CWP NO. 6617 OF 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CWP NO. 6617 OF 2010 DECIDED ON- 31.01.2011 ASI Naresh Kumar and others ……PETITIONERS Versus State of Haryana and others ……RESPONDENTS Coram HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present: Mr.S.N.Yadav, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sunil Nehra, Sr. DAG, Haryana. MAHESH GROVER, J(Oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioners with a prayer that Annexures P4 to P7 be set aside as it contemplates their reversion on the ground that their name had been inadvertently included in the promotion list (B1). The reason for the respondents to take recourse to such a decision is the instructions issued by them and attached to the petition as Annexure P3. On the basis of these instructions, it has been contemplated by the respondents that the candidates who are below 35 years can compete against 55% seats only and the candidates who are below 40 years and above 35 years are exempted for B1 test but they will be considered on the basis of seniority cum merit against 35%. It was further stipulated in these instructions that as per the provisions of the rules, the candidates who have crossed 35 years of age will be dis-entitled to apply against 55% seats and can only apply against 35% seats on the basis of seniority cum merit and further that candidates of category one cannot claim benefit of category two and vice versa. These instructions which were supposed to be clarificatory in nature were tested before a Division Bench CWP NO. 6617 OF 2010 2 of this Court who observed that they are contrary to the provisions of rules and were thus struck down. SLP against said judgment has also been dismissed. The petitioners who had completed B1 course and earned subsequent promotion as Head Constable and Asstt. Sub Inspector is now being confronted with the instructions to show that his case has been inadvertently included in the B1 list. Since these very instructions have already been quashed, I am of the opinion that any action that be contemplated on the basis of such instructions is unsustainable in the eyes of law. Having regard to the aforesaid, the impugned orders Annexures P4 to P7 are set aside. The respondents shall re consider the matter and pass an appropriate order in the light of observations given by this Court and also in view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Constable Dharambir v. State of Haryana and others 2009(1) RSJ 310. 31.01.2011 ( MAHESH GROVER) mamta JUDGE