57 m1 d1U CWP No914 of2010 1 ln theHighCourt ofPunjabandHaryana at Date ofdecision 1108201 0 1 CWPN02914 02010 1 Vs StateofHaryana and others r7 CWP No 6427of2009 m C KrishanKumar and others Vs StateofHaryanaand othcrs 0 3 CWPNo332902010 C Z RajbirSinghand othersVsState ofIIarvanaand others el C0 Z 4 CWP No1403 of 2009 Prem Singh VsState of Haryanaand othcrs Z 5 CWP N3401 of2010 C r IHC Kulbir Singhand anotherVs StateofHaryanaaild otllcrs X 6 CWP No 7536of2010 05 00 KaptanSingbVs Slate ofMaryanaand others S7 7 CWP No203 of2010 Z 0 DeshRai and otllers Vs StaieofHaryanaand others ll 8 CWP N081470f2010 EHC Ram Mehar and othersVs Stateofliaryanaand others 4 9 CWP No 6443 of2009 C Jai Pal and another Vs State ofHaryanaand otllors 10 CWPNo6619of2009 EliC Vs State ofHaryanaand others 11 CWPN010487 of2009 Ielead Constable Ashok Kumar Vs State ofHaryanaand othcrs 12 CWP N0122370f2009 Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 58 m CWPNo2914of2010 2 NarenderKumar ConstableVs StateofHarvanaand others 13 CWP No 12248of2009 1 Jit SinghEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 14 CWP No 12253of2009 SubhashChanderEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others C 15CWPNo16975of2009 0 Krishan Kumar EHC Vs StateofHaryana andothers Ca3 16 CWP No 18430of2009 C0 PannaLal EHC Vs StateofHaryana andothers X 17 CWPNo 18863of2009 Z RajKumar and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others C 18 CWPNo189190f2009 X Kamal ParkashEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others O 19 CWP No636 of2010 Cll Lady Vs State and otbers Z 20 CWPN02775 of2010 Clw Rishi Parshadand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 21 CWP No 2875 of2010 LadyConstableSumanVs StateofHaryana andothers l 22 CWP No 2968 of2010 4e Sada Ram EHC Vs State ofHaryanaand others 23 CWPNo3338of2010 KaptainSinghand another Vs State ofHaryanaand others 24 CWP No 3367 of2010 EHC Mohan Lal V StateofHaryana and others Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 F CWP N02914 of2010 3 25 CWP N035560f2010 Hans Ram and othersVs StateofHaryana and others 26 CWP No 4258 of2010 Hari Krishan HC Vs Financial Commissioner O PrincipalSecretary to GovernmentofHaryanaand others 27 CWPNo 4274 of2010 W C Amar SinghEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 0 28CWPNo4749of2010 C Mohinder SinghEASI and anotherVs StateofHaryanaand others C5 Z 29 CWP NoA765 of2010 Z ChhajuRain and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others m 30CWP N04960 of2010 Cl RajbirSinghand othersVs StateofHaryanaand others Z 08 31 CWP No 4963 of2010 CQ SatbirSinghVs StateofHaryana and others m7 32 CWP No 7923 of2010 Z 3 0 laivir Singhand othersVs StateofHaryana andothers 33 CWP No 6031 of2010 Hardayal HC and othersVs StateofHaryana and others Ce CORAM1 HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOII Presentl Mr SK Redhu MrNikram Singh MrI Yadav MrDinesh Malik MrPritam Saini Murender Lamba MrP Singh Advocatesfor the petitioners MrRS Kundu Addl AG Haryanaforthe respondents PERMOD KOHLI J Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 S CHTPN029140f2010 ee4 On the basisof common and identical issues both on factsand law all thesepetitions are beingdecidedbythis common order The entire controversyrelates to the of Rule 137 ofthe Punjab Police Rules 1934 as to the StateofHaryana and amended vide Punjab Police 4aryana Amendment Rules 2001 e hereinafterreferredto as the Rules This rule relatesto for r 0 Lower SchoolCourse and for enlistingof the eligibleofScers in List C for their promotionThe amendedrule subjectmatter of debate in the I C5 writ petitionsis hereunderl Z 13Selection of candidatesfor admission to e Z courses at the Police TrainingCollege List w 1 B 6inForm 133 shall be maintainedby each I of Police It shall include the 06 QO names of all constablesselectedfor admission W4 to the Lower School Course to be held at the Z CL Police Training CollegeSelection to the list B shall be made in the month of Januarv each 1 yearand shall be limited to the number of seats allottedto the district for the year The number GWee of seats in Lower