55 r1 CWP No2914c2f2010 1 In theHighCourt ofPunjabandHaryana at Chandigarh Dateofdecisionl11082010 1 CWP No 2914 of2010 Vs StateofHarvana and others 2 CWP No 6427 of2009 m 0 2D Krishan Kumar and others Vs StateofHaryana and othcrs C0 3 CWP N03329 of2010 a0 X1 RajbirSinll and othersVsState ofIIarvanaclrlcl others Z 4CWPN01403of2009 Z Prem Singh Vs StateofHaryanaand otls 5r CWP No3401 of2010 C r EHC Kulbir Singhand another Vs StateofHaryanaand otllers otl 6 CWP No 7536 of201 0 a0 KaptanSinghVs StateofHaryanaand others Ue2 Z 7 CWP No 7203 of2010 12Ae Oesh Rajand olllers Vs StateofHaryana lnd olhers 8 CWPNo 8147 of2010 EHC Ram Mehar and othersVs StateofHaryana and others 9CWP N06443 of2009 C Jai Pal and another Vs State ofHaryanaand others 10 CWPNo6619of2009 SatyawanEHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others 11CWPNo 104870f2009 Head Constablc Ashok Kunlar Vs Stalc ofI981yanaand otltlers 12 CWP Nol2237 of2009 r Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 56 e t CWPN09140f2010 2 NarenderKumar ConstableVs StateofHaryana and others 13CNo12248of2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others 14 CWP No12253 of2009 SubhashCilander EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 1 Q 15 CWP No16975 of2009 0 Krishan Kumar EHC Vs StateofHaryanaandothers C 16CN0184300f2009 C PannaLal EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 17 CWPNo18863 of2009 Z Raj Kumar and another Vs StateofHaryanaand others 9m C 18 CWPNo18919 of2009 Kamal ParkashEHC Vs StateofHao7ansand othcrs 06 19 CWP No 636 of2010 r LadyConstableRajbala Vs StateofHaryanaand others Wn Z 20CWP N02775 of2010 CL Rishi Parshad and othersVs StateofHaryanaand others 21CWP No2875of2010 LadyConstable Suman Vs StateofHaryanaand others 22 CWP No 2968 of2010 Sada Ram EHC Vs State ofIana and others 23 CV83 N0333of0010 Kap Sin and ano Vs Ste ofHaryana and os 24CWP N033670f2010 EHC Mohan Lal Vs StateofHaryanaand others 1 Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 57 CWPN02914of2010 3 25 CWPN03556 of2010 Hans Ram and othersVs StateofHaryana and others 26CWP N042580f2010 Hari Krishan HC Vs Financial CommissionercOPrincipalSecretary to GovemmentofHaryana and others 27 CWP NoA274 of2010 C 1 Amar SinghEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 0 3 28 CWP No 4749 of2010 Mohinder Sing8EASI and anotherVs State ofHaryana and C5 otilers Z 29 CWP No 4765of2010 Cr Z ChhajuRam and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others 30 CWP No 4960 of2010 C Cr Rbir Singhand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 08 31 CWP NoA963 of2010 00 SatbirSingllVs StateofHaryana and others W Z 32 CWP No 7923 of2010 Cls Jaivir Singhand othersVs StateofiIaryana and others 33 CWP No 6031 of2010 1 HardayalHC and others Vs State ofHaryanaand others Cm CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present Mr SK Redhu Mrikram SinghMr1V Yadav Mrnesh Malik Mrritam Saini MrSurender Lamba MrRP SinghAdvocatesfor the petitioners MrRS Kundu Addl AG anafor the respondents PERMOD311LI J Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 58 f CWP No2914of2010 4 On the basis of common and identical 1SSUes both on facts and law all these petitions are beingdecided by this common order 1 The entire controversyrelates to the intelpretation of Rule 137 ofthe PunjabPolice Rules 1934 as applicable to the StateofHaryana and smended vlde Pst40b Police tHar7anaAmendment7ules 2001 2 hereinaftel referredto as the Rulesl This rule relatesto fOI 0 Lower School Course and for enlistingof the eligibleofficers in List B C4 for their promotionThe amended rule subject matter of debatein the Z C5 presentwrit petitionsis hereunder I 137Selection of candidatesfor admission to 2 courses at the Police TrainingCollege List c B 6inForm 1339shall be maintained by each Superintendent of Police TL shall incl ude t11e LL 0 names of all constablesscl3cted for adnissirlll m to the Lower School Course to be held at the Z L Police TrainingCollegeSelection to the list B shall be made in the month of Januaryeach 1 yearand shall be limited to the number of seats 1 allotted to the district for the year The number C9n of seats in Lower School Course in a year shall be on the basis ot cxistingvacancies and