Cl 57 1 h CWP No2914 of2010 Jn thcHighCourtofPunjab andHaryana at Dateofdccision 11082010 1 CWPN02914 of2010 1 Vs StatcofHaryana and others 2 CWP No 6427of2009 1 r KrishanKumar and olhers Vs State andothcrs 0 3 CWP N3329 of201 0 C0 I andothersVs State and othcrs C5 I 4 CWP No 403 of2009 Prem Singh Vs Statcof Harvanaanclothcrs Z 5 CWP Nol3401 nf2010 IitlC Kulbir Singhand anolherVs StatctJfHaryana aild otllcrs I 6 CWP No536 012010 c6 oo KaptanSinghVs Stateofllaryana and olhers Wm3 7 CWP No7203 of201 0 Z 0m lOeshRaiandothersVs Staie mldolhcrs 8CWPNo1470f2010 EHC Ratn Mehar and othersVs Stateofliaryanaand othcrs 9 CWP No6443 of2009 C Jai Pal and another Vs State ofllaryana and otllcrs 10 CWP No6619 of2009 Satyawan EJ1C Vs StateofHaryanaandothers 11 CWP No10487of2009 Head Constable Ashok Kumar Vs Stateofllaryanaand ollhcrs 12 CWP No12237 of2002 Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 58 e CWP No2914 of2010 2 NarenderKumarConstableVs StateofHarvanaandothers 13 CWP No12248 of2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs State andotllers 14CWPNo12253 of2009 SubhashChanderEHC Vs StateofHwyana andothers 1 C 15 CWP No16975 of2009 0 Krishan Kumar EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others C 16 CWP No18430 of2009 I C40 PannaLal EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others I 17 CWP No8863 of2009 Z t RajKumar and anotherVs State and others C 18 CWP No18919 of2009 I Kamal ParkashEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 08 19 CWP No636 of2010 rn LadyConstableRajbalaVs State and others em Z 3 20 CWP No 2775of2010 W Rishi Parshadand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 21 CWP N 2875 of2010 LadyConstableSuinan Vs StateofHalyanaand othcrs 22 CWPNo968of2010 e Sada Ram EHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others 23 CWP No3338 of2010 KaptainSinghand another Vs State ofHaryanaand others 24 CWP No 3367 of2010 EHC Mohan Lal Vs StateofHaryanaand others Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 44 CWP No9l4 of2010 4 25 CWP N03556 of2010 HansRam and othersVs StateofHaryana and othcrs 26CWP N042580f2010 HariKrishan IlC Vs FinancialColninissioner8LPrincipalSecretary to GovemmentofHaryana and others 27 CWP NoA274 of2010 1 0 Amar SinghEHC Vs State and others 0 28 CWP No 4749 of2010 0 MohinderSinghEASI and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others C5 Z 29 CWP NoA765 of2010 4 Chhaiu Ram andanotherVs StateofIlaryana andothers Z 30 CWP NoA960 of2010 0 e RajbirSinghand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 08 31 CWP NoA963 of2010 C SatbirSinghVs StateofHaryana andothers m7 32 CWPNo7923 of2010 Z r Jaivir Singhand othersVs StateofHaryana andothers 33 CWP No6031 of2010 1 Hardayal HC and othersVs StateofHaryana and others Cn CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Presentl Mr SJC Redhu Mrkram Singh MreSN Yadav lvDinesh Malik Mrlritam Saini MreSurender Iaamba MRP SinghAdvocatesfor the petitioners Mr7S Kundu Addl AG Haryanaforthe rcspondcnts PERMOD KOHLI J Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 1 r CWP N02914 of2010 4 On thebasisof coinmon and identicalissuesboth on lfactsand law all thesepetitions are beingdecidedbythis cominon ordcr Thc entire controversyrelates to the of Rule 137ofthe PuniabPolice Rules 1934 as to theStatcofHaryana and amendedvide PunjabPolice Hryana Rules 2001 1 hereinafterrefcrred to as theRules This rule relatcsto for L 0 Lower SchoolCourse and for enlisting of the eligibleof8cersin Iist BeI C for their promotionThe amendedrule subjectmatterof debale in the I C5 present writ petitionsis hereunderl I et 1 37mSelectionof candidatcsfor admissionto Z courses atthe Police TrainingCollcgeJ List e e C B in Form 1339shall be nlaintainedby cach 4r I of Police It sha mclude the 08 names of all constablesselected for admission er Vo to the Lower School Coursc to bc held at the Z Cle Police Training Collcge Selection to the list B shall be made in the month of Januarycach 1 yearand shall be limited to the nuinber of seats allottedto the district for tlheyear Thc number of