CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21234 OF 2008 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 19,2009 Mohan Lal and others .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners, who are exemptee Head Constables have filed this petition, seeking direction for official respondents to give them a consideration for their selection in B-1 list in view of their seniority under 35% quota as per the judgment passed by this Court in CWP No.15164 of 2008. The issue for detailment under 35% quota under Rule 13.7 of Punjab Police Rules on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness has already been settled by a Division Bench of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21234 OF 2008 :{ 2 }: this Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, Civil Writ Petition No.7952 of 2004 decided on 5.11.2004. Rather, the controversy in this case has already been decided by two Division Benches of this Court. The issue relates to the detailing of Constables on B-1 Course. In the year 2001, the Punjab Police Rules have been amended and as per this amendment 55% seats were reserved on the basis of test, 35% seats were reserved on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and 10% seats were reserved for sports quota and outstanding performance. The petitioners are those constables who seek their detailment on B-1 course from 35% seats reserved to be filled on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. Earlier their claim was declined on the ground that they were not meritorious enough for detailment. It has been held in Naresh Kumar's case (supra) that seniority-cum-fitness would mean that the persons are to be detailed on the basis of seniority if they are fit. Merit is not taken into consideration for detailment of constable for doing this Course in the 35% quota reserved for such constables. Another Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No. 19965 of 2006 titled Balraj Singh and others versus State of Haryana and others has followed the decision of Naresh Kumar's case (supra). While doing so, further direction was given to the respondents to depute all similar persons to the first Lower School Course in accordance with their seniority in their prescribed quota of 35% as interpreted by this Court in Naresh Kumar's case. It was further directed that all these persons shall be deemed to be qualified in Lower School Course as on date the constables junior to them have qualified the same course. It is made clear that if by getting retrospective date of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.21234 OF 2008 :{ 3 }: passing, the petitioners become eligible for promotion they will get only deemed benefits without getting any actual financial benefits in view of principle of 'no work no pay'. The case of the present petitioners as such is covered by the ratio of cases in Naresh Kumar's case (supra) and Balraj's case (supra). The claim, which the petitioners have now filed, pertains to the year 2001. Naresh Kumar was prompt enough to approach this Court and order was accordingly passed in the year 2004. The petitioners have not been very prompt in making the approach like Naresh Kumar. Though they are entitled for consideration in terms of the law laid down in Naresh Kumar's case (supra), yet the effect of delay on their part in approaching this Court can not completely be ignored. Accordingly, while disposing of this writ petition, directions would also be issued to the respondents to keep this aspect in view while deciding the case of the petitioners for the detailment of the petitioners on B-1 course in terms of the law laid down in the case of Naresh Kumar (supra). August 19, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE