61 1 41 CWP No 2914 of2010 1 In theHighCourt ofPunjab and Haryana at Dateofdecisionl11082010 1 CWPN02914 of2010 Vs StateofHaryana and others 2 CWP No6427 of2009 m Krishan Kumar and others Vs StateofHaryanaand othcrs 0 a 3 CWP No 3329 of201 0 RajbirSinghand othersVs StateoflIaryana clnd others C0 4PN014030f2009 Z Prem Singh Vs StateofHaryanaand othcrs 5r 5 WP N0 3401 of2010 r ItIC Kulbir Singhand anotherVs StateofHaryanaaild otllcrs a5 6 CWP No 7536 of201 0 KaptanSinghVs StateofHaryana and others Z 7 CWP No7203 of2010 ll lOeshRaj and olilers Vs State 0fl1aryana and othcrs 8 CWPNo 8147 of2010 EHC Ram Mehar and othersVs StateofIlaryana and others 9 CWP No 6443 of2009 C Jai Pal and another Vs State ofHaryanaand olllers 10 CWP No 6619 of2009 SatyawanEHC Vs State ofHaryanaand others 11 CWPNo104870f2009 Head Constable Ashok Kumar Vs State ofHaryanaand othcrs 12 CWP No 12237 of2009 Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 1 CWP No2914of2010 2 NarenderKumar ConstableVs StateofHaryana and others 13 CWPNo12248 of2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others 14 CWPN0122530f2009 SubhashChanderEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 1C 15CWPNo16975of2009 0 Krishan Kumar EHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others C 16CWP N0184300f2009 C Panna Lal EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others c 17 CWPNo18863 of2009 Z Raj Kumar and anotherVs StateofHaryanaand others 2 Q 18 CWP No 18919 of2009 Kamal ParkashEHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others o 19 CWP No636 of2010 Ct LadyConstableRajbala Vs StateofHaryanaand others V Z 20CWPN02775 of2010 0m Rishi Parshad and others Vs StateofHaryanaand others 21CWPN02875 of2010 1 LadyConstable Suman Vs StateofHaryanaand others 1 22 CWP No 2968 of2010 ra Sada Ram EHC Vs Statc ofHonlana and others 23 CWPN033380f2010 KaptainSinghand another Vs StateofHaryanaand others 24 CWP No 3367 of2010 EHC Mohan Lal Vs State ofHaryanaand others 1 Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 nJ CWPN029140f2010 3 25 CWP No 3556 of2010 Hans Ram and othersVs StateofHaryana and others 26CWP NoA258of2010 Hari KrishanHC Vs FinancialCommissionercOrincipaISecretarvto GovernmentofHaryana andothers 27 CWP No 4274 of2010 C Amar SinghEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 0 C 28 CWP No 4749 of2010 Mohinder SinghEASI and anotherVs StateofHaryana and otllers C Z 29 CWP No 4765 of2010 Cr Z ChhajuRam and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others t 30 CWP No 4960 of2010 C RajbirSinghand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 08 31 CWPN049630f2010 10 SatbirSinghVs StateofHaryana and others 3 Z 3 CWP N07923 of2010 Llm Jaivir Singhand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 33CWPN06031of2010 HardayalHC and others Vs StateofHaryanaand others C CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHll Present Mr SlC Redhu MrNiluam Singh MrSN Yadav MrDinesh Malik MrPritam Saini MrSulender Lamba MrRP Singh Advocatesfor the petitioners MrRS Kundu Addl AG Haryanaforthe respondents PERMOD KOHLI J Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 ed1 CWPN029140f2010 4 On the basisofcommonand identical lSsues both 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 Puniab Police AmendmentlRules 2001 C hereinafter referredto as the Rules This rule relates to dcputationfor 0 Lower School Course and for enlistingof the eligibleofficers in List B C for their promotion The amendedrule subjectmatter of debate in the C5 presentvmt petttionsis reproduced hereunder 13Selection of candidates for admission lo Z 5r courses at the Police TrainingCollege l l ist B in Form 137 shall be maintained by each of Police It shall include the 02j names of all constables selected fur admissiton r me to the Lower School Course to be held at the Z CL Police TrainingCollege Selection to the list B shall be made in the month of Januaryeach 1 yearand shall be limited to the number of seats allotted to the district for the year The number Cme of seats in Lower School Course in a year shall be on the basis of existingvacancies and the vacancles likely to be created within one ycar ln the respectiveunit 55Io of the seats allotted to a unit ln the Lower School Course shall be fllled in on the basis of a competitil e Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 V CWP No2914 of2010 5 examlnatlon 35Io on the basis of seniority cummfitnessand 10Io on the basisof consislcnt in Gold or Silver Medal in All India Police MeetlNationalGamesor displaof 1 r braveryduringthe course of of 0 C offlcial duty Selection of personsagainst55Io C seats lll listllower school on the basis of mertt shall be done by a Promotion Z Committeeon thebasisof C 1 Examinationof services and O 2 A competitive test Jhereinaflercalled 131 7 test lIll Z Om a9Prade b9Law and practicalpoliceworl alld 3 An Intervieue C 2 6i9 All constables irrespectiveof their educational qualificationsshall bc eligibleto appearfor B1 test if theyare under the age of 35 years and have completed 5 years of service on 1 day of Januaryof the vear in which selection is made However if a Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 