413 41 Sr IN TIiE I1IGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ij WaPeNoe 16839 of2008 DATE OF DECISION l3 08 2009 SPO Sewa Ram eePETITJONERSl 1 VERSUS r 0 State ofPunjaband Others U3SPONDENTOSI 0 I C5 CORAMHONBLE MR JUSTCE AJAI LANlBA I Present Mr Rl2 Dhawan Advocate for thepetitioner Z Ms Charu Tuli Sr DAG Punjab 0 4 AJAI LAMBAJ 08 This shall disposeof two civil writ petitionsnamelyCWP No 11 r 16839 of 2008 titled SPO Sewa Ram Vs Stateof Punjaband Others and m2 Z CWP N0 19764 of 2008 titled Harwinder Singhand Othcrs Vs State of Punjaband Others as similar questions offacts and law are involved tl For facts referenccis beingmadeto the paper book of CWP No 16839of2008 6SPOSewa Ram Vs StateofPunjaband Othersl e This civil writ petitionhas beenOled under Articles 226 2k 227 of 05 1 5 the Constitution of lndia prayingfor issuance of a writ in the nature of 4 certioran quashingletter dated 02042007 Annexure P8 issued by the respondent whereunderrequestfor of thepetitioneras Constable has been rejectedFurther prayer made in thc petitionis for issuance of a writ i n the nature of mandamusdirectingrespondentno 2 ie Directo1 General ofPolice PunjabChandigarhto 21110l constabularylumber to the Radhika 2014.02.20 16: 25 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 414 1 1 1 0 CWP No 16839 of2008 2e 1 petltioner It has been pleadedlll the petitionthat the petitionerwas appointed asa SpecialPolice Oftlcer or short SPO9Ill the year 1992 and hasbeenworking as such Learned counselhasplacedreliance on Standing 1 Order no l of 1990 to contend that SPOs can be inducted as Constables 0 Under theStandingOrder of 1990 relaxalionhasbeen providedfor 0 Learned counsel has further arguedthat there was an acute I C5 shortage of Constables therefore Constableswere to be recruited from out ofSPOs In this regardreferencehasbeenmade to Ietterdated19111991 Z issuedby no 2 that hasbeen placedon record as Annexure P a Referencehas also been madeto Standing Order No l of 1997whereunder r 4 the issueof recruitmentfor Constablesfrom servingeligibleSPOs has been discussed and it providesfor relaxation l Il heightand other eligibility C45 criteria m e In para no5 of the petitionit has been pleadedthat recruitment 7 Z Board had held a test in 2004 for the purpose of absorption of SPOs as C1n Constables The petitioneralso appeared in thetest and cIualified the same The petitionerhad earlier passedmatriculation examination from Uttar Pradesh lt is however admitted that the petitionerhad not passed MatriclMiddle Standardwith Punjabi as a subject In this 1 has beenmade to Annexure P4 which is a messagedated2602004 frono 1 e DIG Administration to SSP FerozepurUnder Annexure Pw4 a query r was raised as to whether the petitionerand other persons mentioned in the message hadpassedPunjabi It hasbeenpleadedthat thepetitionerln Radhika 2014.02.20 16: 25 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 415 1 t CWP Noe 16839 of2008 3 10 March 2005 passedPunjabifrom PunjabSchool EducationBoard Mohali HavingpassedPunjabitherightto be absorbedas a Constable was pressed which however was not consideredin view of the fact that the recruitment test was held in 2004 and eligibilityhad to be adjudged on the said dateof test ln this regardorder Annexure I8 dated02042007 was passed that 1 Ct hasbeenimpugned in this petition 0 Vide Annexure I3 Director General of Police Punjabhas 0 informed the petitionerthat the petitionerhad not passedPunjabiupto I C5 Middle Standardwhich qualiflcation had beenacquiredin 2005 This was however to 2004 test which was the last chancegiven Z to SPOs for as Constables It has been claried 111 lhe impugnedorder that eligibilityof the candidateshad to be adjudged on f 4 thedateoftest I Learned counselfor therespondents hasdrawn the attentionofthe 08 QO Court towards additional affidavit of Sl M Chhina Assistant Inspector r General of Police 6Welfareand LitigationJPunjabdated 27072009 to m Z contendthat suitability test for the year 2004 was the last chance for SPOs Qm in the Stateand no furtherchancehas beengivenfor passingsuitabilitytest for to the post of Constable Learned counsel has further referredto judgment delivered by Division Bench of this Court ln CWP Noe 10291 of2005 decided on 2108020068tled Malkku SinghVSe 4 J StateofPunjaband Othersunder which similar issue in relation to rightof e5 l an SPO for as Constablehas been considered It has been pleadedon behalf of the respondents that the petitionerhas no substantialrightto