52 S N029140f2010 In theIIighCourt ofPunjab and Haryana at Dateofdecision l l 08Olo 1 CWPNo 2914 of2010 e 1 Vs StateofHaryana and others 2 CWP No6427 of2009 1 Krishan Kumar and others Vs StateofHaryana and othcrs 0 Pl CWP N2 3329 of201 0 C 01 RajbirSinghand othersVs StateoflIaryana and CD others 42WP No403 of2009 Z PremSingh Vs StateofIlaryana anclotls 5 CWP No 3401 of2010 C IlllC Kulbir Singhand anotherVs StateofIaryanaaild otllcrs I C45 6 CWP No7536 of2010 CQ KaptanSinghVs StateofHaryana and others 3 Z 7 CWP No 7203 of2010 Om lOeshRajand othersVs State and others 8 CWPNo8147 of2010 EHC Ram Mehar and othersVs StateofHaryana and others 9 CWP No 6443 of2009 C Jai Pal and another Vs StateofHaryanaand 0111ors 10 CWPNo6619of2009 Satyawan EHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others 11 CWP No10487 of2009 Head Constable Ashok Kumar Vs StateofHaryanaand othcrs 12 CWP No 12237 of2009 r Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 53 1 1 CUIPN029140f2010 2 NarenderKumar ConstableVs StateofHaryana andothers 13 CWPNo12248 of2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 14 CWPN012253 of2009 SubhashChanderEHC Vs State and others 15 CWP No16975 of2009 0 Krishan Kumar EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others C3 16CWPNo84300f2009 I C5 PannaLal EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others I 17 CWPNo8863 Of2009 Z RajKumar and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others r 18 CWP No 18919of2009 I Kamal ParkashEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 08 19 CWP NoS36 of2010 flO LadyConstableRajbala Vs StateofHaryana and others 7 Z 20 CWP No 2775 of2010 Q Rishi Parshadand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 21 CWP No 2875 of2010 LadyConstableSuman Vs State ofHaryanaand others 1 22 CWP No 2968 of2010 GWme Sada Ram EHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others WNtlMMHNt wu mkwm1ebSWWIWWWWHM WbWWbu 24CWPN03367of2010 EHC Mohan Lal Vs StateofHaryanaand others Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 54 40 CWP No 2914 of2010 n 25 CWP N03556 of2010 HansRam andothersVs StateofHaryana and others 26 CWP NoA258 of2010 Hari Krishan HC Vs FinancialCommissionercePrincipal to GovernmentofHaryana and others 27 CWP NoA274 of2010 m C Amar SinghEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 0 C 28 CWP NoA749 of2010 I Mohinder SinghEASI and anotherVs StateofHaryana andothers C5 I 29CWPN04765 of2010 et Z ChhajuRam andanotherVs StateofHaryana and others V2 30 CWP No 4960 of2010 C RajbirSinghand othersVs State Haryana and others I 06 31 CWP No 4963 of2010 CO SatbirSinghVs StateofHaryana and others r emWo Z 32 CWP No923 of2010 C Jaivir SinghandothersVs StateofHaryana and others 33 CWP No6031of2010 Hardayal HC and othersVs StateofHaryana and others cw CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present SKe d51rVikramSinghMrSN Yadav vl4alik Mrritam Saii MrSurenr Lmba Ivlrl2P Singh Advocatesfor the petitioners MrS Kundu Addl AG Haryanaforthe respondents PERMOD KOHLI J Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 55 v4 CWPN029140f2010 4 On the basisof common and identicalissuesboth On factsand law all thesepetitionsare beingdecidedbythis common order The entire controversyrelates to the of Rule 137 ofthePunjab PoliceRules 1934 as to theState and amended vide PunjabPolice Haryana Rules 2001 1 f hereinafterreferredto as the Rules9 This rule relatesto for 0 Lower SchoolCourseand for enlisting of the eligibleOfficersin List B 1 CA3 for their promotion The amendedrule subjectmatter of debate in the C5 presentwrlt petitionsis hereunderl I 137election of candidatesfor admissionto Z courses at the Police TrainingCollege619List C B 6inForm 1339shall be maintainedby each c6 of Police It shall include the CO names of all constablesselectedfor admission e 7 Z to the LOwer School Course to be held at the n Police TrainingCollegeSelection to the list B shall be made in the month of Januarveach e year and shall be limited to the number of seats allotted to the district for the year The number Ce of seats in Lower School Course tn a year shall be on the basis of existingvacancies and the vacancies likely to be created within one year 111 the respectiveUnlt 55Io of the seats allotted to a unit 111the Lower School Course shall be filled ln on the basis of a competitive Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document e 1 56 r1 Il N02914 of2010 5 examination 35Io on the basis of seniorio cumfitnessand 10Ioon the basis of consistent in Gold or Silver Medal in All India Police MeetlNationalGames or displayof 1 C braveryduringthe course of of 0 official duty Selectionofpersonsagainst55Io 0 I seats 10 listllower school on the basis of ment C5 I shall be done by a Promotion Z Committeeon thebasisof n2 1 Examinationof servicesand C45 2 A test called Bel Co test9 1111 7 Z QW a9Prade b1Law and policework and 3An Interview Cwe 2 6i9 All constables of their educational qualitlcationsshall be eligibleto appearfor Bl