 quota ls to be made by the PromotionalCoinmittee All thc constables oftheir educational who are lcss than 35 years ofageand have completed5 years of service on Ist dayof Januaryof the year of C selection are eligibleto appear for Bal test under merit seats of 550Io quota Similarly all the constables irrespcctive of tllcir educational qualiflcationhavingcompletedOve years ofservice and lll the age of 40 years Oll the Ist dayof Januaryof the year of selection Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 1 CWPNo 2914of2010 e are eligibIeto be brought on Iist Bml on the basis of meritagainst35Io quota Sportspersons under 10Io quota are to be considered subjectto cligibility ln the above two categor 1 l Thecontroversy to the of thecandidates 0 who failedto secure the meritin the examination I under55Io quota to be againconsidered under 35Io C5 I merit quota cameto be consideredby a Division Bench of this Court Z in Naresh Kumars case supral This Division Bench was m before the Honble Supreme Court in SpecialLcave to C Appeal6CivillNo 10409of2005 which has been dismissedin Iimine I 08 on 10052005 CQ Ct A similar issuecame up for considerationbeforctohisCourt 3 Z ln the case of Hawa Singh Vs Stateof Harvanaand others VP Ll No194 of20051 decidedon 14052008 After admissionoftlle writ petitionbythe Honble Division Bench the matter was consideredbya 1 learnedSingleJudgeof this Court for flnal disposal on 291 1 2006 The learned SingleJudge ofthis Court was ofthe opinionthatccnain provlsions of Rule 133 ofthe rules were not broughtto the notice of the Division Bench and on that basis a reference was made for consideration of the writ petitionand other connected matters by a Division Bench of this Court The aforesaidwrit petitioncame to be heardby a Division Bench ofthis Court Thc Honble Division Bench Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 83 n W J CWPN029140f2010 10 vide its dated 14152008 affirmed the ratio 111Naresh Kumarscase supra9 with thefollowing observationsl In vicw of the facts mcntioncd above these writ pelitionsare allowedin the saIne terms as 1t1 Narcsh Kumars case supra he 1 tr are directedto the 0 to tlle flrst Lower School Course C3 I which will commencc after the pronouncemcnt C5 I of judgmcnt111 this case IIowcver The Z shall be decmed to have qualified lll 2 the Lowcr School Course from the date whcn I otherconstableshave qualif whose names a5 were to undcrgo Lower School 10 e Coursevide selectlist Anilexurc Il It is inade a Z e clear that if by getting date of CL passingthe Lower School Course the becameeligible for promotionthen he will get only decmed beneflts without gettingany actualflnancial bencfits ln view 0f C principleof no work no pay as laiddown by their Lordshipsof the Honble SupremeCourt in Utlion of India and another vs Tarsem lsal and others 2006110 SupremeCourt Cascs 145 99 Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 84 e CWPN029140f2010 11 H1onblethe Division Benchfurtherconsideredthevalidity of the dated13022007andupheld itosvalidltywith thefollowing observationsl So far as CWP N03609 of2007 is concerned ln that writ seiect list to 1 Lower SchoolCourse on thc basis of instructions lr dated 13007 as referredto above has bcen 0 C As hasbeenheld earlier abovcsaid I C5 instructlOllS are justifledand are in I consonance with the directions issued by this C Z Courtin NareshKumars casc 11 lr The claimsof some of thc writ for to LowerSchool Course have been rejected on the ground that tlleyIldt I il a5 failedin 55Io meritquotaare not entitledto beconsidcredfor bcingbrought QO A on List B1 in 350Ioquota The claimsofsome ofthc writ petitioncrs have 7 Z beenrejectedfor beingbroughtin List B1 under 35Io quotaon the ground C thatthey were of less than 35 yearsof age as on Ist dayof Januaryof the yearof selection In some cases the claims have been rejectedfor non the minimum 31 benchmarksin tenns ofthe DGPs instructions dated 130 200 7 In NareshKumars case supra the Hone Division 4 Bench ruled the eligibilityofthe constables for their consideration both in 50 and35Io quota This judgmenthas attainedfinality The SLP llas also been dismissed bythe Honble SupremeCourt The ratio of the said has been reiterated in Hawa Singhscases supral as also in ConstableDharmbir Vs State of Haryana and others 2009 1 RSJ 310 whereinthe following observations have becn inadelm Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 85 J CWPN029140f2010 12 13 So thereare threedistinct with their own qualifications and eligibiiityfor consideration There is no bar to considerationof a constablein any if he fii1611s theeligibility criteriaic ifhe is eligible 111 m all three he has a statutoryrightto r 0 considerationin all threc The Rules 0 do not categorize or requiresomc inioniinum agc I C foreligibilityunderany ofthc What it I is the upper age Iiinit fot considcration Z r undera category 2 C2 Despitethese instructiollS certain lSSUCS referred to 4r I hereinabove have againcroppedup The controversyregardingthc 08 eligibility ofcandidatesunder 35 yearsofagefor beingbrought on List 131 Cr for 350Ioquota againcameup for considerationby another DivisionBench em Z ofthis Court in Dharmbirscase supral and Balrai SinghandothersVs Ll State ofHarvanaand others 2009 629RSJ 463 In Dharmbirs case lpral aDivision Bench ofthis Court held as under 7 17 A conjointreadingofboth the subruleswould show thatonlythe upper agelimit e has been prescribed undcr the rules and no e minimum age has been prescribedeither undcr submrule2 01 or suberule 2i9 which means that if a constable fulfills thc requirement of the upper age and the other qualiflcationsprescribedunder the respectivecaloegoryas persuberule2 there is Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 86 n1 CWPN029140f2010 13 no bar to his considerationunder each of them Meaningthereby a constable who is eligiblclll one category under Rule 1 7 621 can also be considered in the other categoryunder Rule 133 O21ii ofthe PunjabPolice Rules as there lS 110 m billlrcation between the rules as far as the 