9 64 CWPN02914 of2010 1 Jn theHighCourt ofPunjaband Haryana at Chandigarh Date ofdecisionl l082010 1 CWPN029140f2010 1 Vs StateofHaryana and olhers 2 CVvPNo 6427 of2009 1 C Krishall Kumar and others Vs StateofHaryanaand othcrs 0 3 CWP N0 3329 of201 0 C0 RajbirSinghand othersVs StateoflIaryana and others C5 I 4CWP N01403 of2009 Cr Z Prem Singh Vs StateofHaryanaand othcrs m 5 CWP N073401of2010 r Cr EtlC Kulbir Singhand anotherVs StateofHaryanaaild othcrs a5 6 CWPN7536 of2010 CQ KaptanSinghVs StateofHaryana and others m 7 CWP No 7203 of2010 Z Qm lOesh Raiand others Vs StateofHaryana and others 8 CWPN0147 of2010 EHC Ram Mehar and othersVs StateofHaryana and others e 9 CWP Nco6443of2009 C Jai Pal and another Vs StateofHaryanaand otIlers 10 CWPNo 6619 of2009 Satyawan EHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others 11 CWPN0 10487 of2009 Head Constable Ashok Kumar Vs State ofHaryanaand olhcrs 12 CWP No 12237 of2009 r Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 CWP No 2914 of201 0 2 1 NarenderKumar ConstableVs StateofHaryana and others 13 CWP No 12248of2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 14 CWP No 12253of2009 SubhashChanderEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others m Q 15 CWPNo 16975of2009 0 Krishan Kumar EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others C3 16 CWP No 18430of2009 I 0 PannaLal EHC Vs StateofHaryana andothers I 17 CWP No 18863of2009 Z RajKumar and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others Lr 18 CWP No 18919of2009 I Kamal ParkashEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 06 19 CWP No636 of2010 co LadyConstableRajbala Vs StateofHaryana and others 7 Z 20 CWP N02775 of2010 Rishi ParshadandothersVs StateofHaryana and others 21 CWPNo8750f2010 LadyConstable SumanVs StateofHaryanaand others 22 CWP N02968 of2010 Ce Sada Ram EHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others 23 CWPNo3338of2010 KaptainSinghand another Vs State ofHaryanaand others 24 CWP No 3367 of2010 EHC Mohan Lal Vs StateofHaryanaand others Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 CHTPNo 2914 of2010 3 Ml 25 CWP N03556 of2010 Hans Ram and othersVs State and others 26CWPNoA258of2010 Hari Krishan HC Vs Financial CommissionercePrincipalSecretary to GovernmentofHaryana and others 27 CWPNoA274 of2010 m C Amar SinghEHC Vs StateofHmyana andothers 0 CA3 28CWP N047490f2010 I Mohinder SinghEASI and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others C I 29CWPNoA765of2010 Z Chhaju Ram and anotherVs State and others 30CWPN049600f2010 C RajbirSinghand othersVs State Haryanaand others I 08 31 CWPNoA963 of2010 r12 SatbirSinghVs StateofHaryana andothers 7 Z 32 CWPNo923of2010 Clm Jaivir Singhand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 33CWPN06031of2010 HardayalHC and othersVs StateofHaryana and others C CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOFILI Present Mr SK Redhu Mrikram SinghMr111 Yadav MrDinesh Malik MrPritam Saini MrSurender Lamba MrRP SinghAdvocatesfor the petitioners MrRS Kundu Addl AG Haryanaforthe respondents PERMOD KOHLI J Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 67 CWPN029140f2010 4e 4 On the basisofcommonand identicalissues bothon 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 Punjab Police Haryana Rules 2001 1 1X referred to as the Rules9 This rule relatesto for 0 Lower School Course and for enlisting ofthe eligibleofScersin List B1 C for their promotionThe amendedrule subject matter of debate in the I C0 presentwrit petitionsis reproduced hereunderl I 137Selection of candidatesfor admission to Z courses at the Police TrainingCollegee List C B 6inForm 1339shall be maintained by each Z of Police It shall include the c6 oo names of all constablesselected for admission W2 Z to the Lower School Course to be held at the Llw Police TrainingCollegeSelection to the list B shall be made 111 the month of Januaryeach 1 yearand shall be limited to the number of seats allotted to 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 vacancies likely to be created within one year lIl the respectiveunit 55Io of the seats allotted to a unit 111 the Lower School Course shall be filled in on the basis of a competitive Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 CWP No914 of2010 5 A1 examlnatiOIl 35Io on the basis of cumefitnessand 10Ioon the basis of consistent in Gold or Silver Medal in All India Police MeetlNational Gamesor displayof m Q braveryduringthe course of of 0 0 offlcial duty Selectionof personsagainst55Io seats 1I1 listllower school on the basis of merit C5 I shall be done bv a Promotion V Z Committeeon the basisof tr 1 Examinationof servicesand a5 2 A competitive test 1hereinafler called B testl1111 7 Z a9Prade b Law and practicalpolicework and 3 An Interview C 2 O All constables of their educational qualificationsshall be eligibleto appearfor Bl test if they are under the age of 35 years and have completed 5 vears of serVlCe on 1 day of Januaryof the year in which selection is made However if a Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 