80 5 1 V CWP No 2914 of2010 1 In theHighCourt ofPunjaband Haryanaat Dateofdecision l l 082010 1 CWP No914 of2010 V Vs StateofHaryana andothers 2 CWP No6427 of2009 m Krishan Kumar and others Vs StateofHaryana and othcrs 0 3 CWP No 3329 of201 0 C I RajbirSinghand others Vs StateofIIaryana and others C0 4 CWPNo403 of2009 Z Prem Singh Vs StateofHarvanaandothors 5CWPN03401 of2010 L IlC Kulbir Slgh and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others I 45 6 CWP No 7536of201 0 00 KaptanSingbVs SlateofHaryanaand others emO 7 CWPN0 7203 of2010 Z Ll Desh Iai and othersVs StateofHaryana and others 8CWPNoS1470f2010 EHC Ram Mehar and othersVs StateofHaryana and others 9 CWP No 6443 of2009 C Jai Pal and another Vs StateofHaryanaand others 40 CWPN66190f2009 SatyawanEHC Vs State ofHaryanaand others 41 CWP N0104870f2009 Head Constable Ashok Kumar Vs State ofHaryanaand othcrs v12 CWP No 12237 of2009 Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 V CWP No2914 of2010 2 NarenderKumar ConstableVs StateofHaryanaandothers 13CWPNo2248of2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs StateofHaryana andothers 14CWP N012253 of2009 SubhashChanderEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others O 15 CWP No16975 of2009 0 Krishan Kumar EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others C3 16 CWP No18430 of2009 I 49 PannaLal EHC Vs State and others I 17CWPN0188630f2009 Z RajKumar and anotherVs StateofHaryanaand others Q 18 CWPN0189190f2009 Kamal ParkashEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others O8 19 CWP No636 of2010 CO LadyConstableRajbala Vs StateofHaryana and others 4VAm Z 20 CWPN0 2775 of2010 1m Rishi Parshadand othersVs StateofHaryana andothers 21CWPN02875of2010 LadyConstable SumanVs StateofHmyana and others l 22 CWPNo 2968 of2010 ewn Sada Ram EHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others 23CWP N033380f2010 KaptainSinghand another Vs State ofHaryanaand others 24 CWPN0 3367 of2010 EHC Mohan Lal Vs State ofHaryanaand others Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 c l 4V CWPN02914of2010 25 CWP N03556 of2010 HansRam andOthersVs StateofHaryana and others 26 CWP NoA258 of2010 HariKrishan HC Vs Financial Commissioner8 PrincipalSecretary to GovemmentofHaryana and others 27 CWP NoA274 of2010 m t AmarSinghEHC Vs StateofHaana andothers 0 28 CWP No 4749 of2010 C3 I MohinderSinghEASI and anotherVs StateofHmyanaand others C 29 CWP NoA765 of2010 e Chhaju Ram and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others Z m 30CWPNoA960of2010 C RajbirSinghand othersVs StateofHaryanaand others 08 31 CWPNoA963 of2010 SatbirSinghVs StateofHaryana and others C V 32 CWPNo 7923 of2010 Z Jaivir SinghandothersVs StateofHaryana and others 33 CWP No 6031 of2010 Hardayal HC and othersVs StateofHaryana and others CeV CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Presentl Mre SeK Redhu Mrikram Singh MrSN Yadav MrDinesh Malik MrPritam Saini Mrurender Lamba MrJP Singh Advocatesfor the petitioners MlRS Kundu Addl AG Haryanaforthe respondents PERMOD KOHLI J Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 83 r CWP No2914 of2010 4 On the basis of common and identicalissuesboth on factsand law all thesepetitions are beingdecidedbythis common order The entire controversyrelates to the of Rule 133 ofthe PunjabPolice Rules 1934 as applicable to the StateofHaryana and amended vide PunjabPolice Iaryana Rules 2001 1 C hereinafterreferredto as the Rules Thisrule relatesto for 0 Lower School Course and for enlistingof the eligibleofflcers in List 0 for their promotion The amended rule subjectmatterof debate in the I C5 presentwrit petitionsis hereunderl I 133eSelectionof candidatesfor admissionto Z courses at the Police TrainingCollege619List r B n Form 1339shall be maintainedby each of Police It shall include the a5 CQ names of all constables selected for admission c W0 Z to the Lower School Course to be held at the tl Police TrainingCollegeSelection to the list B shall be made ltl the month of Januaryeach yearand shall be Iimitedto the number of seats allottedto the district for theyear The number C of seats in Lower School Course in a year sha11 be on the basis of existingvacancies and the vacancles likely to be created within one year in the respective un 50 of the seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course shall be filled in on the basis of a competitive Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 84 1 4 CWP N02914 of2010 5 examination35io on the basis of senioritr cumfitnessand 100Ioon the basisof consistent in Gold or SilverMedal in All India Police MeetlNational Gamesor displayof 1 C braveryduringthe course of of 0 official duty Selectionofpersonsagainst55Io C X seats in listllowerschool on the basis of merit C5 I shall be done by a Promotion Z Committee on thebasisof L 1 Examinationof servicesand I 08 2A test hereinaer called Bel er test lnl 7 Z 0m a Prade b Law and practicalpolicework and 3 An Interview 2 i9 All constables irrespectiveof their c educational qualificationsshall be eligibleto appearfor Bl test if theyare under the age of 35 years and have completed 5 years of service on 1 day of Januaryof the year lll which selection is made However if a Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 85 0 4 1 CWP N029140f2010 6 constable to reserved category who is recruitedafter attaining the ageof 27 yearsas per Government instructionslorders then he shall be allowed to appear for minlmum three consecutive chances after m C of five years of service even if he 0 C has crossed the age of 35 years up to a I minimumof 10years C 4t Z 6iil All Constables of their e educational shall be eligibleto 0 I be broughton List B senioritycum merit 08 basis if theyare underthe age of 40 years Clo and have 5 years of service on the 3 Z flrst day of Januaryof the year in which Clm selectionis made 31 The State ofHaryanaissued instructionsdated 13022007 the mlnimum merlt to fulfill the criteria for seniority 1 cumefitness relyinguponthe observations of this Court in the case of C t Naresh Kumar Vs State of Harvana and others CWP No7952 of 20049decided on 051 1 2004 Director General of Police Haryana issued these instructions prescribing rninimum bench marks for selection to BI list under 35Io quota The relevant extract of the instructions dated 13022007 6AnnexureP79 in CWP No6427 of Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 86 11 1 CWPN029140f2010 7m 2009 is hereunderl 3 In view ofthe Honble High 1I1 the Naresh Kumar case supra9it has been decidedto flx the bench marksfor fltnessunder 30 quota The m C assessmentof service record shouldbe made 0 on the basis of education trainingcourses 0 I passedcommendationcertificates and length C0 I of service etc as givenin PPR 137 All the et Z candidates who obtain a minimum 31 marks or more would be deemed to be fit for C Cr I selection ofBl seats against35Io quotaon the 08 basis of intermseseniority of the candidatesand CO 4 for all such candidates interse senioritvwould emw Z be the sole criteria for deputingOll their turn tl under 35Io quotaln vlew of the explicitorder of HighCourt Please take rther necessary action The validityof these instructions has been upheldbythis m 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 following mannerl a9 the eligibility ofthe candidates who appeared in 55Io merit Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 87 V4 CWP No914 of2010 8 quotaunderRule 133 29 il to be consideredfor under35Ioon basis under rule 137 621iil even if theyhavefailed under 55Ioquota bJ considerationofthe candidateswith less than 35 years ofageas on Ist dayof Januaryof the year in which selection is made in 35Io 1 r quotaof 0 C 1 lnter of the candidates on the basis of bench marks C3 Z 111termsof DGPs instructions dated13022007 C5 I From the readingofRule 133 6l it emerges as followsl Z 6a1 that 55Io of the seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course are meant to be fllled in on the basis of 0 examination I 08 bI 35Io ofthe seats on thebasisofseniorilm4ltness and CQ c 9 10Io seats on the basisof consistent 111 mmo Z etc Cl Selection against55Io quota 1S to be made by the Promotional Committee All the constables oftheir educational who are lessthan 35 years of ageand have completed5 years of service on Ist dayof Januaryof the year of C selection are eligibleto appear for Bl test under meritseats of550 quota Similarly all the constables irrespective of their educational qualificationhavingcompletedfive years of service and in the age of 40 years on the Ist day of Januaryof the year of selection Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 88 CWPN09140f2010 4 are eligibleto be brought on list Bel on the basisof senioritu rneritagainst35Io quota Sportspersons under 10Io quota are to be considered subjectto eligibility ln the above two categones 1 C The controversyrelating to the eligibilityof the candidates 0 who failed to secure the merit in the examination 0 Z under 55Io quota to be againconsidered under 350Io C5 I merit quota cameto be consideredby a Division Bench of this Court r Z in Naresh Kumars case This Division Bench judgment was a before the Honble Supreme Court in SpecialLeave to r1 e AppealCivil No10409 of2005 which has been dismissedin limine I c5 on 10052005 0 A similar issue came up for considerationbeforethis Coun a Z lll the case of Hawa Singh Vs Stateof Harvanaand others 6CWP tl Nol I94 of2005 decided on 14052008 After admissionofthe Wnt petitionbythe Honble Division Bench the matter was consideredby a 1 learnedSingleJudgeof this Court for final disposalon 291 12006 C provisionsof Rule 133 ofthe rules were not brought to the notice of 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 heard by a Division Bench ofthis Court The Honble Division Bench Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 oj Wr 1 l CWP No914 of2010 10 vide its dated 14052008 affirmed the ratio in Naresh Kumars case 6suprawith thefollowingobservationsl In view of the facts mentionedabove these wrlt petitionSare aIlowed in the same terms as lIl Naresh Kumars case The are directed to deputethe 0 petitionersl to the first Lower School Course C I which will commence after the pronouncement C I of judgment ln this case However The Z petitioner shall be deemedto have qualified lIl ta the Lower School Course from the date when er I other constables have qualied whose names C45 were approved to undergo Lower School oo Cr Coursevide selectIist Annexure P1 It is made 7 Z nn 5 clear that if by getting date of Qm passing the Lower School Course the petitloner becameeligible for promotionthen he will get only deemed benefits without gettingany actual financial benefits in view of C 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 SupremeCourt Cases 145 53 Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 90 1 4 CWPN02914of2010 41 HonbletheDivision Bench furtherconsidered the validityof theinstructions dated 13022007 and upheld its validitywith the following observationsl So far as CWP No3609 of 2007 is concerned in that writ petitionselect list to undergo Lower SchoolCourse on the basis of instructions C 0 dated 13022 007 as referredto above has been 0 As has been held earlier above said I C5 instructtons are perfectlyjustifledand are ltl I consonance with the directions issued by this Z Court in NareshKumars case Q The claims of some of the writ petitionersfor deputing to 4 Lower School Course have been on the groundthattheyhaving 08 failed in 55Io merit quotaare not entitledto be consideredfor beingbrought on List Bel in 35Io quota The claims ofsome ofthe writ petitioners have 7 Z beenrejectedfor beingbrought in List B1 under 35Io quotaon the ground C that theywere of less than 35 yearsof age as on Ist dayof Januaryof the year of selection In some cases the claims have been rejectedfor non achievingthe minimum 31 bench marks in terms ofthe DGPs instructions dated 130 2007 In Naresh Kumars case supra9 the Honble Division e Bench ruled the eligibility ofthe constables for their consideration both in 55Io and 35Io quotaThis judgmenthas attained 8na1ity The SLP has also been dismissed by the Honble SupremeCourt The ratio of the said judgmenthas been reiterated 111 Hawa SingWscases Csupra9 as also in Constable Dharmbir Vs State of Haryana and others 2009 619RSJ 310 wherein the following observations have been made Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 91 J CWP No2914 of2010 2 13 So thereare three distinct with their own and for eligibilityfor consideration There is no bar 10 consideration of a constablein any categoryif he fulfills theeligibility critena e if he is eligiblelll e all three he has a statutoryrightto CC consideration in all three categoriesThe Rules 0 0 do not categorize or requiresome ininimum age I C5 for eligibilityunder any ofthe categoriesWhat it I specifies is the upper age limit for consideration Z under a particular category Cs Despitethese instructions certain lssues referred to e hereinabovehave againcroppedup The controversyregardingthe c5 eligibility of candidatesunder35 yearsof age for beingbrought on List B for 35Io quota againcameup for considerationbyanotherDivision Bench mm Z ofthis Court in Dharmbirs case and BaIraiSinghand othersVs CL StateofHarvana and others 2009 029RSJ 463 In Dharmbirs case a Division Bench of this Court held as underl 17 A conjointreadingofboth the subules would show that onlythe upper age Iimit V has been prescribed under the rules and no rninimum age has been prescribedeither under submrule2 9 or subule 2 iio which tneans that if a constable fulfills the requirementof the upper age and the other qualiflcationsprescribedunder the respectivecategory as per sub4Oule2 there is Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 92 1 J CWPN02914 of2010 3 no bar to his consideration under each of them Meaningtherebya constable who is eligible111 one category under Rule 137 21 9 can also be considered in the other categoryunder Rule 137 629ii9of the PunjabPolice Rules as there lS no w billircation between the rules as far as the 0 0 eligibility lS concerned with regard to the C43 minimum age as none is prescribed I C0 18 The minimum age if prescribedby way of I e executlve lnstructlons would go againstthe Z 5r interest of the Constables who are otherwise C eligibleunder the statutoryRules Rule 133 029 I ii9 confers a rightwhich a Constable attains on 08 the basis of his seniorityin the service As and CO when his turn comes based on theseniority a right 7 Z to consideration devolves on him This righton the basisofhis seniority cannot be deprived on the basis of executive instructions This would be 111 1 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 servlCe on the Ist day of Januaryof the year 111 which the selection is made is under the age of35 years and is eligible for consideration and selection for including his name in List Bl of Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 93 i 1 CWPN029140f2010 14 constablesfor admissionto