test ifthey are under the age of 35 years and have completed 5 years of servlce on 1 day of Januaryof the year 111 which selection is made However if a Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document S 57 1 CWPN02914 of2010 6 constable to reserved category who is recruitedafter the age of 27 yearsas per Governmentinstructionslorders then he shall be allowed to appear for minimum three consecutive chances after L offive years ofservice even ifhe 0 C has crossed the age of 35 years up to a I C mmimum of 10 years I Z ii All Constables of their 1r r educational shall be eligibIe to 4r I be brought on List Bm1 seniority cum merit 08 basis if thev are under the age of 40 years CO V vm and have 5 years of service on the Z first dayof Januaryof the vear IIl which el selectionis made 59 The Stateof HaryanaiSSUedinstructionsdated 13 022007 the mlnimum merlt to fulfill the criteria for seniorio cumefltnessrelyingupon the observationsof this Court in the case of C Naresh Kumar Vs State of Harvana and others CWP No952 of 20041decided on 051 12004 Director General of Police Haryana issued these instructions prescribing minirnum bench marks for selection to BmI list under 350Ioquota The relevant extract of the instructions dated 13022007 0Annexure179 ln CWP No6427 of Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 58 1 plCHlPN029140f2010 7 2009 is hereunderl 3 In Vlew ofthe Honble HighCourt lIl the Naresh Kumar case supra it has been decidedto fix the bench marks for fitnessunder 35Io quota The 1C assessmentof service record should be made 0 0 on the basis of education training courses I passedcommendationcertiflcates and length C5 I of service etc as givenin PPR 133 All the Ct Z candidates who obtain a minimum 31 marks m C or more would be deemed to be fit for I selection of B l seats against35Io quotaonthe 08 basisof interse seniority ofthe candidatesand C for all suchcandidatesinterse senioritywould a Z be the sole criteria for deputingon their turn under 35Io quotaln Vlew of the explicitorder of HighCourt Please take further necessary 17 action 99 The validityof these instructionshas been upheldby this C Court in Hawa Singh Vs StateofHaryanaand others6CWPNo1 194 of2005 decided on 14052008 There are three sets of writ petitionsunder consideration The same are broadlycategorisedin the following mannerl a9 the eligibilityofthe candidateswho appeared in 550Ioment Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 59 1 f CWPNo914of2010 8 quotaunderRule 137 2160to beconsideredfor promotion under35Io on basis under rule 137 6290i even if theyhavefailedunder 55Ioquota b9 considerationof the candidateswith less than 35 years ofageas on Ist dayof Januaryof the year in which selection1S made in 3510 m C quotaof 0 C C 1 lnteese seniority of the candidatesOn the basis of bench marks I in terms of DGPs instructionsdated13022007 C5 I From thereading ofRule 1307 l it emergesas follows 14 Z a9 that 55Io ofthe seats allotted to a unit lIl the Lower School 5r Course are meant to be filied ln On the basis of Q et I examinatlOIl C45 b1 and ClO c I 10Io seats on the basis of consistent 7 in Z etc CL Selection against55Io quota 1S to be made by the Promotional Committee All the constables oftheir educational who are lessthan 35 years ofageand have completed 5 yearsof service on Ist dayof Januaryof the year of C selection are eligibleto appear for B 1 test under merit seats of 55Io quota Similarly all the constables irrespectiveof their educational qualiflcationhavingcompletedSve years ofservice and in the age of 40 years on the Ist day of Januaryof the year of selection Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 ICWPN029140f2010 8 are eligibleto be brought on list B 1 on the basisof merit against35Ioquota Sportspersons under 10Io quota are to be separately considered subjectto ellgibilityprescribed the above two in categories 1 C The to the ofthecandidates 0 who failed to secure therequisite tnerit in the examination C under 55Io quota to be againconsidered under 35Io C5 seniorityecun merit quotacameto be consideredbya Division Bench of this Court Z ln Naresh Kumars case This Division Bench was before the Honble Supreme Court SpecialLeave C 111 to I Appeal6Civil9 No10409 of2005 which has been dismissedin limine 08 on 10052005 oo A similar issuecame up for considerationbefore this 3 Court Z in the case of Hawa Singh Vs Stateof Harvanaand otllels CWP ll No194 of20051decidedOll 14052008 After admissionofthe writ petitionbythe Honble DivisionBench the matter was consideredbya 1 learnedSingleJudgeof this Court for final disposal on 29112006 A The learnedSingleJudge ofthis Court was ofthe opinionthat certain C provlsions of Rule 133 ofthe rules were not broughtto 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 wrlt petition came to be heard by a Division Bench ofthis Court The Honble Division Bench Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 1 CWP No2914 of2010 10 vide its dated 14052008 afrmed the ratio lll Naresh