68 7A r j CWP No914 of2010 1 In theHighCourt ofPunjab andHaryana at Dateofdecisionl11082010 1 CWPN02914 of2010 1 Vs StateofHaryana and others 2 CWP No 6427 of2009 1 C Krishan Kumar and others Vs StateofHaryana andothcrs 0 3 CWP N03329 of201 0 C RajbirSinghand othersVs StateoflIaryanlidnd others C0 4 CWP No 1403of2009 Z Preln Singh Vs StateofHaryanaanclotholrs 5 CWP N03401 of2010 EtiC Kulbir SinghandanotherVs StateofHaryana alld otllers e 6CWPN03536of2010 KaptanSinghVs StateofHaryana and others 7 CWP No 7203 of2010 10eshR and othersVs StateofHaryana andothers 8 CWP No 8147 of2010 EHC Ram Mehar and othersVs StateofHaryana and othcrs 9 CWP No 6443 of2009 Jai Pal and another Vs State ofHaryanaand othcrs 10 CWP No6619of2009 Satyawan EHC Vs Stateofliaryanaand others 11CWPNo104870f2009 Head Constable Ashok Kumar Vs State ofHaryanaand others 12 CWP N0122370f2009 r Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 V CWPNo29l4of2010 2e NarenderKumar ConstableVs StateofHarvanaandothers 13 CWPNo2248 of2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs State and others 14 CWP No 12253of2009 SubhashChanderEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others W C 15 CWPNo16975of2009 0 KrishanKumar EHC Vs State and others Ca0 16 CWP N0184300f2009 I 0 PannaLal EHC Vs StateofHaryana andothers r 17CWP N18863 of2009 Z R Kumar and anotherVs State andothers C 18CWPN0189190f2009 Kamal ParkashEHC Vs State and others O 19 CWP No 636 of2010 fn LadyConstableRajbalaVs StateofHaryana and others S 4 im 9 20CWPNo2775of2010 Rishi Parshadand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 21 CWPN02875 of2010 1 LadyConstableSumanVs StateofHaryana andothers 22 CWPNo 2968 of2010 Sada Ram EHC Vs State ofHaryanaand others 23 CWP N03338 of2010 KaptainSinghand another Vs StateofHaryanaand others 24 CWP N03367 of2010 EHC Mohan Lal Vs State ofHaryanaand others 1 1 Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 1 6 CWPN029140f2010 3 25 CWP No 3556of2010 Hans Ram and othersVs StateofHaryana andothers 26 CWPN0A258 of2010 Hari Ktishan HC Vs FinancialCommissioner Principal to GovemmentofHaryana and others 27 CWP NoA274 of2010 C Amar SinghEHC Vs State andothers 0 28 CWP No 4749 of2010 C I Mohinder SinghEASI and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others C5 I 29 CWP NoAo765of2010 Z Chhaju Raln and anotherVs State and others 30 CWP No 4960 of2010 r Cr RajbirSinghand othersVs State and others c6 31 CWPNoA963 of2010 SatbirSinghVs StateofHaryana andothers C W2 32 CWP No7923of2010 Z Cle Jaivir Singhand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 33CWP No6031of2010 1 Hardayal HC and othersVs StateofHaryana and others 1 Ca CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present Mr SK Redhu MrNikram SinghMrN Yadav MrDinesh Malik MrPritam Saini MrSurender Lamba MRP SinghAdvocatesfor the petitioners MRS Kundu Addl AG Haryanaforthe respondents PERMOD KOHLI J Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 6 CWPN029140f2010 4a On thebasisof common andidenticallssues both on factsand law all thesepetitions are beingdecidedbythis common order The entire controversyrelates to the of Ruie 133ofthe Punjab Police Rules 1934 as to the StateofHaryana and amendedvide PunjabPolice Iaryana Rules 2001 1 Ct hereinafterreferredto as the Rules This rule relatesto for 2 LowerSchool Course and for enlistingof the eligibleofficers in List B 0 C for their promotionThe amendedrule subjectmatter of debate in the X C5 writ petitions is hereunderl Z 137election of candidatesfor admission to Z courses at the Police Training 619List C B in Form 133 shall be maintainedby each I of Police It shall includethe C6 OO names of all constablesselectedfor admission m2 to the Lower School Course to be held at the Z fla PoliceTrainingCollegeSelection to the list B shall be made ltl the month of Januaryeach 1 yearandshall be limited to the numberofseats allottedto the district for theyear The number C of seats in Lower School Course in a yearshall be on the basis of existingvacancies and the vacancies likelyto be created within