School Course in a year shail be on the basis of existingvacancies and the vacancles likely to be created within one year 111 the respectiveunit 50 of the seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course shall be filled in on the basis of a competitive J Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 U CWPN02914of2010 5 exalninatlon 35 on the basis of seniority cumfltness and 10Ioon the basisof consistent in Gold or Silver Medal in All India Police MeetlNational Gamesor displayof m C braveryduringthe course of of 0 0 offtcial duty Selectionofpersonsagainst55Io Z C5 seats in listliower school on the basis of merit I shall be done by a Promotion Z Committeeon thebasisofl h 1 Examinationofservices and Z 08 2 A test Ihereinaftercalled Bl Cll er m testllnl Z Ll a9Prade b Law and practicalpolicework and 3 An Interview C 2 6i9 All constables irrespectiveof their educational qualificationsshall be eligible to appearfor Bl test if they are under the age of 35 years and have completed 5 years of service on 1 day of Januaryof the vear Ill which selection is made However if a Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 1 0 CWPN029140f2010 6 constable to reserved category who is recruitedaer the age of 27 yearsas per Governmentlnstructionslorders then he shall be allowed to appear for mllllmum three consecutive chances aRer 1m C of five vears of serviceeven if he 01 0 C has crossed the age of 35 years up to a I minimum of 10 years C5 I Z 6i All Constables of their C educational shall be eligibleto I be broughton List B1 seniority cum ment c basis if they are under the age of 40 years CQ and have 5 years of service on the 7 Z first day of Januaryof the vear in which d Cl selection is made 92 The State ofHaryanaissuedinstructions dated 13022007 prescribingthe mllllmum merit to fulfill the criteria for seniorio 1 cumefitness relyingupon the observations of this Court in the case of C Naresh Kumar Vs State of Harvana and others CWP N03952 of 20041decided on 051 12004 Director General of Police Haryana issued these instructions prescribing minimum bench marks for selection to B Iist under 350Ioquota The relevant extract of the instructions dated 130 2 2007 6AnnexurePm79111CWP No427 of Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 e4r CWPN029140f2010 7 2009 is hereunder 3 In view ofthe Honble High in the Naresh Kumar case supral it has been decidedto fix the bench marksfor fitnessunder 35Io senioritycunltnessquota The m C assessmentof service record should be made 0 on the basis of education trainingcourses C Z passedcommendationcertificates and length C5 of service etc as givenin PPR 137 All the 4t Z candidates who obtain aininimum 31 marks 2 or more would be deemed to be fit for C Cr selectionofBl seats against3Io quotaon the 06 basisof interse seniority of the candidatesand m r for all such candidates intese senioritv would W2 Z be the sole criteria for deputingon their turn CL under 35Io quotain view of the explicitorder of HighCourt Please take further necessary 1 2 action 19 The validityof these instructions has been upheldby this C Court in Hawa Singh Vs State ofHaryana and others 0CWPNo1 194 of20051decided on 14052008 There are three sets of writ petitionsunder consideration The same are broadly categorisedin the following mannerl a9 the eligibilityofthe candidateswho appearedin55Io merit Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 11 64 1 0 1 r0 CWPN029140f2010 promotion quotaunder Rule 137 96i9to be consideredfor promotion under35Io on basis underrule 137 6iileven if theyhavefailed under55Ioquota b9 considerationof the candidateswith lessthan 35 years of age as on Ist dayof Januaryof the vear Ill which selection is made in 3510 mm C quotaof 0 C intelreseseniorityof the candidates on the basis of bench marks C I ln ternlsof DGPs instructionsdated 13022007 C5 I From the readingofRule 1377611it emerges as follows Z a that 55Io of the seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course are nleant to be filled ln on the basis of C examlnatlOll 08 b1 35Io ofthe seats on thebasisofseniorityirltness and CQ Cr 