IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP(T) No. 187 of 2008 Decided on : 01.04..2011 Jagdish Lal and others ..… Petitioners. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others …… Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioners : Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. Advocate General. V.K.Sharma, Judge (oral). The petition has been filed on the following prayer:- “To regularize the services of all the applicants as Police constables with effect from the date of their initial appointments with all consequential benefits, like pay, seniority, arrears, etc. etc.” 2. In reply, respondents 2 have taken the following stand vide paras 6 (i), (ii) and (iii):- “(i) The contents of this para are admitted to the extent that the applicants are the residents of the area mentioned in the memorandum of parties. It is further 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. 2 submitted that prior to enactment of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2007,the Police in the State of H.P. was being governed under the Police Act, 1861. Section 17 of the Police Act-1861 provides for the appointment of Special Police Officers when it appears that any unlawful assembly, or riot or disturbance of the peace has taken place, or may be reasonably apprehended, and that the police force ordinarily employed for the preserving the peace is not sufficient for its preservation and for the protection of the inhabitants and the security of property in the place where such unlawful assembly or riot or disturbance of the peace ahs occurred, or is apprehended, it shall be lawful for any police officer not below the rank of Inspector to apply to the nearest Magistrate to appoint so many of the residents of the neighborhood as such police officer may require to act as special officers for such period as deemed necessary. The cross border terrorism in border area of Chamba district made it necessary for the respondent State to invoke the provisions of Section 17 of the aforesaid Act. Accordingly it was decided to engage the services of local volunteers as Special Police Officers to ensure peace and to prevent terrorist incidents in the area. It is pertinent to submit here that the Government of India has clarified that the Special Police Officers are civilian volunteers who are paid honorarium as a token of appreciation of their contribution to security of their local areas. 3 (ii) The averments made in this para are incorrect and thus not tenable. It is submitted that due to large number persons willing to be appointed as Special Police Officers and respondents having limited numbers of posts, a screening test was organized by the respondents. It is specifically submitted that Section 17 of the Police Act does not provide for adhering to all basic norms such physical test/medical test etc. The respondent adopted a uniform method of selection without exercising any discrimination towards any class or category. It is pertinent to submit here that the operational requirements of a Special Police Officer are entirely different from that of a normal police functionary. While the young age, physical fitness, educational qualifications etc. are a necessary pre requisite for induction in Police service, a person can be appointed Special Police Officer on the basis of entirely different criteria e.g. his contacts with people and influence in the area, his access to suspected harbourer, suppliers and hide outs of terrorists and his knowledge of the terrain. The Special Police Officers can be appointed as such upto the age of 35 years whereas the upper age limit prescribed for the post of Constable is 22 years for the general category candidates and 25 years for the SC and ST candidates. A Special Police Officer may not necessarily be a good material for a Police Constable. It is incorrect for the applicants to submit that they have 4 qualified all the norms as are applicable for the regular appointment of Police Constables. As is evident from the submission made supra, the norms fixed for the appointment of regular constables are different from Special Police Officers. Thus the averments made in this para are not tenable. (iii) In reply to this para it is re-iterated that the selection of the applicants as Special Police Officer were made on the basis of a screening test during the year 1998 and 1999. As is evident from the perusal of the appointment order the applicants were appointed as Special Police Officer temporarily for 89 days. It has further been laid down in the appointment order that the services of the applicants shall be demme3d to have been terminated after completion of the aforesaid period. Accordingly the services of the applicants were terminated after 89 days and they were given fresh appointment after 89 days. The record in this regard shall be produced before this Hon’ble Tribunal as and when directed. It is thus incorrect for the applicants to contend that not even a single day’s break was given during this period and they have completed 8 to 9 years of regular service. It is also incorrect to contend that the applicants are performing same duties as are being performed by any ordinary officer of the police. As submitted earlier, the operational requirement of a Special Police Officer engaged for anti terrorist operation are 5 entirely different from that of a normal police functionary. The applicants are being paid honorarium as they are not waged workers.” 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is disposed of with a direction that subject to the petitioners making detailed representation(s) supported by documents along with copy of this judgment to respondent No.1 within one month from today, the same shall be considered and decided by the said respondent in accordance with law within next three months, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioners/their authorized representative, if so desired. 4. The petition, as also pending CMP(s), if any, stand disposed of in the above terms. (V.K. Sharma) Judge 1st April, 2011. Lsp*