66 a r7 e 5 j CWP No914 clf2010 eJ e Jn thelIighCourt ofPunjab and Haryana at Dateofdecision 11 182010 1CWPNI129140f2010 1 Vs Statcofllaryana andothers 2 CWP No 6427 of2009 1 Krishan Kuinar and othcrs Vs StateofIlaryanand otllrrs 0 3 CWl N03329 of2010 C I RajbirSinghandothersVs State Jnd others C5 I 4 CWP N 403 of2009 4r Z Prcm Singh Vs Statcof HarvanaanclotliTS 5WP No3401 of2010 r 14tlCKulbir Singhand anotherVs Statc01 Jaryaila aild otllers I 5 6CWPNo53602010 c0 KaplanSinghVs StateofIlaryana and others em 2 7 CWP No7203 of2010 Ll Desh Rajand othersVs Stateofllaryana atld olhers CWP No147 of2010 EHC Ram MehiueandothersVs Stateofl3aryana and othcrs 9 CWP No6443 of2009 C Jai Pal and anotherVs StateofIlatyanaand otllors 10 CWP No 6619 of2009 StYWan EllC lse Stateofliaryanaand others 11 CWP No 10487 of2009 Ifcad Constablc Ashok Kumar Vs State oflaryanaand othcrs 12 CWPN0122370f2009 Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 67 c5 CWP N02914 of2010 2 NarenderKumar ConstableVs StateofIlalyana andothers 13 CWP No 12248of2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs State and others 14 CWPNo12253 of2009 SubhashChanderEHC Vs State and others 1 15 CWP No16975 of2009 0 KrishanKumarEHC Vs StateofIlaryana andothers 0 16 CWP No 18430of2009 C9 Panna Lal EHC Vs State and others I 17 CWP No8863 of2009 Z RajKumarand anotherVs StateofHaryana andothcrs 2 C 18 CWP No18919 of2009 I Kamal ParkashEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 08 19 CWP No636 of2010 00 LadyConstableRajbalaVs State and othcrs m Z 20 CWP No775 of2010 Om Rishi Parshadand othersVs StateofIyana and others 21 CWl No 2875 of2010 LadyConstableSumanVs State and rs 22 CWP N02968 of2010 CevP Sada Ram EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 23 CWP N033380f2010 KaptainSinghandanother Vse StateofHaryana and others 24 CWP N03367 of2010 EHC Mohan Ial Vs StateofHaryana and olhers Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 68 CWPNo29I40f2010 4 m 25 CWP N03556 of2010 HansRanl andothcrsVs StateoflIaryana and others 26 CWP NoA258 of2010 Hari KrishanIiC Vs FinancialCommissioncrtt Principal to GovernmentofHaryana andothers 27 CWP NoA274 of2010 C AmarSinghEIIC Vs StateofHaryana and others 0 28 CWP NoA749 of2010 C0 I Mohindcr SinghEASI andanotherVs StatcofHaryana and others C40 29 CWP NoA765 of2010 Z ChhajuRam and anotherVs StateofIaryanaandothers 2 30 CWP NoA960 of2010 C RajbirSinghand othersVs StateofHaryana andothers X 08 31CWPN04963 of2010 0 SatbirSinghVs StateofHaryana andothers me 32 CWP No3923 of2010 Z Clm JaivirSinghand othersVs State andothers 33 CWP No6031 of2010 HardayaHC and othersVs StateofHaryana and others C CORAM IIONBLE MR JUSTICE Pl3RNlOD KOHLI Present Mr SK Redhu MrVikram SinghMrSlV Yadav MrDinesh Malik MrePritam Saini MraSurenderlsumba MrP SinghAdvocatesfor thc petitioners Mrl2S Kundu Addl AG Haiyiinaforthe respondents PERMOD KOllLI J Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 69 0 41 CWPN029140f2010 e4 On the basisofcoinmon andidenticalissuesboth oncts and law all thesepetitions are beingdecidcdbythis cominn order The entire controvcrsyrelatesto the 01 Rulc 137 ofthe PunjabPolice Rules 1934 as to the Stateof lIryana and amendedvide PunjabPolice Iaryana Rules 2110l 1t hercinafter referredto as thc Rule This rulc relatcsto dcputatioil for 0 Lower School Coursealld for enlisting of the eligibleofficersin List I3el 0 for their promotionThe alncndedrule subjectmatter of dcbatc111llle I t5 presentwrit petitionsis hereunderl I 1 37Sclection of candidatesfor admission to Z courses at thc Police TrainingCoilegel l 1ist B in I7ornl133 shall be maintainedby cach I of Police It shall include thc oll OQ names of all constablesselccted for admissioll me to thc Lower SchooJCourse to be held at thc Z m Police TrainingCollegeSelection lo the lisl 13 shall be made 111the