1 88 2 CWPNo9140f2010 1 In theHighCourtofPunjab andHaryana at 1 Date ofdecisionl11082010 1 CWPN02914 of2010 1 Vs StateofHaryana andothers 2 CWP No0427 of2009 1 r KrishanKumar and othersVs StateofHaryana andothcrs 0 C 3 CWP N3329 of2010 I RaibirSinglo and othersVs State andothers C5 4 CWPNo1403 of2009 PremSingh Vs StateofHmyana andothcrs Z S5CWP No34Olof2010 C EHC Kulbir SinghandanotheiVs StateofHaryanaand otllers I 08 6 CWP N7536 of201 0 KiptanSinghVs State and others 7 A7 CWP No 7203 of2010 Z Q lOeshRajandotllersVs State and others e8 CWPN0147 of2010 EHC RamMehar and othersVs StateofHaryana andothers 8 CWP No6443 of2009 C Jai Pal andanotherVs StateofHaryana and others 10 CWPN0 6619 of2009 EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 11 CWPNo10487 of2009 HeadConstableAshok Kumar Vs StateofHaryana and others 112CWP Nol2237 of2009 e ennem J Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 0 CWP N2914 of2010 2 NarenderKumar ConstableVs State and others 13 CWP No12248 of2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs State and others 14 CWP No 12253of2009 SubhashChanderEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others n 15 CWPN16975 of2009 Q 0 KrishanKumar EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others Ca3 16 CWP No 18430of2009 C5 PannaLal EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 17 CWP No18863 of2009 Z RajKumar and anotherVs StateofHaryana andothers 18CWPN0189190f2009 I KamalParkashEHC Vs State andothers 08 19 CWP No636 of2010 LadyConstableRajbalaVs StateofHaryana and others Z 20 CWPNo775 of2010 RishiParshadand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 21 CWPNo 2875 of2010 LadyConstableSumanVs StateofHaryana and others 22 CWP No 2968of2010 Ce SadaRam EHC Vs StateofHaryana andothers 23 CWPN033380f2010 KaptainSinghand another Vs StateofHaryana and others 24 CWPN0 3367 of2010 EHCMohan Lal Vs StateofHaryana and others Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 90 0 CWPN02914of2010 3 25 CWP N03556 of2010 Hans Ram and othersVs State and others 26 CWP NoA258 of2010 Hari KrishanHC Vs FinancialCommissionercQPrincipalSecretary to GovemmentofHaryana and others 27 CWP NoA274 of2010 1 tr Amar SinghEHC Vs State and others 0 28 CWP NoA749 of2010 U I MohinderSinghEASI and anotherVs Stateof Haryana and others C5 I 29 CWP NoA765 of2010 4 Z Chhaju Ram and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others 30 CWPNoA960 of2010 r RajbirSinghand othersVs StateofHaryana and others ctj 31 CWPNoA963 of2010 SatbirSinghVs StateofHaryana andothers W3 32 CWPNo3923 of2010 Z 0m JaivirSinghandothersVs State and others 33 CWPNo6031 of2010 Hardayal HC and othersVs StateofHaryana and others C CORAM HONBLE NH7 JUSTICE PERMOD KOFILI Present Mr SK Redhu MrVikram SinghMrSN Yadav MrDinesh Malik MrPritam Saini Mrurender Lamba lvlRP SinghAdvocatesfor thepetitioners MrRS Kundu Addl AG Haryanafor the PERMOD KOHLI J Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 91 0 CWPN029140f2010 4 On the basisof common andidentical issuesboth on factsand law all thesepetitions are beingdecidedbythis common order The entire controversyrelates to the of Rule 1377ofthePunjab Police Rules 1934 as to the State and amendedvide PunjabPolice 4aryanaAmendment Rules 2001 1 hereinafterreferredto as theRulesJ This rule relatesto for t 1 0 Lower SchoolCourse and for enlisting of the eligibleofOcers in List B 0 for their The amendedrule subjectmatterof debatein the I C5 present writ petitions is hereunderl I 1 37election of candidatesfor admissionto Z courses at thePolice TrainingCollege11List C B 6inForm 1339 shall be maintainedby each of Police It shall include the C49 names of all constablesselectedfor admission W2 to the Lower School Course to be held at the Z 0m Police Training CollegeSelection to thelist B shall be made in the month of Januaryeach yearand shall be limited to the numberof seats allottedto thedistrict for theyear The number Ce of seatsin Lower School Course ln a yearshall be on the basis of existingvacancies and the vacancles likelyto be createdwithin one year in the unlt 55Io of the seats allottedto a unit in the Lower School Course shallbe filled in on the basis of a Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 92 0 CWP N2914 of2010 5 examination 35Io on the basisof cummfitness and 10Io on thebasis of consistent in Gold or Silver Medal in All India Police MeetlNational Gamesor display of Q braveryduringthe course of of 0 C offlcial duty Selectionofpersonsagainst50 seats ln listllower school on the basisof merit C5 I shall be done by a Promotion Z Committeeon thebasisof r 1 Examinationof servicesand I 06 2 A test called Bel test9 111 m Z Ilm a9Prade b9Law and policework and 3 An Interviewe 2i1 All constables of their C educational shall be eligibleto appearfor B1 test if theyare under the age of 35 years and have 5 yearsof service on 1 