Kumarscase with the observationsl In view of the facts mentionedabove these wrlt are allowedin the same terms as ltl Naresh Kumars case supra The 1 C are directed to deputethe 0 C petitionersl to the 6rst Lower School Course C5 which will commence aRer the pronouncement I of lIl this case However The Z shallbe deemedto havequalified ln C the Lower School Course from the date when I other constables have qualied whose names 08 were approvedto undergo Lower Scbool CO 7 Coursevide selectlist Annexure Pml It is made Z e clear that if by getting date of t1 passingthe Lower School Course the petltlonerbecameeligible for promotionthen he wilI 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 ln Union of India and ahother vs Tarsem Lal and others 62006010 SupremeCourt Cases 145 59 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 CWPN029140f2010 11 Honble the Division Bench furtherconsideredthe validityof theinstructions dated13022007and upheldits validitywith the observations So far as CWP N03609 of 2007 is concemed in that writ petitionselect list preparedto undergo m C LowerSchoolCourseon thebasisof 0 dated13022007 as referredto above has been C As has beenheld earlier abovesaid C5 instructions are perfectlyjustified and are lIl consonance With the directionsissued by this Z Q The claims of some of the writ petitionersfor to I Lower SchoolCourse havebeen jectedOll the groundthattheyhaving c5 r0 failedin 55Io merit quotaare not entitledto beconsideredfor beingbrought 7 on List B1 in 35Io quota The claims ofsome ofthe Writ Petitionershave Z been rejectedfor beingbrought in List Be l under 35Io quota on theground Il thatthey were oflessthan 35 years of age as on Ist dayof Januaryofthe yearof selection In some cases the claimshave beenrejectedfor non 1 the lninimum31 benchmwks lll terms of the DGPs instructions dated 132007 In Naresh Kumars case the Honble Division Ge Bench ruled the eligibilityofthe constables for their considerationboth in 55Io and 35Io q This judglnenthas attained finality The SLP has also been dismissedby the Honble SupremeCourt The ratio of the said judgmenthas been reiterated in Hawa Sings cases supral as also in Constable Dharmbir Vs Stateof Harvana and others 2009 19RSJ 310 whereinthe followingobservationshavebeenmade Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 63 I WPN029140f2010 12 13 So there are three distinct categories with their own and for eligibilityfor consideration There ls no bar to considerationof a constable in any categoryif he fulfllls the eligibility criteria ifhe is eligiblein 1 C all three he has a statutoryrightto 0 considerationin all three categoriesThe Rules CA0 do not categorize or require some minlmum age I 5 for eligibilityunder any ofthe categoriesWhat it I 4t specifles is the upper agelimit for consideration Z under a particular category r Despite these instructions certain issues refened to I hereinabove have againcroppedup The controversyregardingthe 08 eligibility ofcandidates under 35 yearsofagefor beingbrought on List Bl C for 35Io quota againcameup for considerationbyanother Division Bench 7 Z of this Court in Dharmbirscase lpraland BalraiSinghand othersVs 0 State ofHaryanaand others 2009621RSJ 463 In Dharmbirs case supral a Division Bench ofthis Court held as underl 17 A conjointreadingofboth the subules would show that onlytheupperage Iimit n has been prescribed under the rules and no rninimum age has been prescribedeither under subule 2i9 or suberule 2ii which means that if a constable 81lf111sthe requirement of the upper age and the other qualificationsprescribedunder the respectivecategory as per sulule 2 there is Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 1 WP No 2914 of2010 13 no barto his considerationunder each of them therebya constable who is eligible111 one under Rule 13 7 621 can also be consideredlIl the other categoryunder Rule 133 621ii of the PunjabPolice Rules as there is no m bircatlon between the rules as far as the eligibility1S concerned with regardto the 0 0 minimum age as none is C5 18 The minimum age if by way of executive instructlons would go againstthe Z 5r interest of the Constables who are otherwise r eligible under the statutoryRules Rule 137 029 I 6ii9confers a rightwhich a Constable attainson 08 the basis of his seniorityin the service As and Cll whenhis turn comes basedon theseniority a right 7 Z to considerationdevolves on him Thisrighton Il thebasis ofhis seniority cannot be deprived on the basisof executive instructions This would be in contravention to thestatutoryrules and therefore C not sustainable 22 What emerges from the above discussions is that a constable who has completed5 years of servlce on the Ist day of January of the year 111 whichthe selection is made is under the age of 35 yearsand is eligible for consideration and selection for includiilghis name in List B of Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 7 t CWPN029140f2010 44 selectedconstablesfor admissionto Lower School Courseunder