59 V CWPN0 2914 of2010 1 Jn theHighCourt ofPunjaband Haryana at Dat ofdecisionl1 1082010 1CWPN02914012010 Vs StateofHaryana and others 2 CWP No 6427 of2009 m 0 Krishan Kumar and others Vs StateofHaryana and othcrs 0 3 CWP N03329 of201 0 C0 Z RajbirSingh and othersVsStateofflaryana clndotherS 0 X 4 CWP No1403 of2009 Prem Singh Vs StateofHaryanaanci othcrs Z A 5 CWPNo401 of2010 L I1IC Kulbir Singhand anotherVs Stateof Haryanaalld otllers I 05 6 CWP No7536 of201 0 C KaptanSinghVs StateofHaryanaand others r m 7 CWP No203 of2010 Z 0 lOeshRaiand otllers Vs StateofHaryana and others 8CWPNo1470f2010 EHC Ram Mehar and othersVs State0fl1aryana and othcrs V 9 CWP No 6443 of2009 C Jai Pal and anotherVs StateofHaryanaand otllcrs 10 CWP No6619 of2009 Satyawan EliC Vs StateofHaryanaand others 11 CWPN0104870f2009 Head Constable Ashok Kumar Vs State ofHarvana and othcrs 12 CWP No 12237 of2009 Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 1 CWPN029140f2010 2 NarenderKumar ConstableVs StateofHarvanaand others 13 CWPNo12248 of2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 14 CWPN012253 of2009 SubhashChanderEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others e Q 15 CWP No 16975of2009 0 Krishan Kumar EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 0 16 CWPN0184300f2009 I C PannaLal EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others Z 17CWPN018863 of2009 Z RajKumar and anotherVs State and others C 18 CWP No 18919of2009 I Kamal Parkash EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 08 19 CWP No636 of2010 CO LadyConstableRajbala Vs StateofHaryana and others 7 Z 20 CWP No2775 of2010 Clm Rishi Parshadand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 21 CWPNo 2875 of2010 LadyConstableSuman Vs StateofHaryanaand others 22 CWP N029680f2010 e Sada Ram EHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others 23 CWP No 3338 of2010 KaptainSinghand another Vs StateofHaryanaand others 24 CWP N03367 of2010 EHC Mohan Lal Vs State ofHaryanaand others Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 0 CWP No914 of2010 25 CWP No 3556 of2010 Hans Ram and othersVs StateofHaryana and others 26 CWP No 4258 of2010 Hari Krishan HC Vs Financial CommissionercQPrincipalSecretary to GovernmentofHaryana and others 27 CWP No 4274 of2010 1 C Amar SinghEHC Vs StateofHarvanaand others el 0 28 CWP N047490f2010 C I Mohinder SinghEASI and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others C Z 29CWP N04765 of2010 Z ChhajuRam and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others 30 CWP No 4960 of2010 C RajbirSinghand othersVs StateofHarvanaand others J Oll 31 CWP No 4963 of2010 CO SatbirSinghVs StateofHaryana andothers 12 Z 32 CWP No 7923 of2010 Qm Jaivir Singhand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 33 CWPNo 6031of2010 HardayalHC and othersVs StateofHaryana and others e CORAM FIONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present1 Mr SJC Redhu Mrikram SinghMrN Yadav MrlOinesh Malik Mrritam Saini Mrurender Lamba MrlP SinghAdvocatesfor the petitioners Mrl2S Kundu Addl AG Haryanaforthe respondents PERMOD KOHLI J Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 0 CWPN029140f2010 4 On thebasisof common andidenticalissuesboth on factsand law all thesepetitions are beingdecidedbythis common order The entire controversyrelates to the of Rule 137 ofthe PunjabPolice Rules 1934 as applicable to the Stateof Haryana and amended vide Punjab Police Rules 2001 1 Cr referredto as the Rules This rule relates to for 0 Lower School Course and for enlistingof the eligibleofflcers in List B1 C0 for their promotionThe amendedrule subject matter of debate in the I C presentwrit petitionsis hereunder C 1 37mSelectionof candidatesfor admission to Z courses at the Police TrainingCollege List C B 6inForm 1339 shall be maintainedby each of Police It shall include the 08 CQ names of all constablesselected for admission t m7 to the Lower School Course to be held at the Z CL Police TrainingCollegeSelection to the list B shall be made in the month of Januaryeach 1 yearand shall be Iimitedto the number of 1 seats 1 allotted to the district for the year The number Ce