76 9 4 1 eV 4 CWP Nol914 of2010 1 ln theIlighCourt ofPunjab and at Daleofdecisionll082010 1 CWP N0 2914 012010 Vs Statc andothers 9 CWP No 6427 of2009 0 Krishan Kumar and olhers Vs State and ollllrS 0 0 3 CWl No3329 012010 X RajbirSinghaIodothersVs Stateofllwyanand C5 othcrs 4 C01 403 012009 Z Prcln Siilgh Vs Statcof l laryiinaancl01110 r7 v2 5 CWP N403401 nf2010 r liIIC Kulbir Singhand anolherVs State aild otllcrs I olj 6 CWPN053602010 OO KtiptanSinghV StatcoflIaryanaand others C 7 Z 7 CWP No 7203 of2010 CL Desh Raianclolhcrs Vs State and olllers 8 CWP No 8147 of2010 EHC Ram Mehar and othersVs State wld otllcrs 9 CWP No6443 of2009 C Jai Pal and another Vs Stote ofllaryanaand otllors 10 CWPN0 6619 0f2009 Satyawan EliC ls State ofllaryanaand others 11 CWP No 10487 of2009 llcad Constable Ashok Kumar Vs State ofHaryanaand olhcrs 12 CWP No 12237 of2002 Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 J CWPN029140f2010 NarenderKulnar ConstableVs Stateof Harvanaandothers 13 CWP N0122480f2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs StateofHaryana andothers 14 CWP No12253 of2009 SubhashChanclerEHC Vs StateofHyana and others m 15 CWPNo6975 of2009 C 0 KrishanKumar EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others C3 16CWPN0184300f2009 0 PannaLal EHC Vs State and others I 17 CWP No8863 of2009 4p Z RajKumar and anothcrVs Stateof Haryaila alld otheis 0 18CWPNo18919012009 I KalnalParkashEHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others 08 19 CWP No636 of2010 CO et LadyConstableRajbalaVs StateofHaryana anclothers mwo Z 20 CWPN02775 of2010 Clm Rishi ParshadandothersVs StateofHaryana and others 21 CWP No 2875 of2010 LadyConstable SumanVs State anclothers 22 CWPN029680f2010 Ga SadaRam EHC Vs State ofHaryanaand others 23CWPN033380f2010 KaptainSinghand another VstateofHaryanaand others 24 CWP N03367of2010 EHC Mohan Lal Vs StatcofHaryanaand others Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 C1 4 en CWP No2914 of2010 25 CWPN035560f2010 HansRanl andothersVs StateofHalyanaand others 26 CWP N4258 of2010 Hari Krishan llC Vs FinancialColninissioner cQPrincipalSecretary to GovernmentofHalyana and othcrs 27CWP N042740f2010 m 2 Amar SinghEHC Vs StatcofHaryana and others 0 28 CWP NoA749 of2010 C3 Mohinder SinghEAS1 anclanotherVs StatcofHaryana and otllers C5 1I 29 CWP N4765 of2010 ChhajuRain and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others Z a 30 CWP NoA960 of2010 Cr RajbirSinghand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 2C 08 31 CWP No 4963 of2010 SatbirSinghVs and 001ers C W2 32 CWPNo3923 of2010 Z LL JaivirSinghand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 33 CWP No 6031of2010 Hardayal IeICand othersVs StateofHaryana and otllcrs C4 CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTlCE PERMOD KOHLI Preser Mr SK Redhu MrVikrain SinghMrSV Yadav MrlOinesh Malik MrOritam Saini Mrurender lamba MrRP SinghAdvocatesfor the petitioners MrS Kundu Addl AG Haryanaforthe respondcnts PERMOD KOHLI J Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 79 1 J CWPN029140f2010 On thebasisof COlnlllOtl and idenlical1SSues both on factsand Iaw all theseloetitions are beingdecidedbythiscomnoon order The entirecontroversyrelatesto lhe of Rulc 133 ofthe PunjabPolice Rules 1934 as to theStaleofHaryaila and amended vide Punjab Police Rules 2001 m C hereinafterreferredto as the Rules This rulc relatesto 171r 0 Lower SchoolCourseaild for enlisting of the eligibleofflcers in List 1 0 for their proinotion The alnendednlle subjectmalter of debatein llle X 9 presentwrit petitionsis hereunder X r 137election of candidatesfor aclmisslollIo Z courses at the Police TrainingC0llegc6l1List I3 6inForm 1379shall be maintaitledby each r of Policc It shall include llle 08 10 names of all constabiesselected for adinissloil V Z to tlle Lower School Course to be hcld at the 25 Ll Police TrainingCollegeSelectoioil10thc Iist B sllall be made 111 the month of Januarv each e1 1 ycarand shall be liinited to the nuinber of seats allottedto the district for the year 111enumber C of seats in Lower School Course in a year shall bc on the