seats in Lower School Course tn a yearshall be on the basis of existingvacancies and the vacancies likely to be created within one year in the respectiveunit 55Io of the seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course shall be fllled in on the basis of a coinpetitive Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 CWP N02914 of2010 5 examination 35Io 011 the basis of CUtnfltnessancll OOlon the basis of consislient in Goldl or Silver MedaI in All Indi9olice MeetlNational Gamesor displayof m 0 duringthe course of of 0 offlcial duty Selcctionofpersonsagainst 550Io C seats 111Iistllower school on the basis of merit C5 I shall be done by a Promotion c Z Committeeon thebasisofl m tr 1 Examinationof servicesand I 08 2 A test Ihereillaftcr callcd Bel test9 llll em Z Ll a Prade b Law aild practicalpolicework alld 3 An Interview C 2 1 All constables of their educational qualificationsshall bc eligible10 appear for Bl tcst if theyare underthe age of 35 years and have completed 5 ycars of service on 1 day of Januaryof thc year lll which selection is mode However if a Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 r 4ee 4 CUTPN029140f2010 6 constablebclongi ng to reservedcategory who 1Srecruited after the ageof 27 yearsas per Governinent instructionslorders thenhe shall be allowed to appear for mllllmum threeconsecutive chanccs aftcr 1 offive yearsofscrvicc even ifhe 0 has crossedthe age of 35 years up to a C I mllllmum of 10 years 0 I Z 6iil All Constables of their 2 educational shall be eligiblcto 0 be broughtOll List B1 scnioritycum mertt 06 basis if theyare underthe age of 40 years OO e and have 5 yearsof serviceon the m7 Z 15rstdayof Januaryof the ycar in which Clm selectionis made 99 The State of Haryanaissuedinstructionsdated 1122007 the IlllIllmum merit to fulfill the criteria for senioritve 1 cum45tnessrelyingupon the observations of this Court in the casc of C Naresh Kumar Vs State of Harvana and others CWP No7952 of 20041decided on 05 1 2004 Director General of Police Haryana issued these instructions prescribingminimum bench marks for selection to BI list under35Io quota lhc relevant extract of the instructions dated 13022007 64nnexurePm79inCWP No0427 of Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 1 1 4P CWP N02914 of2010 7 2009is hereundcrl 3 In view oftheIIonbleIligh in theNareshKumar case supralit has been decidedto fix the bench marksfor fltncss under 35Io quota The 1 assessmentof serVlCe rccord shouldbe made 0 on the basis of education trainingcourses C commendationcertiflcatesand length C5 of service etc as givenin PPR 137 All the 2 who obtain a lnlmUln 31 marks 2 or more would be dcemed tco bc fit for r selection of Bl seats against 35Io quotaon the I 08 basisof intermseseniority of the candidalesand 00 for all such candidatcs intcrusesenioritvwould me Z be the sole criteria for deputingon thcir turn tl under 350Ioquotaln view 00 the cxplicitorder of HighCourt Please take further necessary action 73 The validityof these lllStructions has been upheldbythis Court in Hawa Singh Vse StateofHarvana and othcrs Noe1 194 of20051decided on 14052008 Therearc three sets of writ petitionsunder consideration The same are broadlycategorised l the followingmannerl al the eligibilityofthecandidateswho appearedin550Inmerit Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 j CWPN029140f2010 e8 quotaundcrRule l 3 621l to bc considercdfor under35Io 011 basis underrule 137 21 il cvcn if theyhavefailedunder 55Ioquota b considerationofthe candidateswith Iessthan35 yearsof age as on Ist dayof Januaryof the year in which seleclionis madein 35010 m quotaof 0 C 1 interse of the candidateson the basis of bench marks 0 I in terms of DGPs instructionsdatcd 13022007 45 I Fromthereading ofRulc 137 ll it emcrgestis follows r Z a9 that 55Io of the seats allottedto a unit in the Lower School m Course are nleant to be lled lll on the basis of L er examinatione I 08 b9 35Io ofthe seats on the basis and CQ c l 10Ioseats on the basis of consistent 111 3 Z etc Clm Selection against55Io quota 1S to be nlade by the