6c1 10Io seats on the basis of consistent 111 SV Z etc Clm Selection against55Io quota lS to be made by the Promotional Committee All the constables irrespective 7 oftheir educational who are less than 35 years of age and have completed5 years ofservice on Ist dayofJanuaryofthe year of C selection are eligibleto appear for B test under merit seats of 55Io quota Similarly all the constables irrespectiveof their educational havingcompletedfive years ofservice and ln the age of 40 years on the Ist day of Januaryof the year of selection Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 rr CWPN029140f2010 are eligibleto be brought Orl list B1 on the basis of seniorityln merit against35Io quota Sportspersons under 10Io quota are to be considered subjectto eligibility ln the above two categories C The controversyrelating to the eligibiIityof the candidates 0 who failed to secure the requisite merlt lIl the examination C I under 55Io quota to be againconsidered under 35Io senioritvcun 0 el X lnerit quota cameto be consideredby a Division Bench of this Court 2 lll Naresh Kumars case This Division Bench judgment Iellas t before the Honble Supreme Court l rl SpecialLeave to C2 Appeal6CivilNo10409 of2005 which has been dismissedin Iimine I Olj on 10052005 m A similar issuecame up for consideration beforethis Court ea Z lll the case of Hawa Singh Vs Stateof Haryallaand others 6CWP Ll No1194 of20059decided on 14052008 A8er admissionofthe writ petitionbytbe Honble Division Bench the lnatter was consideredbv a 19 1 learned SingleJudgeof this Court for flnal disposal 291 1 006 Oll 1 C The learned SingleJudge ofthis Court was ofthe opinionthat certain C provisionsof Rulel3 oftherules were not broughtto the notice of the Division Bencb 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 petition came to be heard by a Division Bench ofthis Court The Honble Division Bench Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 1 r CWP No 2914 of2010 10 vide its dated 14052008 affirmed the ratio 111 Naresh Kumarscase supra with the followingobservationsl In view of the facts mentioned above these Writ petltionsare allowed 111the same terms as 111 Naresh Kumars case The lr are directed to deputethe 0 to the first Lower School Course 0 I which will commence after the pronouncement C9 of judgment 111 this case However The Z shall be deemedto havequalified lll 5 m the Lower School Course from the date when 0 I other constables have qualifledwhose names 08 were approved to Lower School QO Coursevlde selectlist Annexure I1 It is made W2 Z clear that if by gettingretrospectrvedate of r passingthe Lower School Course the became eligible for promotionthen he will get only deemed benefits without gettingany actual financial benefits in view of C 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 02006910 SupremeCourt Cases 145 9 Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 b CWP No914 of2010 1 Honble the Division Bench furtherconsidered the validityof the instructionsdated 13022007 and upheldits validitywith thefollowing observations So far as CWP N03609 of 2007 is concerned 111 that writ petitionselect list preparedto undergo m r Lower School Course on the basis of iinstructions 0 dated 13022007 as referred to above has been 0 As has been held earlier above said I C5 instructions are perfectlyjustifiedand are 111 consonance with the directions issued by this Z t Court in NareshKumars case supra9 53 C The claims of some of the writ petitionerstor deputing to I Lower School Course have been rejected on the groundthat theyhaving 06 failed in 55Io merit quotaare not entitledto be considered for beingbrought 0 on List B1 ln 35Io quota The claims of some of the writ petitioners have 7 Z been rejectedfor beingbroughtin List B under 35Io quotaon theground n that theywere of less than 35 yearsofageas on Ist dayofJanuaryofthe yearof selection In some cases the claims have been rejectedfor non 1 achievingthe lnlnllnum 31 bench marksin terms ofthe DGPs instructions dated 13022007 In Naresh Kumars case supra9 the Honble Division 4e Bench ruled the eligibility ofthe constables