the vacancies likely to be created within one year the respective 1 in unlte 50 of the seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course shall be fllled in on the basis of a competitive Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 F CWP No2914of2010 5 examination 35 on the tOiiSl Ol Stlltorlt cumlltness and 1096Ofl thebasis of consistent in Gold or Silver Medal in All IndiaPolice MeetlNationalGamesor displayof C braveryduringthe course of of 0 CAO offlcial duty Selectionofpersonsagainst50 C seats lIl listllower school on the basis of ment shall be done bv a Departmenlai Pr01110llUI1 e Z Committecon the basisof C e 1 Examinationof servicesand 06 2 A competitive test hereinafer called B 00 7 test9 1111 Z Lle a Prade b9Lawana practic21policer9rlrl ncl 1 3 An IntervielNe C 2 i9 All constables irrespectiveof their educational qualiflcationsshall be eligibleto appear for Bl test if they are under the age of 35 years and have completed 5 years of servlce on 1Stday of Januaryof the year 111 which selection is made However if a Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 1 0 CWP No 2914 of2010 e constable belongingto reserved category who is recruitedalter attaining the age of 27 yearsas per Governmentinstructionslorders then he shall be allowed to appear for rnllllmum three consecutive chances after nsw 01 completion of five vearsof service evenifhe e1 1 Ca has crossed the age of 35 years up to a a9 mlnlmum of 10 years Z 6ii9 All Constables of their lr educationalqualiflcations shall be eligibleto be broughtOll List B1 senioritycum merit 06 basis if theyare under the ae of 40 years C13 e andhave colnpleted 5 vears of serviceon the flrst day of Januaryof the year lIl which ClL selectionis made 75 The State ofHaryanaissuedinstructionsdated 13022007 prescribingthe minunum mentto 611fi11the criteria for seniority 1 cunefltness relyinguponthe observations of this Court in the case of C NareSh Kumar Vse State of Haryanaand others CWP No7952 of 2004 decided on 05 11 2004 Director Gencral 0 Police Harvana issued these instructions prescribiilg mllllmum bench marks for selection to BI list under 350Ioquota The relevant extract of the instructions dated 13022007 6AnnexurePe73lIl CWP No6427 of Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 0 CWP N029140f2010 7 2009 is hereunderl 3 In view ofthe Honble 12 0U Url judgmci lIl the Naresb Kulnar case Isupralit has been decidedto flx the benchmarksfor fltnessunder 35Io quota The m 0 assessment of service record should be made 0 3 on the basis of education trainingcourses passedcommendation certificates and length C5 of service etc as givenin PPR 13 7 All the lC 2 cardidates who ohtain a lninimum 31 mars e m C or mcre woula 6e deenlcd to be fit for selection of B l seats against35Io quotaon the Oll basis of interse seniority of the candidatcsand C0 for all such candidatesinterse seniority would Ia Z be the sole criteria for deputingOll theirturn Clw under 35Io quotaln vlew of the explicitorder of High Court Please take lrther necessary 1 action accordinp 55 The validity of these lnSlructlorls has been upheldby this Court in Hawa Singh Vs StateofHarnand others CWP No1194 of20051decided on 14052008 There are three sets ofwrit petitionsunder consideration The same are broadlycategorised in the followingmanner a9 the eligibilityofthe candidates who appearedin 550Io merit Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 0 CWP No2914 of2010 0 0 quotaunderRule 137 i9to be consideredfor promotion under35Ioon basis under rule 137 62 ii even if theyhave failed under55Ioquota b considerationof the candidates with less than 35 years of age as on Ist dayof Januaryof the year in which selection is made in 3510 m Y quotaof 0 c 1Ilter seniority 015ihe candldates Oll the basis of bench marks e ln terrilsof DGPs instructionsdated1302200 C5 From the reading ofRule 137 ll it emerges as followsl Z a that 55Io of the seats allotted to a unit lIl the Lower School Course are meant to be filled in on the basis of competitive e examinatlOl 08 b9 35Io ofthe seats onthe basisofseniorituritnessld CQ c 9 10Io seats on the basis of consisteilt outstanding 111 m3 1Obslsports etc CLw Selection against5596 quota 1S to be made by the Promotional Committee All the constables irrespective oftheir educational who are less than 35 years ofage and have 5 years of service on Ist day of Januaryof the year of Cn selection are eligible to appear for Bl test under merit seats of 55Io quotae SimiIarly all the constables irVespectiveof their ducratlOnal havingcompletedfive years of service a in theage of 40 years on the Ist day of Januaryof the year of selection Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 0 0 CWPN02914 of2010 9 are eligibleto be brought on Iist B on the basis of senioritycun merit against35Io quota Sportspersons under 10Io quota are to be separely consldered Sllhlect to eligibility lll the above 11410 categones 1 The controversyrelatingto the eligibilityofthe candidates 1 0 who failed to secure the requisite merit in the examination 3 under55Io quota to be againconsidered under 35Io seniorityln 5 lL merlt quota cameto be consideredby a Division Bench of this Court V NareshKumars case 6supra9This Division Bench judgment 111 was ev 3pw challengedbefore the Honble SupremeCourt lIl SpecialLeave to 7t m AppealCvil No10409 of2005 w5ich has been dismissed in limine W9 11 51 on 10052005 Tl A similar issue came up for considerationbeforethis Court V 7 V in the case of Hawa SinghVs State of Harvana and others VP 1 L No1194 of20059decided on 14052008 After admission ofthe writ petitionby the Honble Division Bench the matter was considered by a learnedSingleJudge of this Court for flnal disposalon 29 12006 Thelearned SingleJudge ofthisCourtwasofthe opinionthatcertalll C e provisionsof Ruie 12 7 ofthe rules 1Nere liOt brought to the notice of Je1 the Division Bench and on that basis a reference was made for consideration of the writ petitionand other connected matters by a Division Bench of this Court The aforesaid writ petitioncame to be heardby a Division Bench ofthis Court The Honble Division Bench Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 11 J CWP No 2914 of2010 10 vide its j udgmentciateo 14051Ou8 allirmed the ratio in Naresh Kumars case lJpral Wllh thefoliowingobservations In view of the facts mentioned above these wnt petltlonsare allowed 111the same terms as lIl Naresh Kumars case 6supra The 1 C are directed to deputethe 0 C43 to the flrst Lower School Course Z which wrill commence after the pronouncement C0 Ol judgmentln thls case However The e Z petitionershall be deemedto have qualified111 ll the Lower School Course from the date when er other constables have qualied whose names 045 were approvedto undergo Lower School 12 t Course vide select list Annexure 1 It is made 3 Z clear that if by getting date of passingthe Lower Schnol Course the petitionerbecame eligible fur promotion then he will get only deemed benefits without gettingany actual financial benefits in view of C1 principleof no work no pay as laid down by their Lordshipsof the Honble SupremeCourt in Union of India and another vs Tarsem Lal and others 2006910 SuprerneCourt Cases 14 33 Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 1 CWP No914 of2010 11 Honble the Division Bench further considered the validityof the instructionsdated 13022007 and upheldits validitywith the following observationsl So far as CWP N03609 of2007 is concemed lIl that writ petitionselect list oreoared to undergo m Lower School Course on the basisof instructions 0 dated 13022007 as referred to above has been C As has been held earlier above said 4 instructions are perfectlyjustified and are ln consonance with the directions issued by this 2 Court in NareshKumars case 6supra 33 Q The claims of some of the writ petitionersfor deputing to Lower School Course have been rejectedon the groundthat theyhaving c6 faiieci in 5596 ierit quotaare not enticied 10 be considered for beingbroueIlt 4 Orl List Bl io 3596quota The claims ofsonle ofthc writ petitioners 1e ea 2 beenrejectedfor beingbroughtin List Bel under 35Io quotaon the ground that theywere of less than 35 years of ageas on Ist dayof Januaryof the vear of selection In sorne cases the claims have been rejectedfor non achievingthe minimum 31 bench marks in tenns ofthe DGPs instructions dated 1302007 In Naresh Kuma case Csupra9the Honble Division e Bench ruled the eligibility ofthe constables for their consideration both in 55Io and 35Io quota This judgnlenthas attained flnalitv The SLP has lso been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court The ratio of the said judgmentnas been erated in Hawa Singhs cases supra9 as also in Constable Dharmbir Vs State of Harvana and others 2009 RSJ 310 whereinthe followingobservations have been madel Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 l 1 CWPN029140f2010 12m 13 So there are three distinct with tlleir own ualitlcalions and for eligibilityfor cunsideration lhere is no bal LU considerationof a constable in any categoryif he llfills the eligibilitycrlteria 1e ifhe is eligiblelIl 1 C all three he has a statutoryrightto 0 consideration in all three categoriesThe Rules CA do not categorize or requiresome inlnlmum age 0 for eligibilityunder any ofthe categoriesWhat it 1r 4r specifies is the upper age iiiil FOr e 111812Cr322 2 under 2 particularcategory r Despite these instructions certaln 1SSues referred to hereinabove have againcroppedup The controversyregardingthe Olj eligibilityofcandidates under 35 years ofagefor beingbroughton List B Cll for 35Io quota againcameup for considerationbyanotherDivision Bench 9mY Z ofthis Court in Dharmbirs case supra9and Balrai Singhand others Vs StateofHaryanaand others 2009 RSJ 463 In Dhannbirs case supra a Division Bench ofthis Court held as underl r7 1 7e 17 A conjointreadingof both the 6 subules wouid show that onlythe upper age limit me has been prescribed under the rules and no minimum age has been prescribedeither under submrule 2 i or suberule 2 CiO whlch means that if a constable fulfills the requirement of the upper ageand the other prescribedunder the respectivecategory as per subrule 2 there 1S Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 0 CWPNcI914of2010 13 no bar to his considerationunder each of them Meaningtherebya constable who is eligible 111 one categoryunder Rule 137 629 can also be considered in the other categoryunder Rule 133 629 i9of the PunjabPolice Rules as there 1S IlO m bifurcation between the rules as far as the 0 eligibility lS concenled with regard to the C40 lTlinlmum age as none is prescribed 4 18 The minimum age if prescribedby way of I executlve instructions would go against the Z r interest of the Constables who are otherwise eligibleunder the statutoryRules Rule 13 ii confers a rightwhich a Constable attainson 06 oo the basis of his seniority 111 the service As and mn when his tllrn comes based on UlC SOiliOfi t a li 2ii Z to consideratioil devoives on him This rightOO Om the basisofhis seniority cannot be deprivedon the basis of executive instructions This would be 111 contraventionto the statutoryrules and therefore C not sustainable 22 What emergcs from the above discussions 15 that a constable who has completed5 years of service on the Tst day of Januaryof the year ln vhich the selection is made is under the age of 35 years and is eligible for consideration and selection for includi1ghis name in List Bml of Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 f CWP N02914 of2010 14 selected constables for admission to Lower School Course under the 55Io quotaon the basisof ment as per Rule 137 621 9ofthe PunjabPolice Rules 1934 and baving in the competitive test 6Bnel9and failed or was unable to get enlistment due to lower merit can also claim C consideration and selection under the 35Io quota 0 C on the basis of as per Rule C 133 29 019if he is eligibleunder both the Z categones 53 2 As noticed above the constubleswho h1 ett2inedminimum Iltlc vm Q 31 bench marksunder 3596 quotahave bcen ignoredalld their jtltliorswere deputed to the course on the groundthat theyare more meritorioushaving 08 better bench marks This issue is in fact covered under Naresh Kumars ao case supra9and came to be clarifled in Balrai Singhs cass supra a 2 wherein it has been held that whereever a junior has been deputedfor CL Lower School Course ignoringthe claim ofthe seniorsmerely on the basis ofthe higherbench marks the senior be deputedfor the course and he will 1 eP be deemed to have passedthe course from the datehis juniorhas qualiSed l 4 In such situation senicill retain his senioiity Ga Tllere is another aspect of the rnatter The DGPs