Civil Writ Petition No.5388 of 2009 :1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: October 29, 2009 Satish Kumar ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Maharaj Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who was recruited as a Constable in the Haryana Police on 2.11.2000, is presently serving at Gurgaon when informed about the examination for B-1 test during the year 2008. The petitioner applied for and reported for appearing in the Civil Writ Petition No.5388 of 2009 :2 : examination. Sixty candidates were declared as successful. The name of the petitioner was in the list of successful candidates, out of 400-500 candidates, who had appeared. The petitioner also qualified in parade and physical test, but he was still not sent for training for lower school course. The petitioner accordingly made a representation on 23.7.2008. When no action was taken, he filed an application under Right to Information Act to ascertain the reasons for which he was not being deputed on B-1 course. He then learnt that he was not being detailed on the ground that two annual increments of the petitioner had been stopped by an order dated 9.12.2005, whereas on an another occasion one annual increment was temporarily stopped for one year on 3.3.2006. It was, thus, stated that the petitioner was under the currency of punishment and hence was debarred from B-1 examination. Counsel for the petitioner would mainly rely upon the instructions issued by Director General of Police, Haryana, copy of which is on record as Annexure A-1. While clarifying the aspect whether Constables, who are undergoing punishment or have been awarded major punishments at two times or more are eligible to appear in the written test prescribed for selection of 55% candidates or not, it is stated that Constables who are undergoing or have been awarded major punishment at two times or more are eligible to appear in the written test. In such cases, action is to be taken in terms of para 10 of the notification dated 28.6.2001.As per para 10 of the above noted notification, the marks at the following rate are to be reduced while calculating marks for both categories of competitive examination and seniority:- Civil Writ Petition No.5388 of 2009 :3 : For every major punishment 5 Marks For every minor punishment 5 marks For every censure 1 mark” The total marks deducted are not to exceed 25. Counsel for the petitioner would accordingly contend that he could not have been debarred from being detailed on the course and at the most his merit could have been assessed by deducting the marks as noted above. State counsel was directed to have instructions in this regard and to explain as to how these instructions will operate in case Constables are not to be detailed once they are under the currency of punishment. State counsel has now received a communication where it is stated that when a Constable is under currency of punishment, he cannot be allowed to be borne on list B. Reference is also made to Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules in this regard. The perusal of Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules would show that this bar for detailing on a B-1 course while undergoing punishment would be for inclusion in List B against 35% quota reserved for seniority-cum-merit. This would appear from the reply. It is required to be seen if having detailed a Constable to appear in an examination meant for 55% quota, he can still be denied detailment on the ground that he cannot be brought on B-1 list. It is for the respondents to see as to what would be then the purpose in permitting such a Constable to appear in the examination if he was punished twice and is not to be brought on B-1 list. State counsel has not been able to explain how then instructions, Civil Writ Petition No.5388 of 2009 :4 : Annexure A-1, would operate in the light of para 10 of the notification. Apparently, what is to be seen is that a person, who is undergoing or who has been awarded punishment twice would remain eligible for appearing in the examination for B-1 course and his merit has to be assessed by deducting the marks as given in para 10 of the notification. If he is still able to make a grade, perhaps he may be required to be allowed for B-1 course. Let this issue in the light of notification and the stand taken in the reply be re-considered by the respondents. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction to the respondents to re-consider the issue and decide afresh by passing a speaking order. The petitioner would be detailed on the course, if the petitioner is required to be so detailed. Let this exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. October 29, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE