69 veeeV l p6 CWPN0 2914of2010 1 e Jn theHlghCourt ofPunjab andHaryana at Dateofdecisionl l082010 1 CWPN02914 of2010 1 Vs StateofHarvana and others 2 CVvPNo6427 of2009 1 C Krishan Kumar and others Vs StateofHaryana and othcrs 0 3 CWl N03329 of201 0 C andothersVsState oflIaryana anciothcrs C0 Z 4 CWP No 403 of2009 Prem Singh Vs StateofHaryanaand othcrs Z 5 CWP N3401 of2010 C EtiC Kulbir SinghandanotherVs StateofHaryana and otllers r a5 6 CWP No536 of201 0 CQ KaptanSinghVs StateofHaryana and others ea 7 CWP No7203 of2010 Z 10eshR and olhersVs StateofHaryana and others 8 CWPNo8147 of2010 EHC Ram Mehar and othersVs Stateofllaryanaand others 9 CWP No 6443 of2009 C Jai Pal and anotherVs StateofHaryanaandotllers 10 CWP No 6619 of2009 SatyawanEHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others 1 CWPNo10487of2009 Head Conle Ashok Kumar Vs State ofHaryanaand othcrs 12 CWP No 12237of2009 1 1 Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 1 S C1VPN029140f2010 2 NarenderKumarConstableVs StateofHarvanaandothers 13 CWP No2248 of2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs State and others 14 CWPNo12253 of2009 SubhashChanderEHC Vs StateofHwyana and others A 15 CWP No16975 of2009 Y 1 Krishan Kumar EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 10 16 CWP No 18430of2009 9 PannaLal EHC Vs State and others WW r 17 CWP No18863 of2009 S Al A RajKumar and anotherVs State and others V 7m 70 18 CWPN0189190f2009 W94 T Kamal ParkashEHC Vs StateofHaryana andothers t t7 19 CWP No636 of2010 Il LadyConstableRajbalaVs State and others J AW 20 CWP No 2775 of2010 1 Rishi Parshadand othersVs StateofHaryana andothers 21CWPN02875of2010 LadyConstable SumanVs StateofHaryana andothers 22 CWP No 2968 of2010 4I Sada Ram EHC V StateofHaryanaand others 23 CWP No 3338 of2010 KaptainSinghand another Vs StateofHaryanaand others 24 CWPN0 3367 of2010 EHC Mohan Lal Vs State ofHaryanaand others Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 3b CWP No914 of2010 25 CWP No3556 of2010 HansRam andothersVs State andothers 26CWPN042580f2010 Hari Krishan HC Vs FinancialCoinmissioner 8ePrincipalSecretary to GovernmentofHaryana and others 27 CWP NoA274 of2010 j C Amar SinghEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 0 28 CWPNo 4749 of2010 0 I Mohinder SinghEASI andanotherVs StateofHaryana and others C5 29 CWP NoA765 of2010 Z Chhaju Ram andanotherVs StateofHaryana andothers 30 CWP No 4960of2010 C RajbirSinghand othersVs StateofHaryana and others X 08 31 CWP NoA963 of2010 CQ Satbir SinghVs StateofHaryana andothers 2 32 CWPNo7923 of2010 Z Ll Jaivir Singhand othersVs StateofHaryana andothers 33 CWP No6031 of2010 Hardayal HC andothersVs StateofHaryana and others C CORAM1 HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Presentl Mr SC Redhu Mrikram SinghMrN Yadav MrDinesh Malik MlPritam Saini MrSurender Lamba MrlU SinghAdvocatesfor the petitioners MrRS Kundu Addl AG Haryanaforthe respondents PERMOD KOHLIJ Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 1 CWP N02914 of2010 4 On thebasisof common and identicalissuesbothon factsand law all thesepetitions are beingdecided bythis common order e The entire controversyrelates to the of Rule 137 ofthe PunjabPolice Rules 1934 as to theStateofHwyana and amendedvide PunjabPolice 4aryana Rules 2001 a C hereinafterreSerredto as theRules1 This rule relatesto for 0 Lower SchoolCourse and for enlistingof the eligibleofScersin List B l Ca for their promotionThe amendedrule subjectmatterof debatein the C C present writ petitions is hereunderl I 137election of candidatesfor admission to Z S courses at the Police TrainingCoilege List C B 6inForm 1331shall be maintainedby each I of Police It shall include the 08 CQ namesof all constablesselectedfor admission 1t mr to the Lower School Course to be held at the Z Ll Police TrainingCollegeSelection to the list B shall be made ln the month of Januaryeach yearand shall be limited to the nuinber of seats allottedto the district for the year The number c of seats in Lower School Course in a year shall be on the basis of existingvacancies and the vacancles likely to be created within one year ln the respectiveunit 55Io of the seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course shall be tllled in Otl the basis of a competitive Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 ewL CWPN029140f2010 5ee examination 35 on the basis of cumefitnessand 10Io on thebasis of consistent in Gold or Silver Medal in All India Police MeetlNational Gamesor displayof e C braveryduringthe course of of 0 official duty Selectionofpersons against 55lo Ca I seats ltl listllower school on the basis of merit C5 I shall be done bv a Promotion Z Committeeon thebasisof C 1 Examinationof servicesand 08 2 A test called l 00 test9 lnl aw Z CL a9Prade b9Law andpracticalpolicework aild 3 An Interview Cea 2i All constables irrespective of their educational qualificationsshall be eligibleto appearfor Bl test if theyare under the age of 35 years and have completed5 vears of servlCe on 1lay of Januaryofthe year ln which selection is made However if a Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 1 CWP N029140f2010 6 constable to reserved category who is recruitedafter the ageof 27 yearsas per Government instructionslorders then he shall be allowed to appear for mlnimum three consecutive chances after C of flveyearsof serviceeven if he 0 Ca3 has crossed the age of 35 years up to a minimum of 10years C5 Z 6iil All Constables of their educational shall be eligible to Lr C I be broughtOll List B1 seniority cum merit 06 basis if theyare under the age of 40 years 10 and have 5 years of service on the eW3 Z first dayof Januaryof the yearin which r1 selectionis made 29 The Stateof Haryanaissuedinstructionsdated 13 022007 the llllnlmum merit to fulfill the criteria for senioritr 1 cumfitness relyingupon the observationsof this Court in the case of C Naresh Kumar Vs State of Harvana and others CWP No952 of 20049decided on 051 12004 Director General of Police Haryana issued these instructions prescribingminimum bench marks for selection to BeI list under 350Ioquota The relevant extract of the lnstructlons dated 13022007 Annexure P79 in CWP No6427 of Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 a 1 CWPN02914of2010 7 2009 is hereunderl In Vlew ofthe Honble HighCourt lIl the Naresh Kumar case it has been decidedto flx the benchmarksfor tltnessunder 35Io quota The a r assessmentof service record should be made 0 C on the basis of education trainingcourses passedcommendationcertificates and length 0 of service etc as givenin PPR 13 All the t Z candidates who obtain a ininimum 31 marks or more would be deemed to be fit for selection of Bl seats against35Io quotaon the C basis of interse seniority ofthe candidates iiJ CO for ali such candidates interse seniority would Wa2 Z be the sole criteria for deputingon their turn Om under 35Io quota1I1 vlew of the explicitorder of HighCourt Please take further necessary action 59 The validityof these lnstructlons has been upheldby this Court in Hawa Singh Vs StateofHaryana and others CWP No194 of20051decided on 14052008 There are three sets of writ petitionsunder consideration The same are broadlycategorisedin the following manner a9 the eligibilityofthe candidates who appeared in 55Io merit 1 Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 76 11 6 CWP No2914 of2010 8 promotion quotaunderRule 133 to beconsideredfor under35Io on basis underrule 137 il even if theyhavefailedunder55Ioquota b9 considerationof the candidateswith less than 35 yearsofageas on Ist dayof Januaryof the yearin which selection is madein 35Io m C quotaof 0 C interse seniority of the candidates Oll the basisofbench marks 0 I lIl termsof DGPs instructionsdated 1322007 t5 Z From thereading ofRuIe 133 6l it emergesas followsl Z a9 that55Ioofthe seatsallottedto a unit 111 the Lower School Course are meant to be fllled ln on the basis of C e exarnination X c8 6b1 35Ioofthe seats on thebasisofsenioritunltness and C0 r c 1 10Io seats on the basis of consistent ln avn z etc Om Selection against55Io quota is to be made by the PromotionalCommittee All the constables oftheir educational qualification who are less than 35 years ofage and have completed 5 years of service on Ist dayof Januaryof the year of CV selection are eligibleto appear for B test under merit seats of 55Io quota Similarly all the constables irrespectiveof their educational qualiflcationhavingcompletedSve years of service and ln theage of 40 years on the Ist dayof Januaryof the year of selection Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 1 CWPN02914of2010 8 are eligibleto bebrought on Iist B1 on the basis of tneritagainst 35Ioquota Sportspersons under 1OOloquotaare to be considered subjectto eligibility ln the above two categories 1l The controversyrelating to the eligibilityof the candidates who failed to secure the requisite merlt lll the examination under55Io quota to be againconsidered under 35Io 5 r merit quota came to be consideredbya Division Bench of this Court 4 Naresh Kumars supra9This Division Bench judgment was 111 case H V W before the Honble Supreme Court in SpecialLeave to P V CivillNo10409 of2005 which hasbeen dismissedin Iimine 8 on 10052005 ll A similar issue came up for considerationbefore this Court 7 Ad 111thecase of Hawa Singh Vs Stateof Harvana and others CWP 1 1 No1194 of20059 decidedon 14052008 After admissionofthe writ bythe Honble Division Bench thematter was consideredbya leamed SingleJudge of this Court for final disposal on 29112006 The learned SingleJudge of this Court was of the opinionthat cenain Ca provisionsof Rule 133 oftherules were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench and on that basis a reference was made for considerationof 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 C4 1 Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 f h CWP No914 of2010 10 vide its dated 14052008 affirmedthe ratio in Naresh Kumars case supra withthefollowing observationsl In Vlew of