CWP NO. 6917 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP NO. 6917 OF 2010 DECIDED ON- 31.01.2011 EHC Raj Kumar ……PETITIONER Versus State of Haryanaand others ……RESPONDENTS Coram HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J(Oral) In the instant case, the grievance of the petitioner is that he is not being deputed to B1 course and prays that an appropriate writ be issued directing the respondents to consider his claim for deputing him into the said course. Respondents have denied the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he was below the age of 35 years and was eligible to be considered against 55% quota alone. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Division Bench Judgment reported as Constable Dharambir v. State of Haryana and others 2009(1) RSJ 310 to contend that his case falls squarely within the para meters of the observations made by Division Bench of this Court which has been up held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India wherein in paras no.17 and 18, it has been observed as follows:- “Para 17-This in our considered view is in clear violation of Rule 13.7(2). It goes against the very spirit and the purpose for which the rules have been formulated. The intention and purpose of the rules is to be read in conjunction with the object which is sought CWP NO. 6917 OF 2010 2 to be achieved. The police officials have to deal with various and varied situations while performing their duties but primary of them being law and order, which requires competent and talented officers. The intention of Rule 13.7 is to identify and catch them young so that the talent may be groomed and allowed to grow with the experience gained in their service. Rule 13.7(2)(i) aims at Constables, who are below the age of 35 years while Rule 13.7 (ii) aims at constables, who are under the age of 40 years. A conjoint reading of both the sub-rules would show that only the upper age limit has been prescribed under the rules and no minimum age has been prescribed either under Sub-rule 2(i) or sub rule 2(ii), which means that if a constable fulfills the requirement of the upper age and the other qualifications prescribed under the respective category as per sub-rule 2, there is no bar to his consideration under each of them. Meaning thereby, a constable, who is eligible in one category under Rule 13.7(2)(i) can also be considered in the other category under Rule 13.7(2)(ii) of the Punjab Police Rules, as there is no bifurcation between the rules as far as the eligibility is concerned with regard to the minimum age as none is prescribed.” Para 18 The minimum age if prescribed by way of executive instructions would go against the interest of the Constables, who are otherwise eligible under the statutory Rules, Rule 13.7(2)(ii) confers a right which a Constable attains on the basis of his seniority in the service. As and when his turn comes based on the seniority a right to consideration devolves on him. This right on the basis of his seniority cannot be deprived on the basis of executive instructions. This would be in contravention to the statutory rules and, therefore, not sustainable.” Thereafter, the Division Bench went on to observe in para 20 as under:- “The employee cannot be deprived of his right to be CWP NO. 6917 OF 2010 3 considered for promotion, so conferred upon him, under the Punjab Police Rules by mere issuance of executive instructions. If the statutory rules provide for and confers on an employee right to consideration for promotion and further provides for qualification, which the employee possesses as per the rules, that right of consideration cannot be curtailed so as to deprive him of his statutory right merely on issuance of executive instructions, which is contrary to the statutory Rules.” Learned counsel for the respondents could not effectively distinguish the case of the petitioner to say that it does not fall within the ambit of the observations of the Division Bench. Having regard to the aforesaid, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the petition with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for deputing him into B1 course in the light of the observations which have been made in Constable Dharambir's case (supra). Learned counsel for the respondents states that the case of the petitioner shall be considered expeditiously. 31.01.2011 ( MAHESH GROVER) mamta JUDGE