of seats in Lower School Course 111a yearshall be on the basis of existingvacancies and the vacancies likely to be created within one vear 111 the respectiveunit 550Io of the seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course shall be filled in on the basis of a competitive Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 1 CWPN02914of2010 5 l examinatlOIl 35 on the basis of seniority cumfitness and 10Ioon the basisof consistent in Gold or Silver Medal in All India Police MeetlNational Games or displayof m Q braveryduringthe course of of 0 0 official duty Selection of personsagainst55Io I C5 seats in listIlower school on the basis of ment I shall be done by a Promotioll t Z Committeeon thebasisofl m Lr 1 Examinationof servicesand Z OS 2 A competitive test called B CQ r test9 1111 7 Z 0 a9Prade b9Law and practicalpolicework and 3 An Interview C4 2 All constables of their educational qualifications shall be eligibleto appearfor Bl test ifthey are under the age of 35 years and have completed5 years of serVlCe on 1 day of Januaryof the year in which selection is made However if a Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 rj CWPN029140f2010 6 constable to reserved category who is recruitedaRer attaining the age of 27 yearsas per Government instructionslorders then he shall be allowed to appear for mlllllllUm three consecutive chances aer m f of flve yearsofservice even ifhe 5 0 0 has crossed the age of 35 years up to a I C mintmum of 10 years 4 Z 6iil All Constables of their 2 C educational shall be eligibleto I be broughtOll List B1 seniority cum ment c6 basis if theyare under the age of 40 years CQ and have 5 vears of serviceon the aW2 Z 2 first dayof Januaryof the vear in which 4 1 selectionis made 53 The Stateof Haryanaissuedinstructionsdated 13022007 17 the mlnlmum merit to llfill the criteria for seniority cumfitness relyinguponthe observationsof this Court in the case of C9 Naresh Kumar Vs State of Harvana and others CWP No7952 of 20049decided on 051 1 2004 Director General of Police Haryana issued these instructions prescribingminimum bench marks for selection to BI list under 350Io quota The relevant extract of the lnstructions dated 13022007 Annexure 179 in CWP No6427 of Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 J CWPN09140f2010 7 2009 is hereunderl 3 In view ofthe Honble High lIl the Naresh Kumar case it has been decided to flx the bench marks for fitnessunder 35Io quota The m Q assessment of service record should be made 0 0 on the basis of education trainingcourses I passedcommendationcertiflcates and length C5 of service etc as givenin PPR 133 All the 4 Z candidates who obtain a minimum 31 marks L or more would be deemed to be fit for Ct X selection of Bl seats against35Io quotaon the 08 basisof interse seniorityof the candidatesand CO Cr for all such candidates interse seniority would 2 Z be the sole criteria for deputingon their turn CL under 35Io quotaln view of the explicitorder of HighCourt Please take further necessary 1 action The validityof these instructionshasbeenupheldbythis C4 e Court in Hawa Singh Vs StateofHaryanaand others CWP No194 of20051decided on 14052008 There are three sets of writ petitionsunder consideration The same are broadlycategorised 111the followingmanner a9 the eligibilityofthe candidates who appeared in 55Io merit 14 4e Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 6e 1 CWPNo 2914 of2010 8 PromotlonquotaunderRule 133 62 Jto be considered under35Io oil senioritycumnerit basis underrule 137 even if theyhavefailed under55Ioquota b9 considerationofthe candidateswith less than 35 years ofageas on Ist dayof Januaryof the year in which selection is made in 35lo a C quotaof senioritycumnerit 0 C 1 interse seniorityof the candidates Oll the basis of bench marks 0 I ln ternls of DGPs instructionsdated 13022007 0 I From the readingofRule 137 l it emergesas followsl Z a that 55Io ofthe seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School W Course are meant to be 6lled 111 on the basis of I examinatiOIl b 35Io ofthe seats on thebasisofsenioritylmltness and aO c 6c1 l 0Io seats on the basis of consistent 