recruitment in Vlew ofthe nature as SPO I haveconsideredthe issue So far as the facts are concerned no Radhika 2014.02.20 16: 25 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 416 1 1 21 CeWePe Noe 16839 of2008 4 1 material has been placedbefore this Court to establish that after the year 2004 other SPOs workingin the State had been givenchance to take suitability test Facts further make it evident that the petitionerwas not eligibleat the pointintime when suitabilitytest was taken in 2004 The petitioner acquiredeligibilityonlyin 2005 0 So far as the rightof the petitioneris concerned I am of the 0 consideredopinionthat in Vlew ofthe nature ofSPOs which I C is on dailywages lnview of thejudgment renderedin Malkiat Singhscase I supral the petitionerhas no rightfor recruitmentas Constable In Malkiat Z Singhscase the petitionertherein had served as SPO for 15 years He sought as Constable in the context of various 4 standingorders includingthe ones on which learned counsel for the petitionerhas relied Consideringthe facts and circumstances the 08 followingquestions were framedfor considerationl lD r Followingquestions arisefor consideralion Wm Z i Whether lhe petitioners have acquireda right on tl account 0 servlce ofabout15yearsto be appointed as constables without being subjectedto any suitabilitylest 5 1 ii9Whetherthe petitionershave rightto continue as 5 SPOs on beingregularized in service Z 2 iii9Whetherlhepelitionerscould be deputedasHome Guards without protectionof their existingpay or other service conditions 57 After considering variousstanding ordersissuedby the Radhika 2014.02.20 16: 25 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 417 1 1 CWP Noe 16839 of2008 5 13 and considering the law on the issue questionnol has beenansweredagainstthepetitioner On thesecondquestionit hasbeen heldl In view of the above observationscontention that the m r petitionershad acquired a legitimate expectation or a rightto 0 continue in service as SPOs can also not be acceptedThe said 0 questionis answeredagainstpetitioners 1 I C5 The petitionshavebeenaccordingly dismissed I In regard to the third questionthefollowinghasbeen held Z Leanzed counsel for the petitionerscontended that 2 theycould not be deputedas Home Guards as this will be 0 4 changingtheir servlce conditions to their Their I pciyand serviceconditions are requiredto beprotected a5 C This argumentcould beacceptedifit could be held thal r the petitionershad a rightto continue as SPOs Since it has been 7 Z held that theyhave not acquiredany rightto continue as SPOs C1 and theycould be relievedj7omthe posts occupiedby them Their beingdeputedas Home Guards at Lheir optioncannot be held to be illegal The said questionstands answered 5 accordingl 5 3 In view of the above thesepetitionsare liable to be 1 C dismissed Pelilioners have rendered about 15 years of servlce and theymay have become overage and are not gettingciny terminal benefit Even thoughstrictlyspeakingthe petitioners are not entitled to succeedtheState Governmenl is not debarred Radhika 2014.02.20 16: 25 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 418 9 CWePe No 16839 of2008 4 1 fromghlingcreditforthe servlce renderedbythem in such a wuy as may be considered appropriateeither by way of giving relaxation in age or qualillcation for any other service and or from compensatingthem 112 such olher manner as may be m r consideredappropriale 617 0 Considering the case of thepetitioner in the lightof thejudgmenl 0 rendered by this Court lll Malkiat Singhscase 6supralI Snd that the I C3 petitionerhas no rightto be absorbedor recruitedas a constablein view of his service as SPO It is the admittedpositionthat on the date when Z suitability test was taken the petitionerwas not eligible The petitioner acquiredeligibility in the year 2005 After the year 2004 as per the C 4 affldavit flled on behalf of the no suitabilitytest has been conductedfor ofSPOs as Constables 08 m In view of the above both the writ petitionsviz CWP No 16839 r of2008 titled SPO Sewa Ram Vs StateofPunjaband Others and CWP No ewo Z 19764 of 2008 titled Harwinder Singhand Others Vs Stateof Punjaband Clm Others are heredismissed 1 e tLe August132009 AIAAA9 shivani JUDGE 1 Tobe referredto the reportersor not9 1 2 Whether the judgmentshould be reported in theDigest9 D6A c rr 17 15 43 91 Radhika 2014.02.20 16: 25 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh Sahil Soni 2016.03.21 12:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document