69 6 CWP No2914 of201 0 6 4 constable belongingto reserved category who is recruitedafter attaining the age of 27 yearsas per Government instructionslorders then he shall be allowed to pear for mlnlmum three consecutive chances after m l offive years ofservice even ifhe 0 CO has crossed the age of 35 years up to a I minimum of 10 years 0 I C Z iil All Constables of their n educationalqualicationsshall be eligibleto Cr I be broughton List B seniority cum ment 08 basis if theyare under the age of 40 years CQ andhave 5 years of service on the a Z flrst day of Januaryof the yearin which tl selectionis made 91 The State of Haryanaissuedinstructionsdated 13 022007 I7 the minimum merit to fulflll the criteria for seniorio cumitness relyingupon the observationsof this Court in the case of C Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and others CWP No7952 of 20049decided on 05 11 2004 Director General of Police Haryana issued these instructions prescribingminimum bench marks for selection to B4 list under 35Io quota The relevant extract of the instructions dated 13022007 6AnnexureP79 in CWP N6427 of Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 CWPN0914of2010 7 J Ip 2009 is hereunderl 3 In view ofthe Honble HighCourt judgment lll the Naresh Kumar case it has been decidedto fix the bench marks for fltnessunder 35Io quota The r assessmentof service record should be made 0 C on the basis of education trainingcourses I passedcommendationcertificates and Iength C5 of service etc as given in PPR 13 All the Z candidates who obtain a minimum 31 marks C or more would be deemed to be fit for Cr I selection of B l seats against35Io quotaonthe c6 basisof interse seniority ofthe candidatesand 00 for all such candidates intermseseniority wouid e7 Z be the sole criteria for deputingon their turn under 35Io quotaln view of the explicitorder of HighCourt Please take further necessary action accordinglyl The validityof these lnstructions has beenupheldby this C Court in Hawa Sirlh Vs StateofHaryanaand otheIls6CWPNo194 of20051decided on 14052008 There are three sets of writ petitionsunder consideration The same are broadlycategorisedin the followingmanner a9 the eligibilityofthe candidates who appearedin 50 merit Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 CWPN029140f2010 3 1 promotionquotaunder Rule 133 6296i9to be consideredfor promotion under35Io on senioritycunneritbasis underrule 137 6290i9even if theyhavefailed under 55Ioquota b9 considerationof the candidateswith less than 35 years of age as on Istdayof Januaryof the year ln which selection is made in 35Io 1 quota 0 C3 C intereseseniorityof the candidates on the basis of bench marks ln ternlsof DGPs instructionsdated 13022007 C5 From the readingofRule 13 611it emerges as followsl Z a9 that55Ioofthe seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School m Course are meant to be ftlled 111 on the basis of I examination 08 b9 35Io ofthe seats on the basis and CQ c 9 10Io seats on the basis of consistent performance m2 ln Z etc CL Selection against55Io quota lS to be made by the PromotionalCommittee All the constables oftheir educationalqualification who are lessthan35 years ofageand have 5 yearsofservice on Ist dayofJanuaryofthe yearof C selection are eligibleto appear for Bl test under merit seats of 55Io quota Similarly all the constables irrespectiveof their educationalqualificationhavingcompleted five years ofservice and lIl the age of 40 years on the Ist day of Januaryof the year of selection Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 CWPN02914of2010 9 are eligibleto be brought on list B1 on the basis of rnerit against35Ioquota Sportspersons under 10Io quota are to be considered subjectto eligibility the above two lIl categories m C The controversyrelating to the eligibilityofthe candidates 0 who failed to secure the requisite meritin the examination C under 55Io quota to be againconsidered C5 I merit quota cameto be consideredby a Division Bench of this Court 4 Z lll Naresh Kumars case supral This Division Bench judgment was before the Honble Supreme Court in SpecialLeave to 0 AppealCivil Nol0409 of2005 Whichhasbeen dismissedin limine 08 on 10052005 Cll Aimilar issuecame up for considerationbefore this Court mwo Z lIl the case of Hawa Singh Vs State of Harvanaand othersCWP C No1194 of2005 decided on 14052008 After admissionofthe writ petitionbytheHonble Division Bench the matter was consideredbya 1 learnedSingleJudge of this Court for flnal disposal 29112006 on 1 The leamedSingleJudgeofthis Court was ofthe opinionthat certain C prOVlSlOns 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 writ petitioncame to be heard by a Division Bench ofthis Court The Honble Division Bench Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 CWP No914 of2010 0 J vide its judgmentdated 14052008 affirmed the ratio in Naresh Kumars case supra with thefollowing observationsl In view of the facts mentioned above these writ petttionsare allowed lltl the same terms as in Naresh Kumars case 6supra The 1 C are directed to deputethe 0 