inslructioils dated 13022007 are onlyprospectiveln naturee Prior to these instructions 1481 W N416180WPlv 64A 1 H4l Wle 4144Me m11 those constabl who acquiredeligibility prlor to issuance of these lnstructlons have been denied the deputation to the Lower School Course for non achieving the mlnlmum bench marks It is settled law that Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 0 0 CWP No 2914 of2010 15 govemmentlnstructlons cannot overrule the statutoryrules Thus these instructions cannot be pressed lnto servlCe to deprivethe constablesoftheir rightfor for nothavingachievedthe minimumbench marks as prescribedunder these instructions issued later Thus such of the constableswho becameeligiblepriorto issuanceoftheseinstructionsand A lored for not achieving the minimum bench marks are to be deputed for Y 1 Lower School Course and on successfulcompletionofthe course theyare 3 to 5e lreated senior than 1ieir juniorsWho ivere earlier deputedto the 1 9 Lower SclIool Coursc In other words theyWlll retain their senioritvfor I beingbrought on List B 1 that theywere deputedfor the V AV course later than their juniorsor theydid not ahieve minimum bench V pS markSe V Similarly such ofthe constableswho are ignoredon account 2t aJ of achievingless than the prescribedbench lnarks then thcil Il J 1 d V also entitledto be deputed to the course and on completionofthe same Will 3 V 3 retaln lheii selrlority over theirjuniors 1 In some of the vrTit petitionstne constables have already completedthe Lower School Course but they have been denied the 7 senlOnty over their juniorson the ground that the juniorswere either havingbetter bench marks or deputedfor the course prior in time than the e writ petitioners In view of the above observations these writ petitioners shall be deerned to be senior to their juniorsdeputedearlier on account of better bench marks or on any other ground of eligibility To surn up these etitlons are disposedof it11the folowingdirections i Such ofthe corabieslpetitioners who have failed in 550Ionlerit quota 40 4 Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 Cl t CWP No2914 of2010 16 areentitledto be consideredfor beingbrought on List e1under 35Io quota on the principleof providedtheyhave the requisite and are otherwiseeligibleunder therules iil such ofthc constableswho were lessthan 35 years of age a5 on the day oftheir consideration but not nlore than 40 lrs theyiill be eiititled to be W C brought on List B1 by themto Lower SchoolCourse 3 0 iii thepetitioners who acquiredeligibilitypriorto the DGPs lnstructlons C dated 13022007 will be deputed for the course without consideringthe C5 questionof minimum bench marks as prescribedunder the government C lnstructlons and in their cases seniorityand other eligibilitycrlteria Z 5 under therules will be enoughfor their deputation to the course C ivl the petilioners who becameeiigiblefor deputation after the issuanceof the instructions dated 13U22007 and have achieved the minimum bench 08 marks be deputedto the course their juniorshave better bench marks wn Z v interse seniorityof the constables will be detennined on the basis of 1 their seniorityin their respective districts in the constabularyand not on the basis of passingof the Lower School Course in all such cases who are ignored by the above directions However the interase seniorityof constables will not be govemedby the above directions where senlor was en nored on account of pendencyof 2111Vdisciplinaryproceedingsor wno suffered any other disqualiflcation for deputalion to Lower School Course vi deputationof the petitionersshall be made on the basis of their seniorityin their respectivedistricts and againstthe available vacancies Let the claim of the petitioners be considered in the light of the above directions and their deputationwhererer required be made lIl Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 11 CWP N02914 of2010 17 accordancewith the above directions A copy ofthis order be placedon the record ofeach connected file eeea 1108010 PERMOD KOHLO BLS JUDGE m C 1 Note Whetherto be referredto theReporter2YES 0 C 5 8rP 1 4 S4 r 2 1 lD r 0 e 06 C et 1 2 CLe Rashmi 2014.05.01 12: 05 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document