111 m2 Z etc CL Selection against55Io quota 1S to be made by the Promotional Committee All the constables 1 oftheir educational who are lessthan 35 years ofageand have 5 years of service on Ist dayof Januaryof the year of selection are eligibleto appear for B1 test under merit seats of 55Io quota Similarly al1 the constables irrespectiveof their educational qualificationhavingcompletedfiveyearsofservice and lll the age of 40 years on the Ist day of Januaryof the year of selection Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 1 1 CWPN029140f2010 ne9 are eligibleto be brought on list B on the basis of merit against35Io quota Sportspersons under 1OIo quota are to be considered subjectto eligibility 111 the above two categories m L The controversyrelating to the eligibilityof the candidates 0 who failed to secure therequisite merit in the examination C I under 55Io quota to be again considered under 35Io C5 I merit quota cameto be consideredby a Division Bench of this Court Z lll Naresh Kumars case supra9 This Division Bench judgment was before the Honble Supreme Court ltl SpecialLeave to r Appeal6CivillNo10409 of2005 which has been dismissedin limine X c6 on 10052005 C1O A similar issue came up for consideration before this Onllrt 2 Z 1Il the case of Hawa Sin Vs Stateof Harvana and others CWP Clm No1194 of20051decided on 14052008 After admission ofthe writ petitionbythe Honble Division Bench the matter was consideredbya 1 learned SingleJudge of this Court for flnal disposal Oll 29112006 1 The learnedSingleJudgeofthis Court was ofthe opinionthat certain C provisionsof Rule 137 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 aforesaid writ petitioncame to be heard by a Division Bench ofthis Court The Honble Division Bench Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 1 Il 4 CHTPN029140f2010 10 vide its dated 14052008 affirmed the ratio in Naresh Kumars case lpra with thefollowing observationsl In view of the facts mentioned above these wrlt petltionsare allowed in the same terms as 111 Naresh Kumars case The m lr are directed to deputethe 0 0 petitioner to the first Lower School Course I which will commence after the pronouncement C5 I of judgment 111 this case However The Z petitioner shall be deemedto have qualified 111 r the Lower School Course from the date when Cr I other constables have qualifiedwhose names 08 were approvedto undergo Lower School CQ Coursevide select list Annexure PI It is made 3 Z clear that if by getting date of Om passingthe Lower School Course the petitionerbecameeligiblefor promotionthen he vvill get only deemed benefits without gettingany actual financial beneflts in vlew of Cme principleof no work no pay as laid down by their Lordshipsof the Honble SupremeCourt in Union of India and another vs Tarsem Lal and others 2006910 SupremeCourt Cases 145 99 Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 1 CWPN029140f2010 1 Honble theDivision Bench furtherconsideredthe validityof the instructionsdated 13022007 and upheldits validitywith the following observatlonsl So far as CWP No3609 of2007 is concerned in that writ petitionselect list prepared to undergo m Cr Lower School Course on the basis of ilnstructions 0 dated 13022007 as referred to above has been C0 challengedAs has been held earlier above said I 45 instructions are perfectlyjustifiedand are in e consonance with the directions issued by this Z Court in Naresh Kumars case lpra9 1 2 The claims of some of the writ petitionersfor deputing to e X Lower School Course have been rejected on the groundthat theyhaving 08 failed in 550Iomerit quotaare not entitled to be consideredfor beingbrought CQ Oll List B1 in 35Io quota The claims of some ofthe Z beenrejectedfor beingbrought in List Blnder 35Io quotaon theground Cl thatthey Were of less than 35 yearsof age as on Ist dayof Januaryof the year of selection In some cases the claims have been rejectedfor non 1 achievingthe lninimum 31 bench marksin terms ofthe DGPs instructions 9 dated 13022007 In Naresh Kumars case 6supra9the Honble Division m Bench ruled the eligibilityofthe constables for their consideration both tn 55Io and 35Io quota