one year in the respectiveunit 50 of the seats allottedto a unit in the Lower School Course shallbe fllled in on the basis of a coinpetitive Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 0 CWP No 2914 of2010 5 examination 35Io on the basis of cumefitnessand 10Io on the basisof consistent in Gold or Silver Medal in All India Police MeetlNationalGamesor displayof 1 C2 braveryduringthe course of of 0 offlcial duty Selectionof personsagainst55Io 0 X SeatS 111Iistllower school on the basis of ment C5 shall be done by a Promotion Z Committeeon the basisof 5r L 1 Examinationof servicesand C 08 2 A test called Bel CO r test9in m2 Z Ll a Prade b9Law andpracticalpolicework and 3 An IntervieWe 2 i9 All constables irrespectiveof their C4 educational shall be eligibleto appearfor B l test if theyare Under the age of 35 years and have completed 5 years of servlce on 1 day of Januaryof the year ln which selection is made However if a Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 4 CWP N02914 of2010 6 constable belongingto reserved category who is recruitedafter theageof 27 yearsas per Govemment instructionslorders then he shall be allowed to appear for mlnunum three consecutive chances after wa Q offive yearsofservice even ifhe 0 has crossed the age of 35 years up to a C I minimumoflO years 9 Z 6ii All Constables of their m educational shall be eligibleto C I be broughton List B1 seniority cum ment 08 basis if theyare underthe age of 40 years CQ 1 and have 5 yearsof service on the W2 2 flrst dayof Januaryof the vear in which e selectionis made 72 The Stateof Haryanaissuedinstructionsdated 13022007 the mlnlmum merlt to fulfill the criteria for seniorio 1 cum4ltness relyingupon the observations of this Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and others CWP No952 of 20041decided on 051 1 2004 Director General of Police Haryana issued these instructions prescribing minimum bench marks for selection to B4 list under 350Ioquota The relevant extract of the 1 instructionsdated 13022007 Annexure P79 in CWP Noa6427 Of Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 6 I 4 CWP No914 of2010 7 2009 is hereunder 3 In view ofthe Honble Fligh ltl the Nesh Kumar case supralit has been decidedto fix the benchmarksfor 6tnessunder 35Io quota The m Q assessmentof service record should be made 0 C on the basis of education trainingcourses passedcommendationcertificates and length C5 of service etc as givenin PPR 137 All the Z candidates who obtain a minimum 31 marks or more would be deemed to be tlt for 1 selection ofBl seats against35Io quotaon the t 2J basisof interse of the candidatesallll AIl for all such candidates intermseseniority would 3 1 be the sole criteria for deputingon their turn 1 under 35Io quotaln view of the explicitorder 1 of HighCourte Please take further necessary action accordingly 99 4 The validityof these instructions has been upheldby this Court in Hawa Singh Vs StateofHarvana and others CWP No1194 of20059decided on 14052008 There are three sets of writ petitionsunder consideration The same are broadlycategorisedin the followingmannerl a9 the eligibilityofthe candidateswho appeared in SSOlomerit Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 CWPN029140f2010 4 quotaunderRule 13 6296i9to be consideredfor under35Io on basis underrule 137 6210il even if theyhavefailedunder 55Ioquota b1 considerationofthe candidateswith less than 35 yearsofageas on Ist dayof Januaryof the year in which selection is made in 35Io C quotaof 1 0 C lnter seniorityof the candidates on the basis of bench marks 0 ln termsof DGPs instructions dated13022007 C5 2C From th6 readingofRuIe 137 9it emergesas followsl Z a that 55Io of the seats allottedto a unit in the Lower School r Course are meant to be fIlled 111 OIl the basis of C 2r examinatlOll 08 6b 35Joofthe seats on thebasisofsenioritumefltness and QO c l 10Ioseats on the basis of consistent in 43 Z A3 etc L 1 Selection against55Io quota is to be made by the Promotional Committee All the constables oftheir educational who are lessthan 35 years