the facts mentionedabove these writ petltionSare allowed in the same terms as lIl Nresh Kumars case 6supra The m f are directed to deputethe 0 to the flrst Lower School Course C which will commence after the pronouncement C5 I of judgmentin this case However The Z shallbe deemedto havequalified 111 the Lower School Course from the date when c X other constableshave qualifiedwhose names C were approvedto undergo Lower Schnll CO Coursevide selectlist Annexure a l It is made n7 Z 25 clear that if by getting date of Cle passingthe Lower School Course the becameeligiblefor promotionthen he will get only deemed benefits without gettingany actual flnancial beneflts 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 93 r 1 Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 79 11 e CWPN02914of2010 11 Honble the Division Bench furtherconsideredthe validityof the instructionsdated 13022007 and upheldits validitywith the following observations l So far as CWP No3609 of 2007 is concerned 111 that writ petitionselect list to Lower SchoolCourse on thebasisof ilnstructions 0 dated1 02007 as referredto above has been 0 As hasbeenheld earlier above said I C instructionsare perfectlyjustifiedand are in consonance with the directions issued by this Z Courtin Naresh Kumars case supra97 C The claims of some of the writ petitionersfor to F Lower School Course have been rejected Oll the groundthat theyhaving 9t 1 failedin 55Io merit quotaare not entitledto be consideredfor beingbrought Tl on List B1 in 35Io quota The claims ofsome ofthe writ petitioners have 7 beenrejectedfor beingbroughtin List B1 under35Io quotaon theground J1 1L thattheywere of less than 35 years of age as on Ist dayof Januaryof the year of selection In some cases the claims have been rejectedfor non the minimum 31 bench marksin terms ofthe DGPs instructions dated 1302007 In Naresh Kumars case 0suprathe Honble Division e Bench ruled the eligibility of the constables for their consideration both in 55Io and 35Io quota This judgmenthas attainedfinality The SLP has also been dismissed by the Honble SupremeCourt The ratio of the said 1 judgmenthas been reiterated in Hawa Singhs cases Csupraoas also in Constable Dharmbir Vs State of Harvana and others 2009 C11RSJ 310 whereinthe following observations have been made 5 Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 1 CWP No914 of2010 2 13 So thereare three distinct with their own and for eligibilityfor consideration There is no bar to considerationof a constable in any categoryif he fulfills the eligibility crltena1 ifhe is eligible ln L all three he has a statutoryrightto 0 considerationltl alI three The Rules C do not categorize or requiresome minimum age X C5 for eligibilityunder any ofthe What it X Ct specifies is the upper age limit for consideration Z under a particular category W r Despitethese instructions certain issues referred to Z hereinabovehave again croppedup The controversyregardingthe 08 ofcandidatesunder 35 yearsofagefor beingbrought on List OO for 35Io quota againcameup for considerationbyanotherDivision Bench m3 Z ofthis Court in Dharmbirs case lpraland Balrai Singhand othersVs 1 Qw State ofHarvanaand others 2009 629RSJ 463 ln Dharmbirs case lpra aDivision Benchofthis Court held as undec 17 A conjointreadingofboth the subruleswould show that onlythe upper age limit b has been prescribed under the rules and no minimum age has been prescribedeither under suberule 2 i9 or suberule 2 ii which means that if a constable fulfills the requirementof the upper 1 ageand the other qualificationsprescribedunder rd the respectivecategory as per suberule 2 there is Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 e CWPN02914 of2010 13 no bar to his considerationunder each of them Meaningthereby a constable who is eligiblein one category under Rule 137 can also be considered in the other categoryunder Rule 137 21 io of the PunjabPolice Rules as there1S 00 m bilrcation between the rules as far as the 0 0 eligibility lS concerned with regardto the 4e3 minimum ageas none is Z C 18 The minimum age if prescribed by way of Z r executive lnstructions would go againstthe Z interest of the Constables who are otherwise 0 eligibleunder the statutoryRules Rule 133 021 X 6ii confers a rightwhich a Constable attains on 08 the basis of his seniorityin the service As and O C when his turn comes based on the senioritv a right mm Z 20 to considerationdevolveson him This righton CL the basisofhis seniority cannot be deprived on the basisof executive instructions This would be in contravention to the statutoryrules and therefore C not sustainable 2 Whatemergesfrom the above discussions is that a constable who has completed5 years of servlce on the Ist day of Januaryof the year ln whichthe selection is made is under the age of 35 years and is e ligible for consideration and selection for including his name in List B1 of Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 CWPNo914 of2010 4 selectedconstablesfor admissionto Lower School