C petitionerslto the first Lower School Course I which will commence after the pronouncement 9 I of judgment ln this case However The Z petitioner shall be deemedto have qualifiedlIl m the Lower School Course from the date when lr I other constables have quaIifiedwhose names C45 were approved to undergo Lower School rlo Course vide seIect Iist Annexure P1 It is made 7 Z clear that if by gettingretrospetivedate of CL passing the Lower School Course the petitionerbecameeligiblefor promotionthen he will get only deemed benefits without gettingany actualfinancial benefits in view of C principleof no work no pay as laid down by their Lordshipsof the Honble SupremeCourt lIl Union of India and another vs Tarsem Lal and others 62006910 SupremeCourt Cases 145 77 Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 JCWPNol9140f2010 11 Ilonble the Division Bench further considered the validityof the instructionsdated 13022007 and upheldits validitywith thefollowing observationsl So far as CWP N03609 of2007 is concemed ln that writ petitionselect list preparedto undergo 1 C Lower School Course on the basis of ilnstructlOns 0 dated 13022007 as referred to above has been 0 challengedAs has been held earlier above said I C5 instructions are perfectlyjustifiedand are in I consonance with the directions issued by this Z Court in NareshKumars case 6supra 73 rs The claims of some of the writ petitionersfor deputing to I Lower School Course have been rejectedon the groundthat theyhaving oll failed in 55Io merit quotaare not entitledto be considered for beingbrought ao Cr on List B1 in 35Io quota The claims ofsome ofthe writ petitioners have mv Z beenrejectedfor beingbrought in List B1 under 35Io quotaon theground Clm that theywere 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 achievingthe minimum 31 bench marksin terms ofthe DGPs lnstructions dated 130 2007 In Naresh Kumars case 0supra9the Honbie Division e Bench ruled the eligibilityof the constables for their consideration both in 55Io and 35Io quota This judgmenthas attained finality The SLP has also been dismissed by the Honble SupremeCourt The ratio of the said judgmenthas been reiterated ln Hawa SingWscases 6supralas also in Constable Dharmbir Vs State of Haryana and others 2009 19RSJ 310 wherein the followingobservations havebeen madelw Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 eCWP N02914 of2010 2 13 e So there are three distinct with their own qualiflcationsand requirementsfor eligibilityfor consideration There is no bar to considerationof a constable in any categoryif he fulfills the eligibility critena ee if he is eligiblein C all three categorieshe has a statutoryrightto 0 considerationlIl all three categoriesThe Rules 0 I do not categorize or requiresome minlmum age C5 for eligibilityunder any ofthe categoriesWhat it I specifiesis the upper agelimit for consideration Z under a particular category e2 0 Despite these instructions certaln issues referred to hereinabove have againcroppedUP The controversyregardingthe 08 eligibilityofcandidates under 35 years ofagefor beingbrought on List B OO for 35Io quota againcameup for considerationbyanotherDivision Bench 7 Z ofthis Court in Dharmbirs case supra9and Balrai Singhand othersVs Om StateofHaryanaand others 200962IRSJ 463 In Dhannbirscase 6supra a Division Bench ofthis Court held as under 7 17 A conjointreadingofboth the suberuleswould show that onlythe upper age limit c has been prescribed under the rules and no nlinimum age has been prescribedeither under subule 2 0i9or subvrule 2 ii9 which means that if a constable fulfills the requirementof the upper ageand the other qualificationsprescribedunder the respectivecategory as per sulule 2 there lS Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 76 a No 2914 of2010 13 no bar to his considerationunder each of them Meaningtherebya constable who is eligiblein one categoryunder Rule 13 21 i9 can also be considered in the other categoryunder Rule 133 629ii9of the PunjabPolice Rules as there is no bifurcation between the rules as far as the 0 eligibility lS concerned with regardto the 0 minimum age as none is prescribed C0 18 The minimum age if prescribed by wayof executive instructlons would go against the Z r lnterest of the Constables who are otherwise r eligibleunder the statutoryRules Rule 133 I 0iOconfers a rightwhich a Constable attalns on 08 the basis of his seniorityin the service As and CQ when his tum comes based on the senioritya right ee2 Z to consideration devolves on him This righton Cln the basisofhis senioritycannot be deprivedon the basis of executive instructions This would be in contravention to the statutoryrules and therefore C not sustainable 22 What emerges from the above discussions 1S that a constable who has completed5 yearsof service on the Ist day of Januaryof the year ln which the selection is made is under the age of35 years and is eligible for consideration and selection for includinghis name in List B of Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 A CWPN029140f2010 14 selectedconstablesfor