basis of existingvacancies and the vacanctes likely to be created within one year in the respectiveunit 550Io of the seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course sllall bc filled in on the basis of a coinpetitive b Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 eJ CWPNo9140f2010 5 exaininatlOil 35 on the basisof cum4itnessancl l 0Io on the basisof cOnsistent in Gold or Silver Medal in All IndiaPolicc MeellNationalGamesor dispiayof 1 l braveryduringthe course of of 0 C3 offlcial duty Selectionof personsagalilst50 I C5 scatS 111Iistllowerschool Oll the basisof merit C shall be done by a Promotioll c Z Committee on the basisofl r Lr Ct 1 Examinationofservices and t 08 2 A test Ihereinafter called 3ml CO Cr meo testl1111 Z Q a9Prade b Law andpracticaipolicework and 3 An Interview C 2 il Ail constables irrespectiveof their cducationalqualificatioilSshall bc eIigible10 appearfor Bl test if they are under the age of 35 years and have completed 5 ycars of service on 1 day of Januaryof the year 111 which selection is made However if a Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 0 J CWP No914 of2010 6 Collstablebelongi ng to reservcd catcgory who is recruitedaller the ageof 27 years as per Governlnent instructionslordcrs then he shall be allowed 10 appear for llllllollnuln three consecutive chances after CL offlve yearsof servicc cven i f he 0 has crossed tlle age of 35 years up to a 0 of 10years 45 I 4 Z iil All Constables of their m cducational shall bc eligible10 Q I be broughtOll List 131 seniority cum nlerIt Ct5 basis ifthey are under the agc of 40 vears CO Ct and have 5 years01 serviceon the eeo Z firsl day of Januaryof thc ycar in which tl selectionis made 99 The Stateof Haryanaissuedinstructoionsdalcd 13022007 the illilltlllulll nlerit to fulfill tlle criteriii for senioritye cumefltnessorclyingupon the observations of this Coun in the case of C NareshKumar Vs State of Harvana and others CWP No952 Of 20041decided on 051 1 004 Directot Gcneral of Police Haryana issued these instructions prescribingminimum bench marks fO to B4 Iist under 35Io quota Thc relcvant extract of the instructionsdated 13022007 AnnexureP71 iil CWP No6427 01 Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 J CWP N02914 of2010 2009 is hereunderl 3 In view ofthe Honble HighCourt lll the Naresh Kumar case supral it has becn decidedto flx the bench marksfor tness under 35Io qliota The 1 C assessnlent of service record should be made 0 Cm0 Oll the basis of7 education tranmg courses lr passedcommendationcertificalesand Iength CA9 of service etc as givenin PPR 13 All the 4t Z candidateswho obtaill a IlllllllllUln 31 marks r2 C or more would be deemed to be flt for c I selection of B seals against35Voquotaon the 08 basis of interse seniority of the candidatcsand Ctl for all sucll calldidates intermsescnioritv would Z be the sole criteria for deputingClll their turil Ll under35Io quota111Vlew of the explicitorder of HighCourt Please take furthei necessary 17 actlon 93 The ValiditYOf these instructoionshas been upheldloythis e Court in Hawa Singh Vs State ofHarvana and othcrs WP No1194 of20051decided on 14052008 There are threc sets of writ petitionsunder coilsideration The sanle are broadlycatcgorisedin the followingmanncrl a9 the eligibilityofthe candidateswho appearedin 55010tnerit Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 83 4d CWPNo29140f2010 m8 quotaunderRule 133 621il to be consideredfor under35Ioon basis underrule 13 621iJeven if theyhavefailedunder55Ioquota b1 considerationof the candoidateswith lessthan 35 yearsof age aS on lst dayof Januaolof the year in which selection is inade in 35 V0 1 0 quotaof 0 C lntermsesenorily of the candidates on the basis of bencll marks 0 I lll ternlsof DGPs iilslructiolls dated 13022007 C5 I Fromthe reading ofRule l 3ll it elnergesas followsl 4r Z a1 that 55Io of the seats allottedo a unit 111the Lower School 5 Course are nleant to be filled 111 Oll the basis of C et examlnElllOll I 08 6b 35Io ofthe seats on the basis and co 6c1 10Ioseats on the basisofconsistent lll 3 Z etc CL Selection against55Io