dayof Januaryof the year Ill which selection 1S made However if a Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 93 0 CWPNo2914 of2010 e6 constable to reservedcategory who is recruitedaRer attaining the age of 27 years as perGovernmentinstructionslorders then he shall be allowed to appear for minlmum three consecutive chances a8er m C of five yearsof serviceeven if he 0 has crossed the age of 35 years up to a C minimumof 10years C5 Z i All Constables of their educational shall be eligibleto I be broughton List B1 seniority cum merlt 08 basisifthey are underthe age of 40 years et andhave 5 yearsof serviceon the em Z tlrst dayof Januaryof the year in which selectionis made 95 TheStateofHaryanaissuedinstructionsdated 13022007 the minimum merit to fulfill the criteria for seniority cummfitnessrelying upon the observationsof this Court in the case of m NareshKumar Vs State of Harvanaand others CWP N03952 of 2004 decided on 051 12004 Director General of Police Haryana issued these instructions minimum bench marks for selectionto BI list under350Ioquota The relevant extract of the instructionsdated 13022007 AnnexureP in CWP No6427 of Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 94 0 CWPNol914of2010 7 2009 is hereunder 3 In view ofthe Honble High lIl the Naresh Kumar case supra it has been decidedto fix thebench marksfor fltnessunder 35Io quota The l assessmentof service record should be made 0 0 on the basis of education training courses passedcommendationcertificates and length C I of service etc as givenin PPR 137 All the et Z candidates who obtain a minimum 31 marks or more would be deemed to be fit for I selection ofBl seatsagainst350Ioquotaon the 08 basisof interse seniority of the candidatesand 1 for all such candidates interse seniority would Z be the sole criteria for on their turn under 35Io quotaln vlew of the expcit order of FIighCourt Please take further necessary action 99 The validityof these instructiollS hasbeenupheldbythis 4 Courtin Hawa SinghVs StateofHaryanaandothers VP No1194 of2005 decided on 14052008 Thereare three sets of writ petitions under consideration The same are broadly in thefollowing manner a theeligibilityofthe candidateswho in 55Io merit Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 95 0 CWPN02914of2010 8e ro quotaunderRule 133 0ilto beconsideredfor under350Ioon basis underrule 133 i even if theyhavefailed under55Ioquota b considerationofthe candidateswith lessthan 35 yearsofageas Oll Ist dayof Januaryof the year in which selection is madein 35Io m quotaof 0 C 9 inter of the candidates on the basis of bench marks C I 111termsof DGPs instructionsdated 1302007 C5 I From thereading ofRule 133 6l it emergesas followsl Z Oa9 that 55010of the seats allotted to a unit lll the Lower School Course are meant to be ftlled 111 on the basis of r examlnatloll 06 l9 35Ioofthe seats on thebasis and c I 10Ioseats on the basis of consistent 1I1 em Z etc tl Selection against550Ioquota 1S to be made by the PromotionalCommittee AlI the constables oftheir educational who are lessthan 35 yearsofageand have 5 yearsof service on lst dayof January of theyear of C selection are eligibleto appearfor test under merit seats of 55Io quota Similarly all the constables of their educationalqualification having flve years of serviceand 111 the age of 40 years on the lst dayof Januaryof the yearof selection Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 96 0 CWP No914 of2010 are eligibleto be brought on list Bel on the basis of senioritycun meritagainst35Ioquota Sportspersons under 10Io quotaare to be considered subjectto eligibility in the above two categones 1 The controversyrelating to theeligibility of the candidates 0 who failed to secure therequisite mentln the examination 0 under 55Io quotato be againconsidered under 350Io C5 merlt quotacameto be consideredby a Division Bench of this Court Z 111NareshKumars case This Division Bench was before the Honble Supreme Court in SpecialLeave to r AppealCivillNo0409 of2005 which hasbeen dismissedin limine I 08 on 10052005 A similar issuecame up for considerationbeforethis Court e7 Z in the case of Hawa SinghVs Stateof Haryanaand othersCWP 0m No1194 of20051 decided on 14052008 After admissionofthe writ bythe Honble Division Bench thematter was consideredbya learnedSingleJudgeof this Court for final disposal on 2911 2006 The learnedSingleJudgeof this Court was of theopinion that certain C of Rule 133 oftherules were notbroughtto the noticeof the Division Bench and on that basis a reference was made for considerationof the writ petitionand other connected matters by a Division Bench of this Court The aforesaidwrit petitioncameto be heardbya Division Bench ofthis Court The Honble Division Bench Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4 97 0 CHIPN029140f2010 0 vide its dated 14052008 affirmed the ratio in Naresh Kumars case supralwith thefollowing observations In Vlew of the facts mentionedabove these writ are allowed in the same terms as in Naresh Kumars case supra The 1 Q are directed to deputethe 0 C to the first Lower School Course I which will commence aRer the pronouncement C5 I of in this case However The Z petitioner shall be deemedto havequalified 1Il the Lower School Course from the datewhen C I otherconstables have qualiedwhose names 08 were to undergo Lower School Coursevide selectlist AnnexureP1 It is made W2 Z e clear that if by getting date of tl passingthe Lower School Course the becameeligiblefor then he will get only deemed beneflts without gettingany actualfinancial benefits in view of W principleof no work no pay as laid down by their Lordshipsof the Honble Supreme Court ln Union of India and another VS Tarsem Lal and others 2006 10 Supreme Court Cases 145 59 Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 98 0 CWP N029140f2010 11 Honble theDivision Bench furtherconsideredthe validilyof the instructionsdated13022007and upheld itsvaliditywith thefollowing observations So far as CWP N03609 of 2007 is concerned in that writ petitionselect list to Lower School Course on thebasisof instructions 0 dated 13022007 as referredto above has been C As has been held earlier above said I C5 instructions are perfectlyjustifiedand are ln I consonance with the directions issued by this Z Court in NareshKumars case 6supr The claims of some of the writ for to I Lower SchoolCourse have been on theground that theyhaving 08 failed in 550Iomeritquotaare not entitledto beconsideredfor beingbrought on List B1 in 35Io quota The claims ofsome ofthe writ have 7 Z beenrejectedfor beingbrought in List B1 under35Ioquotaon theground that theywere of lessthan 35 yearsof age as on Ist dayof Januaryof the yearof selection In some case the claimshave been jectedfor non achievingthe minimum 31 bench marksin terms ofthe DGPs instructions dated 13022007 In Naresh Kumars case Honble Division eeed Bench ruledtheeligibilityofthe constablesfor theirconsiderationbothin 55Ioand 35Io quota This has attainedfinality The SLP has also been dismissed bytheHonble Supreme Coun The ratio of the said has been reiteratedin Hawa Singhscases as also ln ConstableDharmbirVs Stateof Haryanaand others 2009 619RSJ 310 whereinthefollowingobservationshavebeenmadel Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 99 CWPN029140f2010 2 13 So thereare three distinct with their own and for eligibilityfor consideration There is no bar to considerationof a constablein any if he fulfills the eligibility cnteria if he is eligible in 1Ir all three he has a statutoryrightto 0 consideration in all three The Rules 0 do not categorize or requiresome minlmum age C5 for eligibility under any ofthe What it specifies is the upper agelimit for consideration Z under a particular category r Despitethese instructions certain issues referred to hereinabove have againcroppedUP The controversyregardingthe 08 eligibility ofcandidates under35 yearsofagefor beingbrought on List B for 35Ioquotaagaincame up for considerationbyanotherDivision Bench J Z ofthis Court in Dharmbirs case ipra9and BalraiSinghand othersVs m StateofHarvanaand others 2009 62IRSJ 463 In Dharmbirs case supral a DivisionBench ofthis Courtheld as underl 17 A conjointreadingofboth the subwruleswouldshowthatonlytheupper agelimit Cne has been under the rules and no minimum age has been either under subrule 2 09or submrule26ii9 which meansthat ifa constablefulfllls the ofthe upper ageand the other under the categoryas per subrule 2 there 1S Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 400 0 eJ CWP Nol914 of2010 3 no bar to his conslderationunder each of them Meaningtherebya constable who is eligible111 one underRule 133 6216Ocan also be consideredin the other categoryunderRule 133 21 ii of the PunjabPolice Rules as thereis no bifiircation between the rules as far as the r 0 eligibility 1S concerned with regardto the C minimum ageas none is 0 18 The minimum age if by wayof executlve instructions would go againstthe Z interest of the Constables who are otherwise 0 eligible underthestatutoryRules Rule 133 029 I io confers a rightwhich a Constableattainson oll thebasisof his seniorityin the service As and whenhis turn comes based on the seniority a right 7 Z to considerationdevolves on him This rightOll tl thebasis of his seniority cannot be on the basisof executiveinstructions This would be in contraventlon to thestatutoryrules and therefore C not sustainable 22 What emergesfrom the above discussionsis that a constablewho has 5 years of servlce on the Ist dayof Jariuaryof the year lIl whichthe selection is made is under the ageof35 yearsand is eligible for consideration and selectionfor includinghis name in List B of Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 401 0 CWP N02914 