73 e1 CWP N02914of2010 1 7 111theHighCourt ofPunjabandHaryana at Date ofdecisionl1 1082010 1 CWPN02914 of2010 Vs StateofHaryana and others 2 CWP No6427 of2009 1 C KrishanKumar and others Vs StateofHaryana and othcrs 0 3 CWP N03329 of2010 C RajbirSinghand othersVs Stateofllaryanadnd others 4 CWP N1 403 of2009 Prem Singh Vs StateofHaryanaand othcrs Z t 5 CWP No401 of2010 C EHC Kulbir Singhand anotherVs StateofHaryana aild otllers 6 CWP N03536 of2010 a5 0 KaptanSingbVs State ofHaryanaand others wmo 7 CWP No7203 of2010 Z ll 10eshR and othersVs StateofHaryana and others 8 CWPNo8147 of2010 EHC Ram Mehar and othersVs StateofHaryana and others 9 CWP No6443 of2009 C Jai Pal and another Vs State ofHaryanaand otllers 10 CWP No 6619 of2009 Satyawan EHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others Oll CWP N010487 of2009 HeadConstable Ashok Kumar Vs StateofHaryanaand othcrs 12 CWP No 12237 of2009 Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 9 aP e 4e 8 411 CWP No 2914of2010 2 NarenderKumar ConstableVs StateofHaryana and others 13 CWPNo12248of2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs State andothers 14 CWPNo 12253of2009 SubhashChanderEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others m C 15CWPNo16975of2009 0 Krishan Kumar EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others C 16 CWP No 18430of2009 0 PannaLal EHC Vs State and others J 17 CWPNo18863 of2009 Z R Kumar andanotherVs State and others C 18 CWP No 18919of2009 Kma1 ParkashEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 06 19 CWP No636 of2010 ClO t a LadyConstableRajbalaVs StateofHaryana and others Z 20 CWP No2775 of2010 Cl Rishi Parshadand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 21 CWP No 2875 of2010 LadyConstableSumanVs State andothers 22 CWP N0 2968 0f2010 C0W Sada Ram EHC Vs StateofHaryanaand others 23 CHTP No 3338 of2010 KaptainSinghand another Vs StateofHaryanaandothers 24 CWP No 3367 of2010 EHC Mohan Lal Vs StateofHaryanaand others Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 C 4 CWP N02914 of2010 3 25CWP No3556of2010 Hans Ram and othersVs StateofHaryana and others 26CWP N042580f2010 Hari Krishan HC Vs FinancialCommissioner8 PrincipalSecretary to GovernmentofHaryana and others 27 CWP No 4274 of2010 m Q Amar SinghEHC Vs State andothers 0 C 28CWPN047490f2010 Mohinder SinghEASI andanotherVs StateofHaryana and others C5 29 CWP NoA765 of2010 Z ChhajuRam and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others 30 CWP No 4960 of2010 1 Cr RajbirSinghand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 08 31 CWP No 4963 of2010 SatbirSinghVs StateofHaryana andothers 3 Z 32 CWP No 7923 of2010 Il Jaivir Singhand othersVs StateofHaryana andothers 33 CWP No6031 of2010 Hardayal HC and othersVs StateofHaryana and others CaWV CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOE Present IYlr SC Redhu MrNikram SinghMrl Yadav MrDinesh Malik Mrritam Saini Mrurender Lamba MrRP SinghAdvocatesfor the petitioners MrRS Kundu Addl AG Haryanaforthe respondents PERMOD KOHLI J Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 76 9 P11 CWPNol14 of2010 1 On the basis of common and identicallssues bothon facts and law all thesepetitions are beingdecidedbythis common order The entire controversyrelates to the of Rule 137 ofthe PunjabPolice Rules 1934 as applicable to the StateofHaryana and amended vide Punjab Police 4aryana Rules 2001 m l hereinafter referredto as the Rules This rule relatesto for 0 Lower School Course and for enlistingof the eligibleofScers in List B1 Cm for their promotionThe amendedrule subjectmatter of debate in the CA5 present writ petitionsis hereunder 137eSelection of candidatesfor admission to Z courses at the Police Training List A L B 6inForm 13 7 shall be maintainedby each C of Police It shall include the 06 Co names of all constablesselectedfor admission C mwo to the Lower School Course to be held at the Z Clm Police TrainingCollegeSelection to the list B shall be made 111the month of Januaryeach yearand shall be limited to the number 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 vacancies likely to be created within one year lIl the respectiveunit 550Io of the seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course shall be filled in on the basis of a competitive Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 CWP No914 of2010 5 examination35Io on the basis of seniority cunefltnessand 10Io on the basisof consistent in Gold or SilverMedal in All India Police MeetlNationalGamesor displayof 1C braveryduringthe course of of 0 offlcialduty Selectionofpersons against 55Io 0 seatsin listllower school on the basis of merit 9 shall be done by a Promotion 2 Committee on the basisofl V 1 Examinationof servicesand et Oll 2 A test hereinafter called B C test lIll mv Z a Prade b Law and practicalpolicework and 3 An Interview 26i9 All constables irrespectiveof their C educational qualificationsshall be eligibleto appearfor B test if they are under the age of 35 years and have completed5 years