for their consideration both in 55Io and 35Io quota This judgmenthas attained finality The SLP has also been dislnissed by the Honble Supreme Court The ratio of the said judgmenthas been reiterated in Hawa Singhs cases csupra9as also in Constable Dharmbir Vs State of Harvana and others 2009 619RSJ 3 10 whereinthe followingobservations have been lnadel Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 P b CWPNo2914of2010 12 1 13 So there are three distinct cateeories with their own qualifications and for eligibilityfor consideration There is no bar to considerationof a constable in any categoryif he fulfllls the eligibilitycriteria e ifhe is eligible111 V Q all three he has a statutorv rightto d 0 considerationin all three categoriesThe Rules C do not categorize or requiresome minimum age X CD for eligibilityunder any ofthe categoriesWhat it I specifies i s the upper age Iimit for consideratiotl Z under a particular category m C Despite these instructions certain 1SSues referred to 4r Z hereinabove have again croppedup The controversyregardingthe 08 eligibilityofcandidates under 35 years ofagefor beingbrought on List B Cl2 r for 35Io quota againcame up for considerationby another Division Bench 2 Z of this Court in Dharmbirs case 6supral and Balrai Singhand othersVs CL State ofHarvanaand others 2009 621RSJ 463 In Dharmbirs case 6supral a Division Bench ofthis Court held as underl 7 17 A conjointreadingof both the 6 subrules would show that onlythe upper age limit c has been prescribed under the nlles and no minimum age has been prescribedeither under subule 2i9 or suberule 2 ii9 which means that if a constable fulfllls the requirementQf the upper ageand the other qualiflcationsprescriloedunder the respectivecategory as per sulvrule 2 there is Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 A CWP N029140f2010 el no barto his considerationunder each of theln therebya constable who is eligibleln one under Rule 13 62 can also be consideredln the other categoryunder Rule 133 62 ii9of the PunjabPolice Rules as there is no n bifurcationbetween the rules as far as the 0 eligibility 1S concerned with regard to the 0 C minimumage as none is prescribed Z C0 18 The minimum age if prescribed by way Of 3C executive instructlollS would go againstthe Cr Z of the Constables who are otherwise interest C under the statutoryRules Rule 133 Z i confers a rightwhich a Constable attains on 08 the basis of his seniorityln the service As and CO C whenhis turn comes basedon the senioritya right m43 Z to considerationdevolves on him This righton Ll thebasis ofhis senioritycannot be cieprived on the basisof executive instructiolls This would be in to the statutoryrules and therefore C not sustainable 22 What emerges from the above discussions is that a constablewho has completed5 years of service on the Ist day of January of the year 111 whichthe selection is made is under the age of 35 vears and is eligiblefor consideration and selection for including his name in List B 1 of Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 A a CWPN02914of2010 14 selectedconstablesfor admission to Lower School Course under the 55Io quotaon the basis of merit asper Rule 137 6219ofthe PunjabPolice Rules 1934and having in the test 6Bl9 and failed or was unable to get m enlistmentdue to lower merit can also claim LY considerationand selection under the 35Io quota 0 C0 On the basis of senioritrcumneritas per Rule Z C 130 6290ii if he iS eligibleunder both the Z Z As noticed above the constableswho have attainedminimum M r 31 benchmarksunder 35Io quotahave been ignoredand their juniorswere Z deputed to the course on thegroundthat theyare more meritorioushaving 08 betterbench marks This issue is in fact covered under Naresh KumPrs m case supra and came to be clarifled in Balrai Singhs cass 6supra S Z whereinit has been held that whereIer a junior has been deputedfor 3 rlw Lower SchoolCourse ignoringthe claim ofthe seniorsmerelyon the basis ofthe higherbench marks the senior be deputed for the course and he will 17 6 be deemedto have passed the course from the date his juniorhas qualified l 4 In such situation senior will retainhis seniority 4 aV There is another aspect of the matter The DGPs instructions dated 13 022007 are only prospectivein nature Prior to these instructions no bench marks were under the statutoryrules and thus all those who acquiredeligibility prior to issuance of these instructionshave been denied the deputationto the Lower School Course for non the minimum bench marks It is seuled law thal Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 e CWPN029140f2010 15 govemmentinstructions cannot overrule the statutoryrules Thus these instructionscannot be pressed into servlce to deprive the constablesoftheir right for for not havingachievedthe minimum bench marks as under these instructions issued later Thus such of the constables who became eligiblepriorto issuanceofthese instructions and m f ignored for not achieving the minunum bench marks are to be for 0 Lower School Course and on successfulcompletion ofthe course theyare C to be treated senior than their juniorswho were earlier deputedto the C Lower School Course In other words theywill retaln their seniorityfor X Cr beingbrought on List e l that theywere deputed for the Z course Iater than their juniorsor theydid not achieve minimunl bench r marks Cr Z Similarly such of the constableswho are ignored on account O of achievingIessthan theprescribed bench inarks then tlleir JUIllOrs are OO also entitledto bedeputed to the course and on completion ofthe same will 7 Z retain 1heirseniority over theirjuniors 0m In some of the writ petitionsthe con stables have already completedthe Lower School Course but they have been denied the 7 senlOrltyover their juniorson the ground that the juniorswere either havingbetterbench marks or deputedfor the course prior in time than the ee Wnt petltloners In view of the above observations these writ petitioners shall be deemed to be earlier on accountofbeuer J bench marks or on any other ground of eligibility To sum up these petitions are disposedofwith the followingdirectionsl i9 Such of the who have failed in 550Iomerit quota Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 1 V 4 CWPN029140f2010 16 areentitledto be consideredfor beingbrought on List B under 35Ioquota on the of providedtheynave the requisite and are otherwiseeligibleunderthe rules ii9 such ofthe constableswho were lessthan 35 years of age as on the day oftheir consideration butnot more than 40 years theywill be entitledto be m on List Boy themto Lower SchoolCourse 11 C iiil the who acquiredeligibilitypriorto the DGPs instructions 0 W dated13022007willbe forthe course withoutconsideringthe C0 of ininilnum bench marks as under the government Z instructionsand theircases seniorityand other eligibilitycriteria 111 et Z under the rules will be enough for their deputation to thecourse me the who becameeligiblefor after the issuanceof iv Z theinstructionsdated 13022007 and have achievedthe minimum bench 08 to the course their juniorshave better maks be QO benchinarks W2 Z of the constableswill be detenninedon the basisof v interse seniorlty 0 Ll theirrespective districtsin the constabularyand not on the their seniorltyln basis ofpassingof the Lower School Course in all such cases who are ignored by the abovedirections However the interse seniorityof L constableswill not be by the oove directions where senior was Ga gnoredon account of of any disciplinaryproceedings or who suffered any other disqualiflcation for deputation to Lower School Course vi of the petitionersshall be inade on the basis of their senionty in theirrespectivedistricts and againstthe available vacancies Let the claim ofthepetitioners be consideredin the light ofthe above directions and their whereever required be madS in Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 rX CWPNo 2914 of2010 17 accordance with the abovedirections A copy of this order be placedon the record of eachconnected 61e e 11082010 PERMOD KOHLI9 BLS JUDGE e 0 n Whether to be referredto the YES Note 0 C0 C Arl Z er Z C e Z 06 m e Z Clw Radhika 2014.04.25 15: 50 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document