of2010 4 0 selectedconstablesfor admission to Lower School Courseunderthe 55Io quotaon the basisof merit as per Rule 133 6210 ofthe Punjab Police Rules 1934 and having in the test 3el and failed or was unable to get 1 enlistmentdue to lower merit can also claim 0 considerationand selectionunderthe 35Io quota 0 0 Oll the basis of as per Rule I 9 133 2 6iil if he is eligibleunder both the categones 33 Z As noticedabove the constableswho have attainedminimum 1 r 31 benchmarksunder35Io quotahave been ignored andtheirjuniors were to the course on the ground thattheyare more meritorious having 05 betterbenchmarks This issue is in fact coveredunderNaresh Kumars case supra9and came to be clarified in Balrai Singhscass supra wa Z wherein it has been held that whereever a junior has been for tl Lower SchoolCourse ignoring the claim ofthe seniorsmerely on the basis ofthe higherbenchmarkstheSmlOr be for the course andhe will bedeemedto have passedthecourse from the datehisjuniorhasqualified In such situation senior will retain his seniority e Thereis anotheraspectof thematter The DGPs instructions dated13022007are only in nature Prior to theseinstructions no bench markswere prescribed under the statutoryrules and thus aJl those constables who eligibilityprior to issuance of these instructions havebeen denied the to the Lower School Course for non achievingthe minimumbench marks It is settled law that Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 402 0 CWPN29140f2010 45 instructionscannot ovemlIe the statutoryrules Thus these instructionscannot be pressed into serviceto deprive the constablesoftheir rightfor for nothaving achievedthe minimumbenchmarksas under these instructtons issued Iater Thus such of the constableswhobecameeligiblepriorto issuanceofthese instructions and m 0 ignored for not theminimum bench marks are to be for 0 Lower SchoolCourse and on successful ofthe course theyare 0 to be treatedsenior than their juniorswho were earlierdeputed to the I C5 Lower SchoolCourse In other words theywill retain their seniority for I beingbrought on List B1 that theywere for the Z course laterthan their juniors or theydid not achieveminimumbench 0 marks I Similarlysuch ofthe constableswho are ignored on account 08 of achievingless than the bench marksthentheirjuniorsare alsoentitledto bedeputed to the course and on ofthe same will 7 Z retaintheir seniority over tl In some of the writ petitionstheeconstableshave already the Lower School Course but theyhave been denied the senlorityover their juniorson the groundthat the juniors were either having betterbench marks or for the course prior in timethan the C writ petitioners In view of the above observations thesewrit shall bedeemedto be seniorto theirjuniorsdeputed earlier on account of better bench marks or on any other groundof eligibilityTo sum up these petitions are ofwith thefollowingdirections i9 Such ofthe who have failed in 550Iomerit quota Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 403 CWP N02914 of2010 16 areentitledto beconsideredfor beingbrought on List B1 under35Io quota on the principleof providedtheyhavethe and are otherwiseeligibleunderthe rules ii suchofthe constableswho were Iessthan35 yearsofageas on theday oftheir considerationbut not more than40 years theywilI beentitledto be m brought on List B1 by themto Lower SchoolCourse 9 0 iii the who eligibilitypriorto the DGPs instructlons C dated13022007 will be for the course without the C5 of minimumbenchmarksas prescribedunder the govemment I instructions and in their cases seniorityand other eligibilitycriteria Z undertherules will beenough for their to thecourse ivl the who becameeligiblefor afterthe issuanceof I the instructionsdated 13022007 and have achieved the minimumbench 08 marks be deputedto thecourse their juniorshave beuer bench marks m2 Z V inter seniority ofthe constableswill be detennined on the basisof theirseniority in their districtsin the andnot on the basis of passing of the Lower School Coursein all such cases who are ignored by the above directions However the intereseseniorityof constableswill not be governedbythe above diorectionswheresenlor was r rgnored on account of of any or who sufferedany other for to Lower School Course vil of the petitioners shall be made on the basis of their seniority in their respective districts andagainst the availablevacancies Let the claim ofthe petitioners be considered in thelightofthe above directions and their whereever requiredbe made in Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 404 1V 06e CWP No914 of2010 17 accordance withtheabovedirections A copyoftbis orderbeplaced on tberecordofeach conn flIe 4mpe PeWe 112010 PERMOD KI9 BLS JUDGE o AwV8 C Notel Whetlherto berefi3nedto theReporte YES 44 X C5 t 3 4 Z Oll 4t vm11 2 tle Anita 2014.04.29 12: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document