CWP N02914 of2010 6 constable to reserved category who is recruitedafter attaining the age of 27 yearsas per Governmentinstructionsiorders then he shall be al1oured to appear for mllllIllum three consecutive chances aftcr 1 f cornpletion of five years of service even if he 0 C has crossed the age of 35 ears up to a C5 mmtmum of 10 years Z ii9 All Constables of their educationalqualifications shall be eligibleto be broughtOll List B seniority cum ment c basis if they are under the age of 40 ears and havc completed 5 years of service on the 2 flrst day of Januaryof the year in which CL selection is made 99 The State of Haryanaissued instructionsdated 13022007 prescribingthe mlnimum merit to fulfill the criteria for senioritye cumfitness relyingupon the observations of this Court in the case of Gm Naresh Kumar Vs State of Harvana and others CWP No7952 of 20041decided on 051 12004 Director General of Police Elaryana issued these instructions prescribingminimum bench marks for selection to BI list under 35Io quota The relevant extract of the instructions dated 13022007 VlnnexureP7 il CWP No6427 of Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 CIVPN029140f2010 7 2009 is hereunderl 3 In view ofthe Honble High lll the Naresh Kumar case supra it has been decided to flx the bench marks for fitnesstlnder 35Io quota The m C assessment of service record should be made 0 Ca on the basis of education trainingcourses passedcommendation certificates and length Cao of service etc as glven 111 PPR 137 All the Z candidates who obtain a minimum marks 5 e C or more would be deemed to be Ol for selection of B l seats against35Io quotaon the 08 basis of interse seniority of the candidatesand er for all such candidates interesesenioritvwotild W2 Z be the sole criteria for deputingOll their turn L1 under 35Io quotaln view of the explicitorder of High Court Please take further necessary action accordingly 99 The validityof these instructions has been upheldby this Court in Hawa Singh Vs State ofHarvana and others CWP No1194 of20051decided on 14052008 There are three sets of writ petitionsunder consideration The same are broadlycategorised in the followingmannerl a9 the eligibilitvofthe candidates who appearedin 550Io merlt Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 CWPN0914 of2010 8 promotlonquotaunderRule 137 62 0 to be consideredfor promotion under35Ioon senioritcunmerit basisunderrule 137 62 i even if thevhavefailed under55Ioquota bl considerationofthe candidateswith less than 35 years ofageas on Ist dayof January of the year in which selection is made in 35Io Q quotaof senioritrecumnerit 0 C C 1 interse seniorityofthe candidates OIl the basis of bench marks 111terms of DGPs instructionsdated 13022007 C From the reading ofRule 137 0l9it emergesas follows Z that 55Io of the seats allotted to a unit lIl the Lower School 5r Course are meant to be filled 111 On the basis of 4 examlnatlOIl 08 b 35Io ofthe seats on the basisofsenioritylnitness and Ct c 10Io seats on the basis of consistent eo lIl Z etCe W Selection against55Io quota 1S to be made by the PromotionalCommittee All the constables oftheir educationalqualification who are less than35 yearsofageand have completed5 years of service on Ist day of Januaryof the year of C selection are eligibleto appear for B1 test under merit seats of 55Io quota Similarly all the constables irrespectiveof their educational qualiflcationhavingcumpletedfive years of service and 111 the age of 40 years on the Ist day of Januaryof the year of seleetion Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 CWP No2914 of2010 1 e are eligibleto be brought on list on the basis of merlt against35Ioquota Sportspersons under 10Io quota are to be separately considered subjectto eligibilityprescribedln the above two categories m tr The controversyrelating to the eligibilityof the candidates 0 who failed to secure the requisite merlt ln the competitive examination Cao under 55Io quota to be again considered under 35Io seniorityln 4 merlt quota cameto be consideredby a Division Bench of this Court Z lIl Naresh Kumars case 6Supra This Division Bench judgment was before the Honble SupremeCourt in SpecialLeave C lO Appeal6Civil No10409 of2005 which hasbeen dismissedin limille 08 on 10052005 ClO C A similar issue came up for considerationbeforethis Court avm Z 1Il the case of Hawa Singh Vs State of Harvana and others CWP C No 1194 of 2005iecided on 14052008 After admissionofthe wr it petitionby the Honble Division Bench the matter was consideredbv a 1 learnedSingleJudge of this Court for flnal disposalon 291 12006 The learned SingleJudge ofthis Court was ofthe opinionthat certain C provlslons of Rule 137 oftherules were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench and on that basis a reference was made for consideration of the writ petition and other connected matters by a Division Bench of this Court The aforesaid writ petitioncame to bc heard by a Division Bench ofthis Court The Honble Division Bench Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 CWP No2914 of2010 10 vide its judgmentdated 14052008 afflrmed the ratio lll Naresh Kumars case supra with thefollowing observationsl In view of the facts mentionedabove these wnt petitionsare allowed 111the same terms 21S lIl Naresh Kumars case supra The 1 tr are directed to deputethe 0 CA petitioners9 to the first Lower School Course C5 wbich will conlmence after the pronouncement of judgment lIl this case Holtever The Z petitionershall be deemedto have qualiOedlll the Lower School Course from the date when other constables have qualifledWhose nallles C45 were approved10 undergo Lower School C Coursevide select list Annexure F1 It is made mw Z clear that if by getting date of C passiogthe Lower School Course the petitionerbecame eligible for promotionthen he will get only deemed benefits without gettingany actual financial benefits in view of Ce principleof no work no pay9 as laid down by their Lordshipsof the Honble SupremeCourl lIl Union of India and another vs Tarsem Lal and others o2006910 SupremeCourt Cases 145 99 Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 CWP No 2914 of2010 11 Honble the Division Bench furtherconsidered the validityof the instructionsdated 1302007 andupheldits validitywith the follouing observationsl So far as CWP N03609 of2007 is concerned lll that wril petitionselect list preparedto undergo 1 C Lower School Course on the basis of ilnstrucllOns 0 dated 13O22007 as referred to above has been CAO challenged As has been held earlier above said 0 instructions are perfectlyjustified and are in r consonance With the directions issued by this Z Court in NareshKumars case supral 99 V C The claims of some of the writ petitionersfor deputing to 14 Lower School Course have been rejected on the groundthattheyhaling 08 failed in 5596 merit quotaare not entitledto be considered for beingbrought 10 on List B1 in 35Io quota The claims of some of the writ petitioners hare W Z beenrejectedfor beingbrought in List B1 under 35Io quota on theground C that theywere of less than 35 years of age as on Ist dayof Januarv ofthe year of selection In some cases the claims have been reiectedfor non achievingthe mlnimum 31 bench marks in terms ofthe DGPs instructions dated 13022007 In Naresh Kumars case supral the Honble Division 4ma Bench ruled the eligibility ofthe constables for their consideration both in 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 ln Hawa Singhs cases supra as also in Constable DhannbirVs Stateof Harvana and others 2009 19RSJ 3 10 wherein the followingobservations have been made2 Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 a CWP N00914 of2010 12 13 So there are three distinct with their own qualificationsand requircmeiltsfor eligibilityfor consideration There is no bar to considerationof a constable in any categoryif he llfllls the eligibilitycnterla leCe ifhe is eligibleltl Lr all three categorieshe has a statutoryright to 0 considerationin all three categoriesTlle Rules 0 do not categorize or requiresome mlnltnum age C for eligibilityunder any ofthe Whatit specifiesis the upper agelimit for consideration Z under a particularcategory m Despite these instructions certaln lSsues referred to hereinabove have againcroppedUPe The controversyregardingthe O eligibilityofcandidates under 35 years ofagefor beingbrought on List Ile l for 359o quota againcame up for considerationby anotherDivisioll Bench 3 Z ofthis Court in Dharmbirs case supral and Balrai Singhand others Vs C State ofHarvanaand others 2009 RSJ 463 In Dhannbirs case ipral a Division Bench ofthis Court held as underl r7 17 A conjointreadingof both the subaruleswould show that only the upper age limit has been prescribed under the rules and no rninimum age has been prescribed either under subule 2 c or submrule2 ii9 which means that if a constable fulfills the requirement of the upper age and the other qualifiationsprescribedunder the respectivecategoryas per subule 2 there IS Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 CWP No 2914 of2010 13 no bar to his considerationunder each of theln Meaningtherebya constable who is eligible 111 one categoryunder Rule 137 can also be considered in the other categoryunder Rule 133 2 io of the PunjabPolice Rules as thereis no C bircation between the rules as far as the 0 eligibility 1S concerned with regard to the CA minimum age as none is prescribed C 18 The minimum age if prescribedby way of executlve lnstructions would go againstthe Z interest of the Constables who are otherwise m C eligibleunder the statutoryRules Rule 13 ii9 confers a rightwhich a Constable attalns on c6 the basis of his seniorityin the service As and OO C when his turn comcs based on the senioritya rigllt el 22 to consideration devolves on him This righton Cle the basis ofhis senioritycannot be deprivedon the basis of executive instructions This would be in contravention to the statutoryrules and therefore C not sustainable 22 What emerges from the above discussions 15 that a constable who has completed 5 years of servlce on the Ist day of Januaryof the year lrl which the selection is made is under the age of35 years and is eligible for considerati on and selection for inciudinghis name in List Be 1 of Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 e0 CWTPNo 2914 of2010 14 