quota lS to be made by the PromotoionalCommittee All the constables irrespective e oftheir educational who are less thal135 years ofage and have 5 years of service on Ist dayof Januaryof the year of Cd selection are eligible to appear for Bl test under meril seats of 55Io quota Simi Iarly all the constables irrespectiveof their educational havingcompleted flve years of service and 111 the age of 40 years On the Ist dayof January of the year of selection Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 84 U CWPN02914 of2010 are ellgibleto be broughl on list B1 on tlle basis of mctritagainst35Ioquota SportspersOllS Under l OIo quotaarc to be considered subjectto eligibility 111 the above 1wo categones a C The controversyrelating 10 the eligibilityofthe candidates 0 who failed to secure the requisite merit in the examlnatiOll 0 I under 55Io quola to be againconsidered under 350Ioseniorvcunle 0 I merit quotacaine to be consideredbya DivoisionBench of thls Court Ct Z IIl Naresh Kumars case 6supralThis Division Bench judginent WEIS tt before tlle Honble Suprenle Court i n Speci a l Leave to C Cr AppealCivillNoe10409of2005 which has been dismissedin limine 08 on 10052005 Aimilar issuecame up for considerationbelore this Courto 7 Z 111 the case of Hawa Singh Vs Stateof Harvanaand others NP Ll No 194 of20059decided on 14052008 After admissiolIofthe writ petitionbythe Honble Division Bench the matter was consideredbya 1 IearnedSingleJudgeof this Court for final disposalon 29 12006 The learned SingleJudge ofthis Court was ofthe opinionthat certalil 0 prOV1Stons of Ru1c 133 ofthe rules were not broughtto the notice of the Division Bench alld Oll that basis a reference was made for consideration of the writ petitionand other connected matters by a Division Bencll of this Court The aforesaid writ petitiollcanle to be heard by a Divisioon 13enchofthis Court The I40nble IOivision Bench Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 85 41 CWP N02914 012010 vide its dated 14052008 afOrlnedthe rato in Naresh Kumars case supralwith thefollowing observatioilsl Iil view of the facts mentioncdabove these writ petitionsare allowed 111the saine tertns as Ill Naresh Kumars case supra9 The m l are direcled to the 0 petitionersl to the first Lower School Course C3 I whicll will colllmellce after the proiloullcement 5 I of in this case IIowever The Z shall bedeemedto have qualifled 111 rV the Lower School Course from tlle date whcn C c I other constables have qualied whose nanlcs Olj were approvedto undergo Lower School cio Coursevide selectIist Annexure PI It is nlade m Z clear that if by getting ve date of CL passingthe Lower School ourse the petitioner became eligiblefor promotiolltllen he will get only deemed beneilts withoul gettingany actual financial benefilos in view of C principleof no work no pay as Iaiddown by their Lordshipsof the Honble SupremeCourt in Union of India and another vs Tarsem Lal and others 2006910 SupremeCourl Cases 1450 97 Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 86 1 1 1 aJ CWPN029140f2010 Honble the Division Bench furtherconsideredthe validityof the instructionsdated 13 22007 and upheldits validitywith tllc following observalionSl So far as CWP N03609 of 2007is concerned lll that writ petitionselect Iist prepared to 1 Q Lower SchoolCourse otl the basis of illlSlrUClilOllS 0 dated 1322007 as referredto above has becn Ca As has beenheld earlier abovesaid 45 lllstructions are perfectlyjusti ed and are Ill r consonance with the directions issued by this Z Court in Naresh Kumarscase 6supra 99 C The claims of some of the writ petitionersfor to e I Lower SchoolCourse have been rejected Oll thegroulldthat theyhavitlg 08 CQ ofailedin 55Io merit quotaare not entitledto bc considcredfor beingbrought on List B1 in 350Ioquota The claimsofsotneoftlle writ pctitionershave m2 Z been for beingbrought in List B I under 35Ioquotaon theground Clm thatthey Were of Iessthan 35 years ofageas on Ist dayof Januaryof the yearof selection ln sonle cases the claims have been rcjectedfor non 1 achievingthe lninllnum 31 Ioenchnlarksin terms of