IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 1218 OF 2010 (S/S) Mahendra Singh and others. …………Petitioners. Versus State of Uttarakhand and others ………Respondents. Present: Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shailendra Nauriyal, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Dinesh Gahtori, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. The petitioners are Constables / Head Constables in Uttarakhand Civil Police. A selection procession is on for promotion of Constaables to the post of Sub Inspector (Rankers), feeding cadre of which is Constables and Head Constables in the Police Department of Uttarakhand. The Government of Uttarakhand has framed an Act known as “Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007”. Section 38 (1) of the Act empowers the State Government to constitute a Police Establishment Committee and one of the functions of this Committee is to lay procedure for selection process in the Subordinate Rankers. Section 38 of the Act reads as under:- “38. Police Establishment Committee: (1) The State Government shall, as soon as may be, constitute a Police Establishment Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) with the Director General of Police as its Chairperson and two other senior most police officers in the department, not below the rank of Inspector General of Police, as members 2 (2) Establishment Committee shall perform the following functions and duties, namely-- (a) lay procedure for the selection and promotions in the Subordinate Rankers.” 3. This Establishment Committee (from hereinafter referred to as the Committee) has presently been constitute vide Notification dated 5.8.2010, as stated by the State Counsel. Under the powers vested with this Committee, a procedure for selection to the post of Sub Inspector (Rankers) from amongst Constables and Head Constables was adopted. Para 1 (4) of this procedure shows that while making this selection, the service record of Constables and Head Constables for the last ten years will be taken into consideration and this service record must be satisfactory and there should be no adverse entry, particularly for the last five years i.e. 2005-2010. The integrity should not be withheld for last five years. In last three years, there should be no major penalty and in last one year, there should be no minor penalty. It is clearly stated that in case against any orders of punishment, appeal is pending, it will be subject to the appellate authority’s order. In case this appeal is dismissed, he will be removed from the selection process. Clause 5 further states that for the period over and above the last five years i.e. 2005-2010, for every adverse entry, ten points will be deduced, for the last three years, five points will be deducted and for the last one year, two points will be deducted, etc. 4. The principal contention of the petitioner is that there was no such condition in the earlier selection process adopted by the Police Department of the State of 3 Uttarakhand. However, since now we have a new Act where these powers have been given to a Committee, which is duly established, this argument of the counsel for the petitioner has no force. This condition has been adopted for selection process by a duly constituted committee. This Court finds nothing unreasonable in the conditions imposed by the Committee. There is no valid contention of the petitioner to challenge these conditions on the touch stone of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition has no force and is, therefore, dismissed. 5. At this stage, the counsel for the petitioners contends that the condition prescribed by the Committee states that in case of a punishment order or an adverse entry, an appeal has to be filed and the matter will be subject to the final decision of the appeal. However, since in the preceding years for an adverse entry quality points were to be deducted, the petitioners did not move an appeal against the adverse entry / order of punishment, hence, now the petitioners states that they will be debarred from the consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that this category of candidates are very limited. 6. In the interest of justice, therefore, it is directed that even though the period of statutory appeal/revison, in such matters has expired, these persons will be given liberty to move a departmental appeal/revision, as the case might be, within a period of two weeks from today. If such an appeal is filed, the matter will be decided expeditiously within three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him and it will be 4 subject to the order passed by the appellate/revisional authority. Petitioner nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7 are such candidates, who did not prefer a departmental appeal/revisions. These candidates shall be permitted to appear in the selection process and the matter will be decided in the light of above directions. The selection process for the remaining candidates shall go on. 6. Subject to above, writ petition is dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 4.1.2011 Rathour