This judgmenthas attained finality The SLP has also been dismissed by the Honble SupremeCourt The ratio of the said judgmenthas been reiterated 111 Hawa Sings cases 6supra9as also in Constable Dharmbir Vs State of Harvana and others 2009 19RSJ 310 whereinthe followingobservationshave beenmade Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 J CWPN029140f2010 12 1 3 So there are three distinct categories with their own and for eligibilityfor consideration There is no bar to consideration of a constable in any categoryif he hilfllls theeligibility cnteria if he is eligibleltl 0C all three he has a statutoryrightto 0 considerationin all three categoriesThe Rules W do not categorize or requiresome minlmum age Z C5 for eligibilityunder any ofthe categoriesWhat it I C specifiesi s the upper ageliinit for conslderation Z r under a particular category A Despi these instructions certaitl 1SSues referred to r I hereinabove have againcroppedup The controversyregardingthe c5 eligibilityofcandidates under 35 years ofagefor beingbrought on List OO Cr for 35Io quota againcame up for considerationbyanother Division Bench n Z of this Court in Dharmbirs case 6supral and BalraiSinghand othersVs CL State ofHarvanaand others 2009629RSJ 463 In Dharmbirs case 6supral a Division Bench ofthis Court held as underl 7 17 A conjointreading ofboththe sub4ules would show that onlytheupperage liinit Cea has been prescribed under the rules and no rninimum age has been prescribedeither under suberule 2 i9 or suberule 2 ii9 which means that if a constable fulfills the requirement of the upper ageand the other qualificationsprescribedunder the respectivecategory as per subrule 2 there is Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 7 ClATPN 29J4 of2010 3 no bar to his considerationunder each of thein a constable who is eligible in one category under Rule 133 29 can also be considered in the other categoryunder Rule 13 2 0ii9of the PunjabPolice Rules as there isno m bifurcationoetween the rules as far as the 0 eligibility1S concemed with regardto the C minimum age as none is prescribed Z Co 18 The minimum age if prescribedby wav of J Z executive instructlons would go againstthe Z r interest of the Constables who are otherwise 9m C eligibieunder the statutoryRules Rule 133 X 6iil confers a rightwhich a Constable attalns on o the basis of his seniorityin the service As and CQ Cr when his turn comes based on the seniorityright 7 Z to consideration devolves on him This righton tl the basisofhis seniority cannot be deprivedon the basis of executive instructioils This would be in contravention to the statutoryrules and therefore W not sustainable 22 What emerges from the above discussions 1S that a constable who has completed5 years of service on the Ist day of Januaryof the year ln which the selection is made is under the age of35 years and is eligible for consideration and selection for including his name in List B1 of Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 J CWP N02914 of201 0 14 selectedconstablesfor admission to Lower School Course under the 55Io quotaon the basis of merit asper Rule 137 62I6i9ofthe PunjabPolice Rules 1934 and having in the test 6B and failed or was unable to get m enlistment due to Iower merit can also claim C considerationand selectionunder the 35Io quota 0 C on the basis of senioritycunmerit as perRule Z C5 13 6296i if he lS eligibleunder both the Z categones 94 Cr 2 As noticed above the constableswho have attained llllnimum r 31 bench marks under 35Io quotahave been ignoredand their juniorswere Z deputed to the course on the groundthattheyare more merltorious having 08 betterbench marks This issue is in fact covered under Naresh Kumars CO et case 6supraand came to be clarifled in Balrai Singhs cass supra 7 Z whereinit has been held that whereeevera junior has been deputedfor CL Lower School Course ignoring the claim of the seniorsmerely on the basis ofthe higherbench marks the senior be deputed for the course and he will be deemedto have passed the course from the date hisjuniorhasqualiSed In such situation senior will retainhis seniority e There is another aspect of the matter