Lower School Course under the 55Io quotaon the basis of inerit asper Rule 13 290i9ofthe PunjabPolice Rules 193 and in the test l9 and failed or was unable to get m due to lower merit can also claim r and selectionunder the 35Io quota 0 C0 on the basis of as perRule I C5 133 6296iil if he is eligibleunder both the I Z As noticed abovethe constableswho have attainedminimum m 31 benchmarks under 35Io quotahave been ignoredand theirjuniorswere C to the course on the ground that theyare more meritorioushaving I a5 betterbenchmarks This issue is in fact covered under Naresh Kumars co case and came to be clarified in Balrai Singhs cass supra I Z wherein it has been held that whererer a junior has been deputedfor Lla Lower School Course the claim ofthe seniorsmerelyon the basis ofthe higher bench marks the senior be deputed for the course and he will be deemedto have the course from the date hisjuniorhasqualiSed In such situation senior will retainhis seniority 4e There is another aspect of the matter The DGPs instructions dated 13022007 are onlyprospective in nature Prior to these instructions no bench marks were prescribedunder the statutoryrules and thus all thoseconstables who acquiredeligibility prior to issuance of these instructions have been denied the deputationto the Lower School Course for non the minimum bench marks It is seuled law that Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 94 4J CWP No 2914 of2010 15 instructions cannot overrule the statutoryrules Thus these instructionscannot be into serviceto deprive the constablesoftheir rightfor for not havingachievedthe minimumbench marks as under these instructionsissued later Thus such of the constableswho became eligiblepriorto issuanceofthese instructions and m for not theminlmum benchmarksare to be for C 0 LowerSchool Course and on success811completion ofthe course theyare C to be treated senior than their juniorswho were earlier deputed to the Z C5 LowerSchool Course In other words theywill retain their seniorityfor beingbrought on List B1 thattheywere deputed for the Z course laterthan their juniorsor theydid not achieve minilnum bench C marks C Z Similarly such ofthe constableswho are ignoredon account 08 of achievingless than the prescribed bench marks then their juniorsare OO alsoentitledto be deputed to the course and on ofthe same will 7 Z retaintheir seniority over theirjuniors 0m In some of the writ petitionstheeconstables have already completed the Lower School Course but theyhave been denied the senionty over their juniorson the ground that the juniorswere either havingbetter bench marks or deputedfor the courseprior in time than the Ce writ petitioners In view of the above observations these writ petitioners shall be deemed to be senior to their juniorsdeputedearlier on account of better bench marks or on any other ground of eligibility To sum up these petitions are disposedofwith the following directionslm i9 Such ofthe who have failed in 550Iomerit quota Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 95 J CWP N02914 of2010 16 areentitledto be consideredfor beingbrought on List B1 under 35Io quota on the principle of provided theyhave the and are otherwiseeligibleunderthe rules ii9 such ofthe constableswho were less than 35 yearsofageas on theday oftheir consideration but not more than 40 years theywill be entitledto be m C brought on List B1 by themto Lower School Course 1 0 iiil thepetitioners who acquiredeligibilitypriorto the DGPs instructions C0 dated 13022007 will be deputed for the course without consideringthe C5 questionof minimum bench marks as prescribedunder the govemment I instructlons and in their cases seniorityand other eligibilitycnteria Z prescribed unclerthe rules will be enough for their deputation to the course L iv the petitioners who becameeligiblefor afterthe issuanceof I the instructionsdated 1302 2007 and have achieved the minimum bench a5 marks be deputedto the course their juniorshave better CQ e bench marks 47 Z v9 interse seniorityof the constableswill be determinedon the basisof CL their seniority in their respective districtsin 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 interse seniorityof constableswill not be governedby the above directionswhere senlor was 4 ignoredon account of pendencyof any disciplinaryproceedingsor who suffered any other disqualification for deputation to Lower School Coursel vo deputationof the petitionerssha11be made on the basis of their seniorityin their respectivedistricts and againstthe available vacancies Let the claim ofthe petitionersbe considered in the light ofthe above directions and their deputationwhereaever required be made ln 5 Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 96 1 1 CWP No 29 of2010 17 accordancewith theabovedirections A copy of thisorderbepIacedon the record ofeachconnected 61e e 11082010 1m t BLS l JUDGE 0 Note 1 C0 YES C5 C Z Ct tc c6 er vm Z Q P Radhika 2014.05.01 10: 41 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document