selectedconstablesfor admission to Lower School Course under the 55Io quotaon the basis oflnerit as per Rule 137 ofthe PunjabPolce Rules 1934 and having in the compelitive test l and failed or was unable to get a enlistment due to lower merit can also claim C 0 consideration and selection under the 3596 qliota C on the basis of as per Rule C 137 629 if he 1S eligibleunder both the categorles 99 Z As noticed above the constableswho have attained minimum 3 1 bench marks under 35Io quotahave been ignoredand theirjuniors were deputedto the course on the groundthat theyare more mentorious having 08 betterbench marks This issue is in fact covered under Naresh Kumars C0 C case 6supra9 and came to be clarifled in Balrai Singhs cass supral meeo Z wherein it has been held that whereever a junior has been deputedfor Clm Lower School Course ignoringthe claim ofthe seniors merelyon the basis of the higherbench marks the senior be deputedfor the course and he will 1 be deemed to have passedthe course from the datehis juniorhas qualifled 44 In such situation senior will retain his seniority Ce 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 statutoryrules and thus all those constables who acquired eligibility prior to issuance of these instructions have been denied the deputationto the Lower School Course for non achieving the Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 CWP No914 of2010 15 governmentlnstructions cannot overrule the statutoryrules Thus these instructionscannot be pressed into servlce to deprillethe constablesoftheir right for for not havingachievedthe minimum bench marksas prescribedunder these instructions issued later Thus such of the constables who became eligiblepriorto issuanceofthese instructions and 1 C ignoredfor not achieving the mlnlmum bench marks are to be deputed for 0 Lower School Course and on successfulcompletion of the course theyare C to be treated senior than their juniorswho were earlier deputcd to the 9 Lower School Course In other words theywill retaln their seniorityfor e beingbroughtonListBl thatthey were for the Z course later than their juniorsor theydid not achieve minimum bench C marks Similarly such ofthe constables who are ignoredon account O2j of achievingless than the bench marks then their JUniors are also entitled to be deputed to the course and on completion ofthe same will eav Z retain their seniorityover theirjuniors llw In some of the writ petitionsthe constables have already completedthe Lower School Course but they have been denied the 1 7 senlorityover their juniorson the ground that the juniorswere eithcr havingbetter bench marks or deputedfor the course prior in time than the C9ee Writ petitioners In view ofthe 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 eligibility To SUin up thcse petitions are disposedofwith the followingdirections i9 Such ofthe who have failed in 550Iomerit qLiota Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 76 CWP No 2914 of2010 16 are entitledto be consideredfor beingbrought on List B under 35Io quota on the principleof seniorityculneritprovidedtheyhave the requisite experience and are otherwiseeligibleunderthe rules ii9 such ofthe constabieswho were lessthan 35 years ofageas on theday oftheir consideration but not more than 40 years theywill be entitledto be m Ct brought on List B1 by deputing them to Lower School Course 3 0 iii9 the petitioners who acquiredeligibilitypriorto the DGPs instructions C dated 13022007 will be deputed for the course without the C questionof minimum bench marks as prescribedunder the govemment lnstructlOIlS and in their cases seniorityand other eligibilitycrIterta Z t prescribed under the rules will be enoughfor their to the course W L ivl the petitioners who becameeligiblefor deputation after the issuanceof the instructionsdated 13022007 and have achieved the minimum bench 08 marks be deputedto the course theirjuniorshave better f17 4t bench marks m Z v9 interse seniorityof the constables will be detenninedon the basis of CL their seniority in their respective districts in the constabulary and not on the basis of passingof the Lower School Course in a11such cases who are 1 ignored by the above directions However the interse seniorityof constables will not be govemedby the above directions where senior was ee rgnored on account of pendencyof any disciplinaryproceedingsor who suffered any other disqualiflcationfor deputationto Lower School Course vil deputationof the petitionersshall be made on the basis of their seniorityin their respectivedistricts and againstthe available vacancies Let the claim ofthe petitionersbe considered in the light ofthe above directions and their deputationwhereIer required be made in Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 1 CHTP No 2914 of2010 17 accordancewith the abovedirections A copy of this order be placedon the record of eachconnected flle rm a e 11082010 6PERMODKOI4LI Il BLS JUI9618 m C oe 0 Notel Whether to be referredto the Reporter2YES C C cp 1 Z 9qJ IlO 2 Ct et 08 ClO 1a1 Z Ll Radhika 2014.04.25 12: 32 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 16:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document