PromotionalCominittee All the constables oftheir educational who arc lcss than35 years ofageand havecompleted5 years of service on Ist dayof Januaryof the yearof C selection are eligibleto appear for 131 test utldcr merit seats of 55Io quota Similarly all the constables of their educational qualificationhavingcompletedfive years of service and 111 the age of 40 years Oll the Ist day of Januaryof the year of selection Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 0 e CWP N02914 of2010 8 are eligibleto be Oll list Bnl on the basisof meritagainst 35Ioquota Sportspersons under 100Ioquota are to bc considered subjectto eligibility lIl the above two categories 112 The controversyrelating to theeligibilityof thc candidates 0 whofailed to secure therequisite merit in the extImination O I under55Io quotato be againconsidered under 35Io C5 I merlt quotacaine to beconsideredby a Division 13enchof this Courl Z ln Naresh Kumars case This Division Bench udgment was before the Honble Court in SpecialLeave lo AppealCiviONo10409 of2005 which hasbeen dismissedin limine I 06 on l O052005 CtO A similar issue came up for considerationbeforcthis Courl aW Z 111 tbe case of Hawa Singh Vs Stateof Harvanaand othersCWP 0m No1194 of20059decided on 14052008 Aer admissionofthe writ petitionbythe Honble Division Bench thc ma1terwas considcredbv a 1 learnedSingleJudgeof this Court for Ontil disposalon 291 006 The learned SingleJudgeofthis Court was ofthe opinionthallcertain C provtstons of Rule 130 ofthe rules were not broughtto the notice of the Division Bench and on thato basis a reference was n1ade for consideration of the writ petitionand other connected matters by a Division Bench of this Court The aforesaid writ petitioncamc to be heardby a Division Bench ofthlis Court Thc Hotlble IOivision Bcnch Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 r 1 CWP N02914 of2010 10 vide its dated 14052008 afflrmed the ralo 111Naresh Kumarscase supral with thc following observatiollSl In view of the facts mentioncd above these writ are allowed in the same terms as ltl Naresh Kumars case 6supra The m C are directed to dcputethe 0 to the flrst Lower School Course C I which will conlmence after the 0 I of in this case H0wever The Z shall be deeined to have qualilled ln a the Lower School Course fromhc datewhen C I other constables have qualifledwhose names oll were to undergo Lower School CQ Coursevidc selectIist Annexure Iel It is made 7 Z e clear that if by getting clate of passingthe Lowcr School Coursc the becalneeligiblefor promotiollthen he will get only deemed beneOts without geltingany actual financial benefits in view of C principleof no work no pay as laiddown by their Lordshipsof thc lIonble SupremcCourt 1I1 Union of India and another vs Tarsem Lal and others 2006110 SupremeCourt Cascs 145 Il Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 CWPN0914of2010 11 Honble theDivision Bench furtherconsidercdthe validityof theinstructionsdated 13022007 anduphelditsvaliditywith lhc following observationsl So far as CWP N03609 of2007 is concemed 111 that writ petitionselect list to undergo 1 Lower SchoolCourscon thc basisof instructions r 0 dated 13022007 as referred to abovc has becn 4a0 As has been held earlicr abovesaid I C5 lnstructlOllS 8re perfectlyjustiOedand are 111 C consonance with the directions issucd by this Z 4 Court in Naresh Kumars case supral L The claims of some of the writ petitionerslor dcputing to I Lower School Course havebeen on the ground thal theyhaving c6 failed in 55Io merit quotaare not entitledto be considcredfor bcin 14r 01 r 9 r9 1 1 1 C0 C on List B1 in 35Io quota The claims of soinc ofthc writ petitioners have a Z beenrejectedfor beingbroughtin List Bl uncler350Io quotaon tlleground ll that theywere of less than 35 years of ageas on Ist dayof Januaryof the yearof selection In some cases the claims have been rciectedfor non achievingthe ininimum 31 benchmarksin terms of the DGPs instructiollS dated 130 2 2007 In Naresh Kumars case 6suprallhc Honbie Division 4eW4 Bench ruled the eligibilityofthe constables for