0 eligibilitylS concenled with regardto the C0 minimum age as none is C0 18 The minimumage if by WtlyOf execUtlVe ltlSUUCtlOllS Would go againstthc Z r tnterest of the Constables who are otherwisc C2 eligibleunder the statutoryRules Rule 133 r I 6iil confers a rightwhich a Constable attains oll 08 the basis of his seniority Ill the scrvice As and CCl when his turn cornes basedon theseniority a right em Z to considerationdevolveson hi This rightOll thebasis ofhis seniority cannot be deprived on thc basis of executivc instructions This would be in COntravention to the statutoryrules and therefore Ca not sustainablc 22 Whatemerges Oom the above discussions IS that a constable who has completed5 years of servlce on thc Ist day of Januaryof the year in which the selection is made is under lhe age of 35 years and is cligible for consideration and seleclon for includinghis name in List B1 of Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 87 2 CWPN029140f2010 14 selectedconstablesfor adlnissionto Lower School Course under the 55Io quotaon the basis of merit as per Rule 137 296ilofthe PunjabPolice Rules 1934 and having in the test 034 and failed or was unablc to gct enlistmentduc to Iower mcrit can also claim r 0 considerationand selectionunder the 35Io quota CA3 on the basis of as per Rule 0 137 29 iil if he 1S eligibleunder both the I Z As noticed above the constableswho haveattained lnllllmlun Q 31 bench marks under 35Io quotahave beenignorcdand their juniorswere I deputed to the course on thegroundthattheyare more mentorious having 08 betterbench marks This issue IS lll fact covered under Naresh Kumars CQ case and came to be clarifled lll Balraj Singhs cass supra V7 Z wherein it hasbeen held that whereeevcr a junior has been for Ll Lower School Course ignoring theclaim ofthe seniorslnerely Oll thebasis ofthe higherbenchmarks the scniorbe for thecoursc and he will bedeemedto have passed the course from the datehisjuniorhasqualied In such situation senior will retainhis scniority eeW There is another aspect of the mattere The DGPs instructions dated 13 022007 are onlyprospectivein nature Prior to these lnstructions no bench marks were prescribed under the statutoryrules and thus all those constables who acquiredeligibility prior to issuance of these instructions have been denied the deputationt6 the Lower School Course for non achieving the minimum bench marks It is settled law tha1 Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 88 0 e CWPN029140f2010 e15e 1 1 inslructionscannot overrulethe statutoryrulcs Thus thcse instructionscannot be intoserviccto theconstablesofthcir rightfor for not havingachievedtheininimumbeilchmarksaS under these lllStructiOns issued latcr Thus such of the constableswho becaineeiigible ofthese instructions and m ignored for not achieving thc mlnlmum benchmarks are to be for 0 Lower School Course and on successful ofthe course theyare 0 to be treated senior than their juniorswllo werc earlier to the I C5 Lower SchoolCourse In otherwords thcywill retain their seniority for I beingbrought on List Bl that theywere deputed forthe Z course later than their juniorsor theydid not achieveminimunlbench tnarks I Similarlysuchof the constableswho are ignored on account 06 of achievingless than the benchlnarks then their juniors are also ehtitledto be to the course and on coinpletion ofthe same will wm Z retain theirseniority over 0 In some of the writ petitionsthc constables have already completedthe Lower School Course but theyhave been dcnied the 1 7 seniorltyover their juniorson the groundthat the juniorswere cithcr havingbetterbench marks or for the course prior in timc thail the C wnt petitloners In view of the above observations these writ petitionersshali be deemedto be senior to their juniorsdeputedearlier on account of better bench marks or on any other groundof cligibility To sum up these petitions are disposedofwith the followingdirectionsl i9 Such ofthe who have failed in 550Iomerit quota Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 2 e CWPNo2914of2010 m16e areentitledto be consideredfor bcingbrought on List B1 under350Ioquota on the principle of providedtheyhave tlhcrequisite and are otherwiseeligible underthe rules i0 suchofthe constableswho were lessthan 35 yearsofageas on theday oftheir consideration but not lnore than40 years theywill bc entitledto be on List Bmlby themto Lower SchoolCOUSC1 0 iiil the who eligibilitypriorto the DGPs tnstructions C0 dated13022007 will be for the course without the C5 of minimum bench maiks as under thc goveinment I instructions and in their cases seniorityand other eligibility cnteria Z under the rules will beenough for their to the course 2 Cl iv thepetitioners who becameeligiblcfor aer the issuanceof the instructionsdated 13022007 andhaveachievedtbe minimum bench 08 Inarks be deputedto the course their juniorshave better CO bench marks 7 Z V9 interse scniority of the constableswill be deterininedon the basis of Ll their seniority in their districtsin the and not on the basis of passingof the Lower School Course in all such cases who are 1 ignored by the above directions However the intelese seniorityof constableswill not be governedbythe abovedircctionswhere senior was 4e iknoredon account of pendencyof any disciplinaryproceedings or who suffered any other disqualiflcationfor deputationto Lower Scllool Course vo deputationof the petitionersshall be made on the basis of their seniority in their respective districts and againstthc available vacancies Let the claim ofthe petitioners be considercd in the Iightofthe above directions and their deputationwhereIer requircd be made 111 Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 90 CWPN0914 of2010 re1 accordancewiththeabovedirections A copy ofthis orderbeplaced on therecordofeach connected flle eee 1e 11082010 6PERMODKOHIll BLS JUDGE 1 t e 0 Note Whetherto be referredto the YES t I C5 cp r Z C C 08 CtO er m2 Z tl Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 24 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document