Courseunder the 55Io quotaon the basisof merit asper Rule 137 2l 1ofthe Punjab Police Rules 1934and havlng in the test ll and failed or was unable to get m enlistmentdue to lower merit can also claim considerationand selectionunder the 35Io quota 0 C Oll the basis of as per Rule Z 0 133 62 if he lS eligibleunder both the Z categones 99 1 Z As noticed above the constableswho have attainedminimum rA C 31 bench marks under 35Io quotahave been ignoredand theirjuniors were deputedto the course on the groundthat theyare more merltorious having ol betterbenchmarks This issue ls in fact covered under Naresh Kumars CQ t case and came to be clarified in Balrai Singhs cass supra enw Z wherein it has been held that whereever a junior has been deputedfor CL Lower School Course ignoringthe claim ofthe seniorsmerely on the basis of the higherbenchmarks the senior be for the course and he will be deemedto have passedthe course om the datehis juniorhasqualiSed In such situation senior will retainhis seniority A0 There is another aspect of the lnatter The DGPs instructions dated 13022007 are onlyprospectiveln nature Prior to these instructions no bench marks were prescribedunder the statutoryrules and thus all those constables who acquiredeligibilityprior to issuance of these instructions have been denied the deputation to the Lower School Course for non achieving the minimum bench marks It is settled law thal Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 83 CHTPN029140f2010 15 1 govemmentinstructions cannot overrule the statutolyrules Thus these instructionscannot bepressed lntc servlceto deprive the constabiesofthelr rightfor for not having achievedthe minimumbenchmarksas under these instructionsissued later Thus such of the constableswho becameeligiblepriorto issuanceoftheseinstructionsand m C ignored for not achieving the mlllllllUm benchmarksare to be depedfor 0 Lower School Course and on successfulcompletion ofthe course theyare C to be treated senior than their juniorswho were earlier deputed to the I e C5 Lower SchooI Course In other words theywill retaln their seniorityfor Z beingbrought on List B 1 that theywere for the Z course later than their juniorsor theydid not achieve minimum bench C marks I Similarlysuch ofthe constableswho areignored on account 08 of achievingless than the bench marks thentheirjuniors are CO also entitledto be deputed to the course and on completion ofthe same will 7 Z retaintheir seniority over their juniors Cle In some of the writ petitionsthe constables have already the Lower School Course but theyhave been dened the seniority over their juniorson the ground that the juniorswere either havingbetter bench marksor deputedfor the courseprior in time than the C writ petitioners In view of the above observations these writ petitionersshall be deemed to be senior to their juniorsdeputedearlier on account of beuer bench marks or on any other groundof eligibility To sutn up these petitions are disposedofwith the foilowingdirectionsl 0 Such ofthe who have failed in 55010merit quota Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 84 CWPN02914 of2010 ea16e areentitledto beconsideredfor beingbrought on List B under35Ioquota on the principle of providedtheyhave the requisite and are otherwiseeligible underthe rules iil suchofthe constableswhowere lessthan 35 yearsofageas on theday oftheir considerationbut not more than 40 years theywill beentitledto be m C brought on List B1 by themto Lower SchoolCourse 1 0 iiil thepetitioners who acquiredeligibiiitypriorto the DGPs instructions Cs3 dated 13022007 will be deputed for the COUrse without considering the X C questionof minilnum bench marksas prescribedunder the eovernment C instructlOllS and in their cases seniorityand other eligibilitycriteria Z prescribed under the rules will beenough for their to the course C ivl the petitioners who becameeligiblefor afterthe issuanceof e X the instructionsdated 13022 007 and have achieved the minimum bench a5 marks be deputedto the course their juniors have better Cll bench marks W Z 3 v interSe seniorityof the constableswill be detennined on the basis of Clm their seniority in their respective districts in the andnot 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 directions where senlor was e ignoredon account of pendencyof any disciplinaryproceedingsor who suffered any other disqualification for deputationto Lower School Course vi deputationof the petitionersshall be made on the basis of their seniorityin their respectivedistricts and againsthe available vacancies Let the claim ofthe petitionersbe considered in the lieht ofthe above directions and their deputationwhereler required be made 111 Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 85 ee C 10 17 accordancewiththeabovedirections A copyofthis orderbeplacedon therecord of eachconnected tile ll082010 BLS 6PERMODKOHLo JUDGE 0 Notel 4 C YES Ca9 Z 4r r C2 a5 m 4 Z tl Rawat Seema 2014.04.25 14: 38 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document