their considcration both in 550Ioand 35Io quota This judgmenthas auained finality The SLP hus also been dismissed by the Honble SupremeCourt The ratio of the said judgmenthas been reiterated in Hawa Singhscases SUpra as also in Constable Dharmbir Vs State of Haryana and others 2009 19RSJ 310 whereinthe followingobservationshave been madel Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 d CWPN029140f2010 12 13 So thereare threedistinct with their own and fol eligibilityfor consideration Therc is no bar to consideratlonof a constablein any if he fulfills theeligibility cnterla ifhe is cligible lll m r all three he has a statutoryrightto 0 considerationin all thrce categoricsThe Rules C do not categorize or requiresonle lninllnum age C5 for eligibilityunder any of tlle Whatit I specifles is the upperage liinit for consideration Z under a categolYe 2 t Despitethese instructions certain issues referred to hereinabove have againcroppedup The controversyregardingthe 5 eligibility of candidatesunder35 yearsof agefor beingbrought on List B 00 for 35Io quota againcameup for considerationbyanotherIOivisionBench emwo Z ofthis Court in Dharmbirs case and BalraiSinh and othersVs Llm State ofHyana and others2009 429RSJ 463 In Dharmbirscase supral a Division Bench ofthis Court held as underl 7 17 A conjointreadingof boOlthe subvruleswould show that onlythe upper ageliinit 4 has been prescribed under the rules and no rninimum age has been prcscribedeither undcr submrule20i9 or suberule 2ii which means that if a constable fulfills the requirement of tlle upper ageand the other qualitlcationsprescribedunder the category as per suberulc2 there is Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 l CWPNo9140f2010 3 110 bar to his considerationunder each of them Meaningthereby a conslable who is eligibleIll onc under Rule 137 21 can also be consideredin the othercategoryunderRule 137 2 iil of the PunjabPolice Rules as there lS 110 1 bifurcation between thc rulcs as far as the 0 eligibilitylS concerned with regardto the 3 minimum ageas none is C3 18 The miniinum age if prescribedby way of I executlve instructions would go againstthc Z lnterest of the Constables who are otherwisc L eligibleunder the statutoryRulcs Ru1e 1377 I Oiilconfers a rightwhich a Constablc attalllS Oll 08 the basis of his seniorityin the service As and whenhis turn conoes bascd on thc seniority a right W2 Z to considerationdevolveson him This rightOll tl thebasisofhis seniority cannot be dcprivedOlllhe basis of executivc instructions lllis would be Ill contraventionto the statutoryrules and therefore C not sustainable 22 What emerges from the above discussions 1S that a constable who has completed 5 yeurs of service on the Ist day of Januaryof the year 111 which the selection is made is under the age of35 years and is cligible for consideration and selection for includinghis name in List B1 01 Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 CWP N02914 of2010 1 selected constablesfor admissionto Lower School Courseunderthe55Ioquotaon thebasisof inerit as per Rule 137 21Olofthe Punjab Police Rules 1934andhaving in Olc test OB and failed or was unable to get m enlistmentdue to lower merit can also claim Ct considerationand selection under the 35Io q1lota 0 C0 on the basis of as per Rulc C5 133 621i9 if he is eligiblcunder both the I r Z As noticed above the constablcswho havc auained minimuln tt 31 beilchmarksunder 35Io quotahavebeen ignoredand their juniorswere I to the course on the groundthatotheyare more merItorious having a5 betterbench marks This issuc is in fact covered under Naresh Kumars case supraJand came to be claried in Balrai Singhscass 6supra meo Z wherein it has been hcld that whereaeverajunior has becn for CL Lower SchoolCourse ignoringthe claiin ofthe seniorsmerely on the basis of the higherbench marks theseniorbe for the courseand hc will be deemedto have passed the course fromthe datehis juniorhasqualiOed In such situation senior will retain his seniority 4e There is another aspect of tihernatter The DGPs instructions dated 1322007 are