The DGPs instructions dated 13022007 are onlyprospective in nature Prior to these instructions no bench marks were prescribedunder the statutory rules and thus all those constables who acquiredeligibility prior to issuance of these instructionshave been denied the deputation to the Lower School Course for non achieving the rninimum bench marks It is settled law that Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 CWPNo 2914 of2010 15 instructions cannot overrule the statutoryrules Thus these instructionscannot be pressed into serviceto deprivethe constablesoftheir rightfor for not havingachieved the minimum bench marks as prescribedunder these instructlons issued later Thus such of the constables who becalne eligiblepriorto issuanceof theseinstructions and 1 0 ignoredfor not achieving the mlnnnum bench marks are to be deputed for 0 Lower School Course and on successful ofthe course theyare 0 to be treated senior than their juniorswho were earlier deputed to the C0 Lower School Course In other words theywill retain their seniorityfor I beingbrought on LlstBl thattheywere for the Z 5t course 1ater than their juniors or theydid not achieveminilnum bench a r marks Cr X Similarly such ofthe constableswho are ignoredon account c6 of achievingless than the bench marks then their juniorsare rio also entitledto be deputed to the course and on completion ofthe same will 7 Z retain their seniorityover theirjuniors Cl In some of the writ petitionsthe constables have already the Lower School Course but theyhave been denied the 1 7 seniorityover their juniorson the ground that the juniorswere either havingbetterbench marks or deputed for the coursejoriorin time than the Cae wnt petltloners In view of the above observations these writ petitionersshall be deemed to be senior to their juniorsdeputedearlier on account of better bench marks or on any other ground of eligibilitylo sum up these petitions are disposedofwith the followingdirectionsl i9 Such ofthe who have failed in 550Iomerit quota Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 1 CWPN02914of2010 16 areentitledto beconsideredfor beingbrought on List B under 35Io quota on the principle of providedtheyhave the requisite and are otherwiseeligible underthe rules ii9 such ofthe constableswho were less than 35 yearsofageas on theday oftheir consideration but not more than 40 years theywill be entitledto be C brought on List B1 bydeputingthem to Lower School Course 3 0 iiil thepetitioners who acquiredeligibilitypriorto the DGPs instrUCtlOllS C dated13022007 will be for the course witllout consideringthe I C0 of minimum bench marks as prescribedunder the government Z instructiOIlS and in their cases seniorityand other eligibilitycriteria Z under the rules will be enoughfor their deputation to the course m C ivl thepetitioners who becameeligiblefor after the issuanceof 14 I theinstructionsdated 132007 and have achieved the minimum bench 08 marks be to the course their juniorshave better 03 bench marks eR Z vl interse seniorityofthe constableswill be detennined on the basis of CL theirseniority in their respective districts in the and not on the basisof passingof the Lower School Course in all such cases who are ignoredby the above directions However the intele seniorityof constableswill not be governedby the above directions where senior was 400e ignoredon account of pendencyof any disciplinaryproceedings or who sufferedany other disqualiflcation for deputation to Lower School Course vio deputationof the petitionersshall be made on the basis of their seniority in their respective districts and againstthe available vacancieS Let the claim ofthe petitionersbe considered in the lightofthe above directionsand their deputationwherewever required be made in Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 VM 9 4 J CWPN029140f2010 17 accordancewith the abovedirections A copy of this order be placedon the record of each connected file 6eeae 4 1108010 PERMOD KOHLII BLS JUDGE 1 0 141 0 Notel Whetherto be referredto the YES 0 I 0 y6r Z Z m 0 X 08 CQ Cr ew Z Cl Uma 2014.05.06 10: 53 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document