IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION NO. 805 OF 2011 (S/S) Anand Singh Bisht …..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …...Respondents Present: Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 to 5. Mr. K.K. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no. 6. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.(Oral) Heard Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 to 5 and Mr. K.K. Tiwari, Advocate for respondent no. 6. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure –4 to the writ petition), whereby instead of the petitioner, respondent no. 6 has been promoted to the post of Head Constable (Driver) in the Police Establishment. The case of the petitioner is that he is a constable with trade of “driver” and he applied in response to a Notification dated 18th November, 2010, whereby applications were called from the eligible candidates to apply for the post of Head Constable (Driver). These candidates had to undergo for a written test and those who qualified the written test were further subjected to physical test. Total 48 candidates had applied for the said post, out of which 41 candidates appeared in the written examination, out of which six constables failed to cross the qualifying marks and therefore only 35 candidates ultimately were short listed. It was these 35 candidates, whose past service record 2 was examined. The past record constituted of 100 marks, out of which fifteen marks for fifteen years of total period of service i.e. one mark for each year of service had to be given. In other words, the seniority was also being considered. Secondly, there were ten marks for those candidates who were graduate, eight marks for those candidates who were Intermediate, six marks for those candidates who were High School and four marks for those who were only Class-VIII passed. Apart from this, there were fifteen marks for two courses. These two courses were – (a) Advance Mechanic Course and (b) Hill Driving and Driving Maintenance Course. The candidate who had done Advance Mechanic Course was liable to be given ten marks and the candidate who had done Hill Driving and Maintenance Course was liable to be given five marks. Thereafter, there were twenty marks for any cash prize given to an employee earlier and thereafter there were forty marks for annual service entries. The only thing which is presently under dispute is the marks given under the two courses i.e. ten marks for Advance Mechanic Course and five marks for Hill Driving and Driving and Maintenance Course. The fact of the matter is that after appreciating the selected candidates i.e. those 35 candidates, as stated above, the Selection Committee which constituted of the Commandant, 31st Battalion, Provincial Armed Constabulary, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar as Chairman, Additional Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Nainital and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Udham Singh Nagar as members, finally took out a selection list of 5 candidates. They were the following: 3 Sl. Nos. Name of Constable Driver Caste Present Posting 1 Constable Driver Ramesh Chandra Scheduled Caste District Almora 2 Constable Driver Surendra Sigh Rana Scheduled Tribe/General Police Headquarter 3 Constable Driver Chandra Mohan General Haridwar 4 Constable Driver Anand Singh General Udham Singh Nagar 5 Constable Driver Govind Singh Rawat General Dehradun The name of the present petitioner was mentioned at Item No. 4. He was selected on a general category post. The selected candidates had to be finally approved by the appointing authority i.e. the Inspector General of Police. Inspector General of Police though did not approve these selections and returned the same to the Commandant 31st Battalion, PAC, Rudrapur, Udham Singh Nagar, who was the Chairman of the selection committee by stating that a decision has been taken at Headquarter level to include “VVIP Driving Course” also under Driving and Maintenance Course. In other words, since respondent no. 6 has done this course (i.e. VVIP Driving Course), he has to be given five marks for undergoing the course known as Driving and Maintenance Course. The Inspector General of Police in the said letter further directs that the select list should be reviewed in view of the above and the list of selected candidates should be sent to the Headquarter for approval. This letter of the Inspector General of Police dated 19th April, 2011 has been annexed by the petitioner as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The veracity of this letter has not been denied. 4 On the last occasion State Government which is represented by Mr. Anil Kumar Bisht and Sri K.K. Tiwari, who is representing respondent no. 6 had sought time, which was granted. Today the pleadings have been exchanged and the matter is being heard finally. This Court vide order dated 2.8.2011 wanted to see the entire records of the matter inasmuch as in the letter dated 19th April, 2011 (Annexure – 3 to the writ petition), it has been stated by the Inspector General of Police that a decision has been taken at the headquarter level to include “VVIP Driving Course” also in Driving and Maintenance Course. The Court wanted to see as to on what date such a decision had been taken. The record has been placed before this Court. The Court had an occasion to see this record. At the first page of the record, a letter dated 19.4.2011 has been shown, which is of the same date on which Inspector General of Police has written the letter dated 19.4.2011 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition). The said letter says that Constable Driver Dhan Singh has moved an application which has been perused whereby he has requested that his qualification of VVIP Driving Course should also be included in Driving and Maintenance Course in the said selection. It was further stated, inter alia, in the letter that out of 5 candidates who have been finally selected, only two candidates have done such a course such as “VVIP Driving Course”. Therefore along with Hill Driving and Maintenance Course the course of VVIP Driving should also be included and five marks should also be awarded to such candidates who have done this course. Therefore, it is evident that the decision taken by Inspector General of Police on 19th April, 2011 referring to the decision taken at the headquarter level is also of the same date. In other words, the reference made by Inspector General of Police 5 that the decision was taken at the headquarter level means that the decision has been taken on the same date. The order dated 19.4.2011 has been perused. Inter alia, it includes the signature of the Inspector General of Police. Clearly what has happened in this case is that the rules of the game have been changed not only after the game has started but actually after the game has come to an end. This is clearly not permissible under the law. The writ petition therefore succeeds. The order dated 6.6.2011 (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) is set aside. The respondents are directed to take a decision on the earlier recommendations of the selection committee and pass an order in accordance with law. It is made clear that when the Inspector General of Police had sent the matter back to the Selection Committee referring to order dated 19.4.2011, there was another dispute of the roster not being made applicable. It is also made clear that in the earlier select list the name of one Govind Singh Rawat also appeared by application of a wrong roster and his name had been excluded and the name of one Naresh Lal had been included. This issue is, however, not before this Court. The Court has only examined the matter of exclusion of the petitioner from the select list, which has clearly been held to be illegal. The respondents are therefore directed to act in accordance with the earlier list so far as the name of the petitioner was included, and take a decision on it, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 18.8.2011 Avneet