onlyprospective in nature Prior to these instructions no bench marks were prescribedunder the statutoryrules and thus all those constables who acquiredeligibility prior to issuance of these instructionshave beenenied the deputationto the Lower School Course for non achieving the rniniomuinbench marks It is settled Iaw tbaf 4mmeee Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 CWP N02914 of2010 15 instructionscannot overrulethe slatutoryrules Thus thcse instructionscannot bepressed lnto servlCC to deprivc thcconstablesoftheir rightfor for not havingachievedthe rninimumbenchmarksas under thcse instructionsissued later Thus such of the constableswho became eligiblepriorto issuanceoftheseinstructionsand 1 ignored for not the lllllllinum bcnchmarksarc to be for 0 Lower School Course and on successful of lhc course theytlre C to be treated senior than their juniorswho werc carlicr dcputedto thc Z C0 Lower School Course In otherwords thcywill TCtalIltheir seniorityfor r beingbrought on Li st Be1 thattheywerc for the Z 5r course Iaterthan their juniors or theydid not achievelllinitnumbench C marks I Similarlysuchofthe constableswho are ignored on account 08 of achieving less than the benchmarks thentheir juniorsare CQ 4r also entitledto be deputed to the coursc andon complction tIfthesame will W2 Z retain their seniority over CL ln some of the writ petitionsthe constableshale already completcd the Lower School Course but theyhave been dcnied tloe I7 seniorlty over their juniorson the groundthat the juniorswere eithCr havingbctterbench marks or for the course prior itl tiine than the C Wnt petitioners In view of the above observations these writ petitioners shall be deemedto be seniorto theirjuniorsdeputed earlier on account of better bench marks or on any other ground of eligibility To Sum up these petitions are disposedofwith the followingdircctionsl i9 Such ofthe who have failed in 55010merit quota Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 4 CWPN02914 of2010 16a areentitledto be consideredfor beingbrought on List Bel under35Ioquota on the principle of provided theyhavc the andare otherwiseeligible under therules iil such ofthe constableswho were Iessthan 35 yearsofageas on thcclay oftheir considerationbut not more than40 years theywill be entitledto be 1 C on List Bmlby themto Lower SchoolCoursc 1 0 iiil the petitioners whoacquiredeligibilitypriorto the DGPs instructions C dated 13022007 will be for the COUrSC without tllC 0 questionof minimum bench marks as prescribedunder the goveminent I instrUCtlOllS and in their cases seniy and othcr eligibilitycrileria Z prescribed underthe rules will becnoughfor theirdeputation to the course C ivl the who becameeligiblcfor afterthe issultnceof I the instructionsdated13022007 and haveachievedthe ininimum bench Oll marks be to the course their juniorsbave better benchmarks e2 Z V interwseseniorityof the constableswill be detcnninedon the basisof Qm their seniorityin their districtsin the and noto011the basis of passingof the Lower School Courscein all such cascs who are 1 ignored by the above directions However the intereseseniority of constableswill not be governedbythe abovedirectionswhere senior was 94 ignoredon account of pendencyof any disciplinaryproceedings or who sufferedany other disqualification for dcputatonto Lower School Course vil deputationof the petitionersshall be made on the basis of their seniorityin their respectivedistrictsand againsthe available vacanciese Let the claim of the petitioners be considcrcd in the liht ofthe abovc directions and their deputationwherceever required be made lll Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 r 1 CWPN029140f2010 v1 accordancewith theabovedirections A copy of thisorderbeplaccd on therecordof eachconncctecl tlle ev 6 11082010 6PlOD KOHLJI BLS JUDGE 1 0 0 Note Whether to be referredto theRepotler2YES C I C5 vU I Z t 2 e r45 I 08 CO cr 7 Z Batra Amit 2014.04.22 11: 26 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGNAL PHHC CHANDIGARH Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document