the 55Io quotaOIl the basis of merit as per Rule 13 6296i9ofthe Punjab Police Rules 1934 and having in the test ll and failed or was unable to get m 0 enlistmentdue to lower merit can also claim 0 considerationand selection under the 35Io quota C0 on the basis of senioritycunneritas per Rule C 17 62 if he is eligibleunder both the Z As noticed above the constableswho have attained minimum tr 31 bench marksunder 35Io quotahavebeenignoredand their juniors were I deputed to the course on the groundthat theyare more meritorious having 08 betterbenchmarks This 1SSUe 1S in fact covered under NareshKumars CO case and came to be clarifled ln Balrai Singhs cass supra 2 Z whereinit has been held that whereeevera junior has been for CL Lower SchoolCourse ignoring the claim ofthe seniorsmereIy on the basis ofthe higherbench marks the senior be deputed for the course and he will be deemedto have passedthe course frOmthe datehis juniorhasqualified In such situation senior will retain his seniority 9e0 There is another aspect of the matter The DGPs instructions dated 1302007 are only prospectivein nature Prior to these instructions no bench marks were prescribedunder the statutoryrules and thus all those constables who acquired eligibility pnor to issuance of these instructions have been denied the deputationto the Lower School Course for non achieving the minimum bench marks It is settled law that Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 CWP N02914 of2010 15 instruCtionscannot overrulethe statutoryrules Thus these instructionscannot bepressed into serviceto deprive the Constablesof thelr rightfor for not havingachievedthe minimum bench marks as under these instructions issued later Thus such of the constables who became eligiblepriorto issuanceoftheseinstructions and W ignored for not themlnimum benchmarksare to be for 0 Lower School Course and on successfulcompletion ofthe course theyare C to be treated senior than their juniorswho were earlier deputed to the I C5 Lower SchoolCourse In other words theywill retain their seniorityfor C beingbrought on List Bml that theywere deputed for the Z r course later than their juniorsor theydid not achieve minimum bench C marks I Similarly such ofthe constableswho are ignoredon account 08 of achievingless than the prescribedbench marks then their JUlliOrs are r also entitledto be deputed to the course and on completion ofthe same will V2 Z retain their seniority over Clw In some of the writ petitionsthe constables have already completedthe Lower School Course but they have been denied the senlontyover their juniorson the ground that the juniorswere either havingbetterbench marksor deputedfor the course prior in time than the 4e 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 followingdirections i9 Such of the who have failed in 550Iomerlt quota Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 r CWP No 2914 of2010 16 are entitledto be consideredfor beingbrought on List B under 35Io quota on the principle of providedtheyhave the experience and are otherwiseeligibleundertherulesl i such ofthe constableswho were less than 35 yearsofageas on theday oftheir consideration but not more than 40 years theywill be entitledto be m brought on List B1 by themto Lower SchoolCourse 9 0 iii9 the who eligibilitypriorto the DGPs instructions C dated 13022007 will be for the course without the C5 questionof minimum bench marks as prescribedunder the government I lnstructions and in their cases seniorityand other eligibilitycriteria Z prescribed under therules will be enoughfor their deputation to the course C ivl thepetitioners who becameeligible for after the issuanceof I the instructionsdated13022007 and have achievedthe minimum bench 08 marks be deputedto the course their juniorshave better QO e benchmarks W3 Z V interse seniorityof the constableswill be determinedon the basisof CL their seniority in their respective districtsin the andnot on the basis of passingof the Lower School Course in all such cases who are 1 ignored by the above directions However the interse seniorityof constableswill not be governedby the above directions where senior was W i2nored on account of pendencyof any disciplinaryproceedings or who sufferedany other disqualification for deputation to Lower School Course vO deputationof the petitionersshall be made on the basis of their seniorityin their respective districts and againstthe a7ai1ab1evacancles Let the claim ofthe petitionersbe considered in the lightofthe above directions and their deputationwhereIer required be made in Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 CWPNo 2914 of2010 17 accordancewiththeabovedirections A copy of this order beplacedon the record of each connected file C aee 331JJ 1108010 6PERMODKOHLII 0e BLS m JUDGE e 0 Note Whetherto be referredto the YES C0 I C5 I Z r I 08 rlo 7 Z r 1 1 Singh Gagan Preet 2014.04.26 14: 48 TRUE SCANNED COPY OF ORIGINAL PHHC CHANDIGARH JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document