thc DGPs IllSlructions dated 130 2007 In Naresh Kumars casc 6supralthe Honble IOivision Ge Bench ruled the eligibilityofthe constables for their conslderatlon both ln 55Io and 35Io quota This judgmenthas auained OnaIity 111eSLP has also been dismissed by the Honble SupremeCourL The ratio of the said judgmenthas been reiterated ln Hawa Singhs cases 6supralas also in Constable Dharmbir Vs Stateof Haryana md others 2009 1 RSJ 310 whereiln the followingobscorvationshave been Inadel Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 87 e CWP No2914 of2010 13 So thereare three distinct wilh their own qualifications and fOr eligibilityfor consideration There is no bar to considerationof a constable in any categoryif he fulfllls theeligibility Criteria 1 C if he is elgiblelll all three he has a statutoryright10 0 0 consideration lll all tloreecategoriesThe Rules 0 do not or require some rninllnuln age 0 foreligibility under any ofthe Whatil C 4P4 speci fies is the upjoeorageIimit for consideration Z C undera particular category Cr Despitethese lnstructions certalll issues referred to C X hereinabove have againcroppedUjoeThe controversyregardingthe 08 eligibility ofcandWates under 35 yearsoflagefor beingbrought 011 List I3 1 CQ r for 35Io quota agaill came up for considerationby anotherDivision Bench 7 Z 25 of this Court in Dharinbirscase 6supral and Balrai Singhand others Vs C State ofHiIryanaand others 2009 29RSJ 463 In Dharmbirs case 6supral a Division Bench ofthis Court held as underl 7 17 A conjointreadingofbotll the subrules would show that onlythe upper age limit en has been prescribed under the rules and 110 Illinilnum age has been prescribecleither under submrule26i9 or submrule2 iio which means that if a constable fulfills the requirementof the uploer ageand the other qualiflcationsprescribedunder the respectivecategory as per subule 2 there tS Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 88 4 CWP No914 of2010 no bar to his considerationunder each of theln thereby a constablewbo is cligiblcIll one underRule 13 21 can also be consideredin the other categoryunderRule 133 21 iil of lohePunjabPolice Rules as there IS 110 1 bifurcation between the rules ll S far as the C 0 eligibility iS concerned with regardto the CO miniinum age as none is 1 5 18 The ininiinum age if prescribedby way of X executive instructlonS would go againstthc Z r lnterest of the Constables who are otherurise eligibleunderthe statutory Rules Rule 137 121 4 I io confers a rightwhich a Constable attains on 08 thebasisof his seniorityin the service As and Cll 4 whenhis turn conles basedon theseniority a right a Z to considerationdevolves on him This righton LL the basisofhis senioritycannot be deprived on the basisof executive instructions This would be in contravention to thestatutoryrules andtherefore C not sustainablce 22 What emerges from the above discussions is that a constable who has colnpleted5 years of service on the Ist day of Januaryof the year Ill whichthc selection is inade is under the age of 35 yearsand is eligible for consideration and selectlonfor including his name in Lisl l 01 Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 J CWPN029140f2010 selectedconstablesfor adinlssionto lower School Course under the 55Io quotaon the basisof tneril as per Rule 137 211iIofthe Punjab Police Rules 1934and having in lhe test 6Ba1 and fai Icd or was unable to get m enlistmentduc to Iower merlt can also claim C consideration and selection under the 35Io quota 0 Ca on the basis of as perRulc I C 17 6216iil if he IS eligibleunder both thc Ct Z As noticed above the constableswho have attained ITllnltnum 2 0 3 1 bench marksunder 35Io quotahave becn ignoredand theirjuniors were Ct 0C deputed to the course on the groundthattheyare inore merltorious having c6 betterbench nlarks This issue is in fact covered under Naresh Kulnars CLl 4C case supraland came to be clariflcd 111 Balrai Singhs cass 6supra em Z wherein it has becn held that whereeevcr a juor has been deputedfor ne Lower SchoolCourse ignoringthe claiIn ofthe seniorsinerelyOll the basis ofthe higherbench marks