of service on 1 day of Januaryof the year ln which selection is made However if a Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 CWP No 2914 of2010 6 constable to reserved category who is recruitedalter attaining the age of 27 yearsas per Governmentinstructionslorders then he shall be allowed to appear for minlmum three consecutive chances after m t offive yearsofservice even ifhe 0 0 has crossed the age of 35 years up to a C mlnlmum of 10 years Z 6ii9 All Constables of their t C educational shall be eligibleto 4 be brought on List B seniority cum merlt 06 basis if theyare under the age of 40 years C C wn and have 5 years of service on the Z flrst dayof Januaryof the year in which C1 selectionis made 32 The State of Haryanaissued instructionsdated 13 022007 the minimum merit to fulflll the crlteria for senior 1 cunvfltness relyinguponthe observationsof this Court in the case of Cm Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and others CWP No7952 of 2004 decided on 05112004 Director General ofPolice Haryana issued these instructions prescribingmlnimum bench marks for selection to I3mIlist under 35Io quota The relevant extract of the instructions dated 13022007 0Annexure P 111 CWP No6427 of Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 79 49 i CWPNo914 of2010 7 2009 is hereunderl 3 In view ofthe Honble High lIl the Naresh Kumar case supra it has been decidedto flx the bench marks for fltnessunder 35Io senioritycunitnessquota The m C assessmentof service record should be made 0 C on the basis of education trainingcourses passedcommendationcertiflcates and length C of service etc as givenin PPR 133 All the d Z candidates who obtaina minimum 31 marks t or more would be deemed to be flt for C C selection ofBl seats against35Io quotaon the 08 basis of interse seniority of the candidatesand t for all such candidatesinterse seniority would mmm Z be the sole criteria for deputingon their turn r under 35Io quotaln vlew of the explicitorder of HighCourt Please take further necessary action The validityof these instructions has been upheldby this 4 Court in Hawa Singh Vs StateofHaryana and others CWP No1194 of2005 decided on 14052008 There are three sets of writ petitionsunder consideration The same are broadlycategorisedin the followingmannerl a9 the eligibilityofthe candidates who appeared in 55Io rnent Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 9f 4 CWP No2914 of2010 8 quotaunderRule 137 6Oto be consideredfor under35Io on basis underrule 137 i even if theyhavefailed under55Ioquota b considerationofthe candidateswith less than 35 years of age as on Ist dayof Januaryof the year in which selection is madein 35Io m C quotaof 0 C 9 lnteese seniority of the candidates on the basis of bench marks Ca lIl termsof DGPs instructionsdated 13022007 C5 From the reading ofRule 137 6l it emerges as follows Z a that 55Io ofthe seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course are meant to be fllled in on the basis of C examinatlOIl b 35Ioofthe seats on the basis and c 10Io seats on the basis of consistent 111 W2 Z etc Ll Selection against55Io quota 1S to be made by the Promotional Committee All the constables oftheir educational who are lessthan35 years ofageand have completed5 years of servlce on Ist dayof Januaryof the year of selection are eligibleto appear for Bl test under merit seats of 55Io quota Similarly all the constables irrespectiveof their educationalqualiflcationhavingcompleted flve years of service and in the age of 40 years on the Ist day of Januaryof the year of selection Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 CWP No914 of2010 v9 are eligibleto be brought on list B1 on the basis of merit against35Ioquota Sportspersons under 10Io quota are to be considered subjectto eligibility lIl the above two categorles m C The controversyrelating to the eligibilityofthe candidates 0 who failed to secure therequisite merit in the examination C under 55Io quota to be agaln considered under 35Io senioriecun C5 rnerit quota cameto be consideredby a Division Bench of this Court 2 lIl Naresh Kumars case This Division Bench judgment was before the Honble Court lIl SpecialLeave to C AppealCivil No10409 of2005 which hasbeen dismissedin limine O6 on 10052005 A similar issue came up for considerationbeforethis Court W Z 10 the case of Hawa Singh Vs Stateof Harvanaand others CWP Om No1194 of2005 decided on 14052008 After admissionofthe wrlt petitionbythe Honble Division Bench the matter was consideredbya learnedSingleJudgeof this Court for final disposal On 291 1 006 The learned SingleJudge ofthis Court was ofthe opinionthat certain C provlslons of Rule 137 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 petitioncametobe heard by a Division Bench ofthis Court The HonbIe Division Bench 1 Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 ee0 1 CWP No2914 of2010 10 vide its dated 14052008 afflrmedthe ratio Naresh lIl Kumarscase upra withthe observationsl In view of the factsmentionedabove these 0 wrtt petitions