admissionto Lower School Course under the 55Io quotaon the basis of merit asperRule 13762O ofthe PunjabPolice Rules 1934 and having in the test 6B9 and failed or was unable to get m enlistment due to lower merit can also claim 0 consideration and selection under the 35Io quota C0 on the basis of as per Rule I CAo 13 29 6io if he 1S eligibleunder both the I categories 13 Z r As noticed above the constableswho have attainedminlmum Ci 31 bench marksunder 35Io quotahave been ignoredand their juniorswere I deputedto the course on the groundthattheyare more meritorious having 08 betterbench marks This issue is in fact covered under Naresh Kumars CO Cr case 6supraJand came to be clarifled in Balrai Singhs cass 0supra Vo Z wherein it has been held that whereeever a junior has been deputedfor Ll Lower School Course ignoringthe claim ofthe seniors merelyon the basis of thehigherbench marks the senior be deputedfor the course and he will be deemedto have passedthe course from the date his juniorhas qualied In such situation seniorwill retainhis seniority 4a There is another aspect of the rnatter The DGPs instructions dated 13022007 are onlyprospective ln nature Prior to these instructions no bench marks were prescribedunder the statutoryrules and thus all those constables who acquired eligibility prior to issuance of these instructions have been denied the deputation to the Lower School Course for non achieving the rnlnimum bench marks It is settled law that Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 A15WPNo 2914 of2010 5 instructions cannot overrule the statutoryrules Thus these instructionscannot be pressed into serviceto deprivethe constablesof their right for deputationfor not havingachievedthe minimum bench marks as prescribedunder these instructions issued later Thus such of the constables who became eligiblepriorto issuanceofthese instructions and C ignoredfor not achieving the nunimum benchmarks are to be deputed for 0 Lower School Course and on successfulcompletion ofthe course theyare C0 to be treated senior than their juniorswho were earlier deputedto the I C0 Lower School Course In other words theywill retain their seniorityfor beingbrought on List Bl that theywere deputed for the Z course later than their juniorsor theydid not achieve minimum bench CL marks er I Similarly such of the constableswho are ignoredon account 5 of achievingless than the prescribed bench lnarks then their juniorsare m also entitledto be deputed to the course and on compIetion ofthe same will W3 Z retain their seniority over theirjuniors 0 In some of the writ petitionsthe constables have already the Lower School Course but they have been denied the 7 1 seniorlty over their juniorsOll the ground that the juniorswere either havingbettetebench marksor deputed for the course prior ln time than the C 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 groundof eligibility To sum up these petitions are disposedofwith the followingdirections i9 Such ofthe who have failed in 550Iomerlt quota Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 79 e 9 J2WPN029140f2010 16 areentitledto be consideredfor beingbrought on List B1 under 35Io quota on the principleof providedtheyhave the requisite and are otherwiseeligible under the rules ii such ofthe constableswho were Iessthan 35 years ofageas on the day oftheir consideration but not more than 40 years theywill be entitledto be 1 C brought on List B1 bydeputingthem to Lower School Course 3 5 0 iii the petitioners who acquiredeligibilitypriorto the DGPs instructions Ca0 dated 13022007 will be deputed for the course without consideringthe C5 questionof miniinum bench marks as prescribedunder the govemment tnstructlons and in their cases seniorityand other eligibility cntena Z prescribed under the rules will be enoughfor their deputation to the course w r iv the petitioners who becameeligiblefor deputation afler the issuanceof I the instructionsdated 132007 and have achievedthe minimum bench 08 marks be deputedto the course their juniorshave better OO bench marks J Z v9 interse seniorityof the constableswill be determined on the basis of Ll their seniorityin their respective districts in the and 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 directions where senior was r gnored on account of pendencyof any disciplinaryproceedingsor who suffered any other disqualiflcation for deputationto Lower School Course vil deputationof the petitionersshall be made on the basis of their seniorityin their respectivedistricts and againstthe available vacancies Let the claim ofthe petitioners be considered in the lightofthe above directions and their deputationwhereIer required be made ln Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 i 5CWPN02914 of2010 e17m P accordancewith the abovedirections A copy of this order be placedon the record of each connected flle 4aWe 11082010 PERMOD KOHLI9 BLS JUDGE m C4 11 0 Notel Whether to bereferredto the YES C0 I C5 d1 5r C e et I 08 r10 Cr 7 Z 11 Pooja 2014.03.28 14:37 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document