the senlOr be dcputed for the course and he will P 7 be deemedto ha1repassedthe course from the date his juniorhasqualiSed 4 In such situation scnior will retaoinhis scniority eW There is another aspect of thc matter The DGPs instructions dated 13022007 are onlyprospective in nature Prior to these instructions no bench marks were under tlle statutoryrules and thus all those constablcs who acquired eligibility prior to issuance of these instructions havc been denied the deputationto the Lower School Course for non achicving the minimuin bench lnarks It is settled Iaw thal Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 90 1 1 CWPN02914 of2010 illslructiollscannot overrulethe statutoryrules 1llus tllese cannot be into service10deprive the constablesofthelr rightfor for not havingachievcd the ininimumbench marksas under lhese instructionsissued 1ater Thus such of thc constableswho became eligible priorto issuanceoftheseinstructionsalld 1 for not theminilnumbenchmarksare to be for Ct SchoolCourse and on successful of the course they Lower arc 0 C to be treated senior thantheir juniorswho were earlier to the I 0 Lower SchoolCourse In other words theywill retain their seniorityfor I beingbrought on Iist B that theywcre for the 4 Z courselater than their iuniorsor theydid not achicve ininiinum bench cr C marks c 212 such ofthc constableswho arc ignored on account 08 of achievingIess than the bench marks then their juniorsare 4r alsoentitledto be to thecoursc and on 01thesaine will 7 Z rctaintheir seniority over theirjuniors f ln some of the writ petitionsthe constables have already the Lower School Course but theyhave been denied the 1 7 senlOrltyover their juniorson the ground that the juniorswere eithcr having betterbench marks or deputedfor the course prior in tiinc than the Cr writ petitioners Jnview of the above observations these writ petitionersshall bedeemed to be senior to their juniorsdeputedcarlier on account of better bench marks or Oll anyothcr groundof eligibility To sum up thesc petitions are disposedofwith the following directionsla i9 Such ofthe who have failed in 550Iomerit quota Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 91 Il 91 CWPN029140f2010 areentitledto be consideredforbeingbrought on List Bml under35Io quota Oll theprinciple of providedtheyhavc the requisite andare otherwiseeliglble undertherules ii such ofthe coonstableswho were lessthan 35 yearsofageas on thc day oftheirconsiderationbut not more than 40 years theywill be entitledto be a on List B1 by themto Lower SchoolCourse C 9 iiil the who eligibility priorto the DGPs instructions 0 C dated13022 007 will be for the course without consideringthe C0 of minimuin bench inarks os under the government instructionsand their cases seniorityand othcr eligibilitycriterIa 111 Z underthe rules will beenough for their to the course C ivl the who becameeligiblcIbr aRerthe issuanceof 14 the instructionsdated 132007 and have achievedthe lninimum bench a5 lnarks be to the course theirjuniorshave better oo benchmarks 7 Z of the constableswill be deterininedon the basisof V1 intermse Qa theirseniority in their respective districts in the and 1101 on lllel basis of of the Lower School Course in all such cases who are 1 by the above directions I Iowever the interse seniorityof 6 will not be governed by lhe above directions where senior was 1 of any disciplinaryproceedings Or WllO ignoredon account of sufferedany other disqualification for deputation to Lower SchooJ Course Vll of the shall be made on the basis of thcir in their respective districts and againstthe available vacanclese Lettloe claim ofthe petitioners be considercd in the light ofthe abovedirections and their whcreever required be made in Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 92 CWP No914 of2010 accordancewiththe abovedirections A copy ofthis order be placed on therecord ofeach connected 8le r I l m 4 ll082010 PERMOD KOHLlI BLS JUDGE a 0 e 0 Notel Whetherto be refened to the YES C C C40 J I Cr 1 1 s C e I 05 QO ea Z Ll Uma 2014.04.09 13: 21 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document