C.W.P. No. 13504 of 1994 (1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13504 of 1994 DATE OF DECISION: 18.07.2011 Gurmail Singh ..........Petitioner Versus Deputy Inspector General of Police, Patiala ..........Respondents range, Patiala and others BEFORE:- HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY Present:- Mr. DS Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Suraj Singh Chohan, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present petition has been filed for quashing of test held by respondent No.1 and also for issuing directions to the respondents to send the petitioner for undergoing the Lower School Course at Phillaur. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per Rule 13.7 of Punjab Police Rules (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules), no marks were prescribed for the interview and the Departmental Promotion Committee had no jurisdiction to prescribe more than 25% marks for interview. The criteria of more than 25% of marks for interview is arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that for promotion to the rank of ASI, a Head Constable should qualify intermediate course but no such test is prescribed for selection to said intermediate course. Learned counsel also C.W.P. No. 13504 of 1994 (2) submits that the persons who are juniors to the petitioner have been selected on the basis of wrong criteria. Learned counsel for the respondent-State raised a preliminary objection as the petitioner has approached this Court without making any representation to the respondents. Moreover, as per result of B-I test, merit list of candidates was prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee and the name of the petitioner was not in the list as he obtained only 55 marks out of 100 and no candidate having less marks than the petitioner was deputed for Lower School Course and the selection was made strictly according to Rules 13.7 and 13.8 of the Rules. As per provisions of 13.8 (1) of the Rules, a list is to be maintained in every District and the examination of B-I test was conducted by the Departmental Promotion Committee at District Patiala and not at Phillaur. After selection, all candidates were sent to Phillaur for training. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is totally wrong as the persons mentioned at serial number 1,5,18,19 and 21 are juniors to the petitioner as they had obtained more marks than the petitioner. Heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents available on the file. The facts of the case as mentioned in the petition are that the petitioner was appointed as Constable in Punjab Police in the year 1977. He passed Drill Instructor Course in the year 1979. An examination was held for selection to the post of Promotion of course 'B' for Constables at Police Training College and the petitioner as well as other candidates appeared in said examination. The Departmental Promotion Committee was constituted. As per criteria fixed by the Committee, 50 marks were for written test and 50 marks were for parade and interview. As per merit prepared, the petitioner could not qualify for the rank of Head Constable as he secured less marks than the selected candidates. The only grouse of C.W.P. No. 13504 of 1994 (3) the petitioner is that juniors have been promoted, whereas, he has not been promoted and marks for interview was more than 25% which is arbitrary and discriminatory. Learned counsel has also not disputed with regard to the merit list and the marks obtained by the petitioner. As mentioned in the written statement as well as argued by learned State counsel that the petitioner obtained 55 marks out of 100 marks and other candidates got more marks than the petitioner and on the basis of merit prepared by Departmental Promotion Committee, the other candidates were promoted who were found more meritorious and the selection was done in accordance with Rule 13.7, 13.8 of the Rules. The criteria for awarding more marks in the interview is not good as held in various judgments. Even the selection can be made only on the basis of interview. Moreover, the petitioner has participated in the selection process and subsequently he has challenged the process of selection . It has been held in Om Parkash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and others AIR 1986 SC 1043 that when the petitioner had appeared in the examination without protest and when he came to know that he was not successful, filed a petition challenging that process. This view has been supported by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Madan lal and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1995 (2) SCT, 880, wherein, it has been held as under:- “Therefore, the result of the interview test on merits cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who takes a chance to get selected at the said interview and who ultimately finds himself to be unsuccessful. It is also to be kept in view that in this petition we cannot sit as a Court of appeal and try to re- assess the relative merits of the concerned candidates who had been assessed at the oral interview nor can the petitioners successfully urge before us that they were given less marks though their performance was better. It is for the Interview C.W.P. No. 13504 of 1994 (4) Committee which amongst other consisted of a sitting High Court Judge to judge the relative merits of the candidates who were orally interviewed in the light of the guidelines laid down by the relevant rules governing such interviews. Therefore, the assessment on merits as made by such an expert committee cannot be brought in challenge only on the ground that the assessment was not proper or justified as that would be the function of an appellate body and we are uncertainly not acting as a court of appeal over the assessment made by such an expert committee. It has also been held in Munindra Kumar Vs. Rajive Govil 1991 (3) SCC 368 that those candidates who had taken part in the selection process knowing fully well that the procedure laid down is not entitled to question the same. It is clear from the facts mentioned above that the selection was made strictly as per Rules 13.7 and 13.8 of the Rules. Rule 13.8 is reproduced as under:- “13.8 (1) In each district a list shall be maintained in card index form (form 13.8 (1)) of all constables who have passed the Lower School Course at Phillaur and are considered eligible for promotion to Head Constable. A card shall be prepared for each constable admitted to the list and shall contain his marking under sub rule 13.5 (2) and notes by the Superintendent himself,or furnished by Gazetted Officers under whom the constable has worked, on his qualifications and character. The list shall be kept confidentially by the Superintendent and shall be scrutinized and approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police at his annual inspection. (2) Promotions to head constable shall be made in accordance with the principle described in sub-rules 13.1 (1) C.W.P. No. 13504 of 1994 (5) and (2). The date of admission to List C shall not be material, but the order of merit in which examinations have been passed shall be taken into consideration in comparing qualifications. In case where other qualifications are equal, seniority in the police force shall be the deciding factor. Selection grade constables who have not passed the Lower School Course at the Police Training School but are otherwise considered suitable, may with the approval of the Deputy Inspector General, be promoted to head constable up to a maximum of ten per cent of vacancies. Rule 13.7 of the Rules is reproduced as under:- “13.7 List Selection For Admission to Promotion Course B for Constables at the Police Training College.- (1) List 'S' Form 13.7 shall be maintained by each Superintendent of Police. It will include the names of all Constables selected for admission to the promotion course for Constables at the Police Training College, Selection will be made in the month of January, each year and will be limited to the number of seats allotted to the districts for the year with a twenty percent reserve. Names will be entered in the list in order of merit determined by the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted by the Inspector General of Police on the basis of tests in parade, general law (Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Indian Evidence Act and Local and Special Laws) interview and examination of records. (2) All Constables. (a) who were middle pass and have put in more than four years of service; or C.W.P. No. 13504 of 1994 (6) (b) who are at least matriculates and have put in more than three years of service or; (c) who obtain first class with credit in the Recruits Course specified in rule 19.2; will be eligible to have their names entered on the aforesaid list, if they are not above thirty years of age on the first day of July in the year in which the selection is made.” In view of the provisions referred to above, examination was held for admission to promotion course B for Constables in accordance with Rule 13.7 of the Rules and the petitioner appeared in said examination. After assessment by the Departmental Promotion Committee, the petitioner got 55 marks out of 100 marks, which are admittedly less than other candidates selected. The petitioner cannot say in any manner that the selection was discriminatory or arbitrary as no mala fide has been alleged either against the respondents or the Departmental Promotion Committee. Simply by stating that the criteria was not fair and good is not the ground to challenge the selection. Moreover, the selected candidates are holding their respective posts for the last many years and quashing their selection at this stage would be unjustified as they were not at fault. The selection was made in the year 1994 and selected candidates might have been promoted to other higher posts also, there is no justification to interfere at this stage. The petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. July 18, 2011 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) pooja JUDGE