ofageand havecompleted5 years of servlCe on Ist dayof Januaryof the year of selectionare eligibletoappear for B test under merit seats of 55Io quota Similarly all the constables irrespectiveof their educational qualification havingcompleted flve years of service and in the age of 40 years on the Ist dayof Januaryof the year of selection Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 76 1 CWPN029140f2010 are eligibleto be brought on Iist B1 on the basis of meritagainst350Ioquota Sportspersons under 100Ioquotaare to be considered subjectto eligibility 111 the above two categones m C The controversyrelating to the eligibilityof the candidates 0 who failed to secure therequisite ment iIl the examination C40 I under 55Io quotato be againconsidered under 35Io senioritycun CAO I merit quotacame to be consideredby a Division Bench of this Court Z in Naresh Kumars case supral This Division Bench judgment was before the HonbIe Supreme Court lIl SpecialLeave to C AppealCivillNo10409 of2005 which hasbeen dismissedin limine I 08 on 10052005 Ct A similar issue came up for considerationbefore this Court 6 the case of Hawa Singh Vs Stateof Haryanaand others 6CWP 1 in 1 No1194 of20059decided on 14052008 After admissionofthe writ petitionbythe Honble Division Bench the inatter was consideredbya learnedSingleJudgeof this Court for Snal disposalon 2911 2006 The learned SingleJudge ofthis Court was ofthe opinionthat certalll provisionsof Rule 137 ofthe rules were not broughtto the notice of the Division Bench and on that basis a reference was made for consideration of the writ petition and other connected matters bv a Division Bench of this Court The aforesaid writ petitioncame to be heardby a Division Bench ofthis Court The Honble Division Bench Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 11 CWPN02914 of2010 10 vide its dated 14052008 afflrmedthe ratio lIl Naresh Kumars case upra with thefollowing observationsl In VleW of the facts mentioned above these wrlt petitionsare allowedin the same terms as ltl Naresh Kumars case supra The Lr are directed to deputethe 0 to the first Lower School Course C I which will commence after the pronouncement C5 I of in this case However The C Z shallbe deemedto have qualified lll the Lower School Course from the datewhen r I otherconstables bave qualiOedwhose names clj were approved to undergo Lower School CQ Coursevide selectlist Annexur P1 It is made W3 Z clear that if by getting date of Cln passingthe Lower School Course the becalneeligiblefor promotionthen he will get only deemed beneflts without gettingany actual financial beneflts in view of Cl principleof no work no pay as laid down by their Lordshipsof the Honble SupremeCourt 111 Union of India and another vs Tarsem Lal and others 2006910 SupremeCoun Cases 145 99 Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 l L CWP No914 of2010 11 Honble the Division Bench further consideredthe validityof theinstructionsdated13022007 andupheld its validitywith the following observationsl So far as CWP N03609 of 2007 is concemed in that writ petitionselect list to undergo e Lower SchoolCourse on the basisof instructions 0 dated 13022007 as referredto above has been CA As has been held earlier abovesaid I t5 instructionsare perfectlyjustied and are ln I consonance with the directions issued by this Z Courtin NareshKumars case supra Ct The claims of some of the writ petitionersfor deputing to Lower SchoolCourse havebeenrejected on the groundthattheyhaving c failedin 55io merit quotaare not entitledto be consideredfor beingbruugnt Q0 on List B1 in 35Io quota The claimsofsome ofthe writ petitioners have mvo Z beenrejectedfor beingbrought in List B1 under 35Io quotaon theground CL that theywere of less than 35 yearsof age as on Ist dayof Januaryof the 1 yearof selection In some cases the claims have been rejectedfor non achievingthe minimum 31 bench marksin terms of the DGPs instructions n dated 13022007 In Naresh Kumars case lpra9theHonble Division Bench ruled the eligibilityofthe constables for their consideration both in 55Io and 35Io quota This judgmenthas attained finality The SLP has also been disinissed by the Honble SupremeCourt The ratio of the said 1 judgmenthas been reiterated 111 Hawa Singhs cases supral as also in Constable Dhalmbir Vs State of Harvana and others 2009 Cl9RSJ 310 whereinthe followingobservationshave been madel Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 79 CWP Nol914 of2010 2 13 So tbereare three distlnct with their own qualifications and for eligibilityfor consideration There is no bar to considerationof a const8ble in any categoryif he ilfills theeligibility cntena if he is eligible 111 t L all three he has a statutoryrightto 0 considerationlIl all three The Rules 0 do not categorize or requiresome minimum age I C5 for eligibility under any ofthe Whatit I et specifies is the upperage limit for consideration Z under a particular category C Despitethese instructions certain issues referred to Cr Z hereinabove have againcroppedup The controversyregardingthe 08 eligibilityofcandidates under 35 yearsofagefor beingbrought on List 1 03 e for 350Ioquotaagaincame up for considerationbyanotherDivision Bench 7 Z ofthis Court in Dharmbirs case supraland Balrai Singhand othersVs CL StateofHaryanaand others 2009 29RSJ 463 In Dharmbirs case lpral a Division Bench ofthis Court held as underl 17 A conjointreadingofboth the 4 subrules would show that onlythe upper age limit 4ne0 has been prescribed under the rules and no rninimum age has been prescribedeither under slilrule 2 io or sub44ule2 io which means that if a constable fulfills the requirementof the upper ageand the other qualiOationsprescribedunder the respectivecategory as per subvruJe 2 there lS Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 4 CWPN02914of2010 3 no bar to his considerationunder eachof them Meaningthereby a constablewho is eligible in one underRule 1377 2J6i9can also be considered in the other categoryunder Rule 13 6296ii9of the Punjab Police Rules as there isno V bitilrcation between the rules as far as the CC 0 eligibility1S concerned with regardto the C minimum age as none is prescribed I 0 18 The minimum age if by wayof I executlve instructiollS would go againstthe Z interest of the Constables whO are otherwise CC eligibleunder the statutoryRules Rule 133 c I ii9 confers a rightwhich a Constable attains on 08 the basis of his seniorityin the service As and OO when his turn comes basedon the seniority a rlght rm Z to considerationdevolves on him This righton 1 the basisofhis seniority cannot be deprived on the basis of executive instructions This would be in contravention to the statutoryrules and therefore C not sustainable 22 What emerges from the above discussions 1S that a constable who has completed5 years of service on the Ist day of Januaryof the year Ul whichthe selection is made is under the age of 35 years and is eligible for consideration and selection for including his name in List B of Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 J CWP No 2914 of2010 14 selectedconstablesfor admissionto Lower SchooI Course under the 55Io quotaon the basisofmerit asper Rule 13 21 iI ofthe Punjab Police Rules 1934and in the test Beell and failed or was unable to get 1 enlistmentdue to lower merit can also claim considerationand selectionunder the 35Io quota 0 C0 on the basis of as per Rule C5 137 2J6ii if he lS eligibleunder both the I categones 10 e Z As noticed above the constableswho have attainedminimum 8 tr 31 bench marksunder 35Io quotahavebeen ignoredand their juniors were Z to the course on theground that theyare more merltorlous having 08 betterbenchmarks This issue is in fact coveredunder NareshKumars 0 case supraland came to be clarified in Balrai Singhscass supra Z whereinit has been held that wherever a junior has been for CL Lower SchoolCourse ignorlngthe claim ofthe seniorsmerely on the basis of thehigherbench marks the senior be deputed for the course and he will 17 bedeemedto have passedthe course om the datehisjuniorhasqualied 49 In such situation senior will retainhis seniority ea There is another aspect of the matter The DGPs instructions dated 13022007 are onlyprospective in nature Prior to these instructions no benchmarks were prescribedunder the statutoryrules and Olus all those constables who acquired eligibility prior to issuance of these instructionshave been denied the deputationto the Lower School Course for non the minimum bench marks It is settled law that Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 1 Cl1 CWPNo 2914 of2010 15 instructions cannot overrule the statutoryrules Thus these instructionscannot bepressed into serviceto deprive the constablesoftheir rightfor for not havingachievedthe lllinimum benchmarksas under these lnstructions issued later Thus such of the constables who became eligiblepriorto issuanceoftheseinstructions and A for not theminimumbenchmarksare to be for 0 Lower SchoolCourse andon successful ofthe course theyare 0 to be treated senior than their juniorswho were earlier to the Z C5 Lower School Course In other words theywill retaiIl their seniorityfor I 4t beingbrought on List B1 that theywere for the Z 5r course Iater than their juniors or theydid not achieve minimumbench C4 marks Cr such ofthe constableswho on account 08 of achievingless than the prescribed bench marksthen their JUnlOrsare rtl also entitledto be to thecourse and on completion ofthe same will Imo 2 retain their seniority over theirjuniors lm In some of the writ petitionstheeconstables have already completedthe Lower School Course but theyhave been denied the senlorltyover their juniorson the ground that the juniorswere either havingbetterbench marks or deputedfor the course prior in time than the C Writ petitioners In view of the above observations these writ pItioners shall be deemedto be senior to their juniorsdeputedearlier on account of better bench marks or onany other ground of eligibility To sum up these petitions are disposedofwith the followingdirectionsl i9 Such ofthe who have failed in 55Io ment quota Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 83 9 CWTPN029140f2010 16 areentitledto beconsideredfor beingbrought on List B1 under35Ioquota on the principleof providedtheyhave the and are otherwiseeligibleunderthe rules ii such ofthe constableswho were lessthan 35 yearsofageas on theday oftheir considerationbut not more than 40 years theywill be entitledto be 0 on List Bl by themto Lower SchoolCourse 1 0 iii the who acquiredeligibilitypriorto the DGPs instructions C dated 13022007 will be for the course without the Z 0 questionof minimum bench marks as prescribedunder the govemment X tnstructlons and in their cases seniorityand other eligibilitycriteria Z r prescribed under the rules will beenoughfor their deputation to the course tr ivl thepetitioners who becameeIigiblefor after the issuanceof I the instructionsdated13022007 and haveachieved the minimum bench 08 marks be deputedto the course their juniorshave hetter CQ t bench marks em Z v9 intermse seniorityof the constableswill be deterininedon the basis of Clw their seniority in their respective districtsin the and not on the basis of passingof the Lower School Course in all such cases who are ignored by the above directions However the interse seniorityof constableswill not be govemedbythe above directions where senior was ee rgnoredon account of pendencyof any disciplinaryproceedingsor who sufferedany other disqualiflcation for deputation to Lower School Course Vll deputationof the petitionersshall be made on the basis of their seniorityin their respective districts and againstthe available vacancies Let the claim ofthe petitioners be considered in the light ofthe abovedirections and their deputationwhere7er required be made in Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 84 e 14 5 17 W accordance with theabovedirections A copy ofthis order be placedon therecord ofeachconnected flle em 11082010 6PERMODKOHLll 6v BLS 1 JUDGE Ll 14ee 0 Notel YES C3 r C 4 4P Z 2 r IC 08 m 3 Z Ll i Parkash Om 2014.04.25 13: 43 True Scanned Copy Of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document