are allowedin the same terms as lIl Naresh Kumars case supra The m C are directed to deputethe 0 C petitioner to the flrst Lower School Course C5 which will commence after the pronouncement of judgmentin this case However The 2 petitioner shallbe deemedto havequalified lIl Q the Lower School Course from the datewhen other constables have qualifiedwhose names c6 CQ were approvedto Lower School m Coursevide selectlist AnnexureP1 It is made Z e clear that if by getting date of l0m passing the Lower School Course the petltlonerbecameeligiblefor promotionthen he will get only deemed benefits without gettingany actual flnancial benefits ln view of Ce 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 2006910 SupremeCourt Cases 145 95 Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 83 r i CWP No914 of2010 11 Honble the Division Bench further considered the validityof theinstructionsdated 13022007 and upheld its validitywith the following observationsl So far as CWP No609 of2007 is concerned lIl that writ petitionselect list prepared to undergo W Lower SchoolCourse on the basisof instructions Cr dated 13022007 as referred to above has been 0 C As has been held earlier above said C4 lnstructions are perfectlyjustifledand are 111 consonance with the directions issued by this 2 Court in NareshKumars case supra9 33 f The claims of some of the writ petitionersfor deputing to Lower School Course have been rejected on the groundthattheyhaving 06 failedin 55Io merit quotaare not entitledto be consideredfor beingbrought C on List B1 in 35Io quota The claims ofsome ofthe writ petitioners have em Z beenrejectedfor beingbroughtin List B under 35Io quotaon theground Clm that theywere of less than 35 yearsof age as on Ist dayofJanuaryofthe yearof selection In some cases the claims have been rejectedfor IlOll 1 achievingthe minimum 31 bench marks in terms of the DGPs instructions dated 1302007 In Naresh Kumars case lpra9theHonble Division ema Bench ruIed the eligibilityofthe constables for their consideration both in 55Io and 35Io quota This judgmenthas attained flnality The SLP has also been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court The ratio of the said judgmenthas been reiterated ln Hawa SingWscases supr as also in ConstableDharmbir Vs State of Harvana and others 2009 19RSJ 3 10 wherein thefollowingobservationshave been madel Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 84 1 i CWP No 2914 of2010 12 13 So thereare threedistinct with their own and for eligibilityfor consideration There ls no bar to considerationof a constable in any categoryif he theeligibility crlterla 1ee ifhe is eligiblelIl 1 eall three he has a statutoryrightto 0 considerationin all three The Rules C do not categorize or requiresome mlnlmum age C for eligibility under any ofthe Whatit 4r specifiesis the upper agelimit for consideration Z under a particular category C Despitethese instructions certaln issues referred to er hereinabovehave againcroppedUPe The controversyregardingthe 05 eligibility of candidatesunder 35 yearsof agefor beingbrought on List B 4 2 for 35Io quota againcame up for considerationbyanotherDivision Bench Z ofthis Court in Dhannbirs case supra9and Balral Singhand othersVs Clm Stateof Haryanaand others 2009629RSJ 463 In Dharmbirs case supra9 a Division Bench ofthis Court held as under 17 A conjointreadingofboth the suleruleswould show thatonlytheupperagelimit has been prescribed under the rules and no mlnimum age has been presCribedeither under sulrule 2 i9 or sulule 2 ii which tneans that if a constable fulfills the requirement of the upper ageand the other qualiflcationsprescribedunder the respectivecategory as per sulule 2 there 1S Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 85 f e1 4 CWP N02914 of2010 13 no bar to his considerationunder eachof them Meaningtherebya constable who is eligible111 one category under Rule 137 can also be considered in the other categoryunder Rule 133 2 ii of the PunjabPolice Rules as there lS no L bircation between the rules as far as the 0 eligibility 1S concerned with regardto the C8 minimum age as none is prescribed C 18 The minimum age if prescribedby way of executlve lnstructlonS would go againstthe Z r interest of the Constables who are otherwise t eligibleunder the statutoryRules Rule 13 6ii confers a rightwhich a Constable attalns on 08 the basis of his seniorityin the service As and Co t when his turn comes based on the senioritv a right em2 Z to consideration devolves on him This righton tl the basisofhis seniority cannot be deprived on the basis of executive instructions This would be 111 contraventlon to the statutoryrules and therefore C not sustainable 22 What emerges from the above discussions 1S that a constable who has completed5 years of servlce on the Ist day of Januaryof the year ln which the selection is made is under the age of 35 years and is eligible for consideration and selection for includinghis name in List l of Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 86 01 r CWP N2914 of2010 14e selectedconstablesfor admission to Lower School Courseunder the 55Io quotaon the basis of merit as per Rule 137 62 ofthe Punjab Police Rules 1934and having in the test B l9 and failed or was unable to get 1 enlistmentdue to lower merit can also claim 0 considerationand selection under the 35Io quota 0 C on the basis of senioritycumnerit as per Rule 133 2 if he 1S eligibleunder both the categorles 55 Z As noticed above the constableswho have attainedminimum 31 benchmarksunder 35Io quotahave been ignoredand theirjuniors were to the course on the groundthat theyare more merltorlous having 08 betterbench marks This issue is in fact covered under Naresh Kumars case supra9and came to be clarifled in Balrai Singhs cass supra Sm 2 whereinit has been held that whereever a junior has been deputedfor Lower School Course ignoring the claim of the seniorsmerely on the basis ofthe higherbench marks the senlor be deputed for the course and he will bedeemedto have passedthe course from the datehis juniorhas qualiSed In such situation senior will retain his seniority 4e There is another aspect of the matter The DGPs instructions dated 13022007 are onlyprospective in 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 the minimum bench marks It is settled law that Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 87 1 CWP N02914 of2010 15 governmentlnstructlons cannot overrule the statutoryrules Thus these lnstructlons cannot be pressed into Serviceto deprive the constablesoftheir right for for nothaving achievedthe minimumbench marks as prescribedunder these lnstructions issued later Thus such of the constables who became eligiblepriorto issuanceofthese instructionsand m Q ignored for not theminimumbenchmarksare to be for 0 Lower School Course and on successfulcompletion of the course theyare C to be treated senior than their juniorswho were earlier deputedto the C5 Lower School Course In other words theywill retain their seniorityfor beingbrought on List B1 that theywere for the Z course Iater than their juniorsor theydid not achieve minimum bench C marks Similarly such ofthe constableswho are ignored on account 05 of achievingless than the prescribedbench marks then their juniorsare mwo also entitledto be deputed to the course and on completion ofthe same will Z retain their seniority over theirjuniors Q In some of the writ petitionstheeconstables have already the Lower School Course but theyhave been denied the senlorityover their juniorsOIl the ground that the juniorswere either havingbetterbench marksor deputed for the course prior lIl time than the Ce Writ petitioners In view of the above observations these writ petitioners shall be deemedto be senior to their juniorsdeputedearlier on account of better bench marks or on any other ground of eligibility To sum up these petitionsare disposedofwith the followingdirectionsl i9 Such ofthe who have failed in 55Io merit quota Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 88 4 ed CWPN02914 of2010 16 areentitledto be consideredfor beingbrought on List B1 under35Ioquota on the of providedtheyhave the requisite and are otherwiseeligibleunderthe rules ii such ofthe constableswho were lessthan 35 yearsofageas on theday oftheirconsideration but not more than 40 years theywill be entitledto be 1 on List Bl by themto Lower School Course 7 iii9 thepetitioners who acquiredeligibilitypriorto the DGPs instructions 0 C dated13022007 will be for the course withoutconsidering the C of minimum bench marks as prescribedunder the govemment lnstructions and in their cases seniorityand other eligibilitycrlterla Z underthe rules will be enough for their to the course Ct ivl thepetitioners who becameeligiblefor afterthe issuanceof theinstructionsdated 130 2007 and have achievedthe minimum bench 06 marks be to the course their juniorshave better 0 benchmarks mw Z V lnter of the constableswill be determinedon the basis of CL theirseniority in their respective districtsin the and not on the basis of passingof the Lower School Course in all such cases who are by the above directions However the interse seniorityof constableswill not be governed by the above directions where senior was Ge ignoredon account of pendencyof any disciplinaryproceedings or who sufferedany other disqualification for deputation to Lower School Course vio deputationof the petitionersshall be made on the basis of their seniority in their respective districts and againstthe available vacancleSe Let the claim of the petitioners be considered in the light of the abovedirections and their whereTer requiredbe made in Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 1 d CWPNo 2914 of2010 17 accordance withthe abovedirections A copy of this order be placed on the record of each connected flle m e 11082010 PERMOD KOHLI BLS JUDGE m C Ale Notel VVhether to be referredto theReporter2YES 0 CA C5 lel 1 P Z m C e 08 1 mw Z Lla Uma 2014.04.03 16: 13 Scanned True Copy of Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document