month of JanuaryCiich yearand shall be limited to the numbetof scats allottedto thc district for the ycar Thc numbcr C of seats in Lower School Course in a year shall be on the basis of existingvacancies and the vacancies likelyto be createdvithin one ycar lll the respectiveunit 55Io of the seats allotted to a unit 111the Lower School Course shall be filled tn on the basis of a coinpetilivc Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 70 10 CWP No914 of2010 5 1 examination35 011 the basisof senioritr cutnltness and10Ioon the basisof consistent in Gold or Silver Medal in All lndia Police MeetlNational Gamesor displayof m C braveryduring thc course of of 0 omcialdutySelectionofpersons against 50 C seats ltl Iistllowcr school on the basis of merit C5 I shall be done by a Promotion Z Committeeon the basisofl C t 1 Examinationof scrvicesand I 08 2 A testIhereinafter callcd B 0 test91111 a Z lm a9Prade b1Law and practicaIpolicework alld 3 An Interview CnW 2I All constables of thcir educational shall bc eligibleto appear for Bml test if theyare under the age of 35 years and havc completed5 years of service on 1 day of Januaryof thc year ltl which selectioll is made However if a Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 71 CWPN029140f2010 e 45 constable 10 reserved category who is recruitedafter thc age of 27 years as per Government instructionslorders then he shall bc allowcd to appear for llllnimum three consecutive chances a8er C offivc ycarsofservicc cven ifhe 0 has crossed the age of 35 years up to a C mlllllllUm of 10 years C5 Z iil All Constablcs of their educational shall bc cligible to C I be broughtOll List B seniority cum merit 08 basis ifthey are under the age of 40Oyears ao and have 5 years of service on the m Z first day of Januaryof thc ycar in which Ll selectionis made 99 The State of Haryanaissuedinstructionsdated 13022007 the Inllllmum merit to fulfill the criteria for senioritye 1 cummfitnessrelyingupon tlle observationsof this Court iil the case 0f C Naresh Kumar Vs State of Hanrana and othcrs CWP N03952 of 20049decided Oll 051 1 2004 Director General of Police Haryana issued these instructions prescribinglllillimum bench marks for selection tcl BeI list under 350Ioquota lllc rclcvant extracl of thc instructions dated 130 2007 P 111CWP No6427 of Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 72 l CWP No914 of2010 7 e4 2009 is hereunder 3 In viewofthe Honble HighCourt lJtl the Naresh Kumar case supralit has been decidedto Ox thc benchmarksfor fltncssundcr 35Io quota Tlle m assessmentof service record should be made 0 C Oll the basis of education traitlitlg courses passedcommendationcertificatesand length C5 I of service etc as givenin PPR 137 All the Z candidateswho obtaina minimum 31 nlarks C2 or more would be dcemed to bc St for r selection of B l scats against35Io quotaon the 06 basis of interese ofthe candidatesand D for all such candidatcs intermse senioritvwould 3 Z be the soie criteria for Oll tlleir turn CL under 35Io quotalIl VlCW 00 the explicitordcr of HlghCourt Pleasc take further necessary action 99 The validityof these instructionshasbeenuphcldloythis e Court in Hawa SinghVs StateofHaryana and othersCWP No1194 of20051decided on 14052008 There are three sets ofwrit petitionsunder consideratiolle The samc are broadlycategorisedin the following mannerl a9 the eligibilityofthe candidateswho appcaredin 50 merit Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 73 CWP N02914 of2010 ee8 A quotaunderRule 133 O21i to be considcredlbr under35Ioon basis underrule 137 621ii cven if theyhavefailcd undcr 55010quota b9 considerationof the candidateswith Iessthan 35 yearsofageIIS on Ist dayof Januaryof the vear lll which selectionis made in 35Io e j quotaof 0 C J intereseseniority of the candidales on thc basis of bench marks O I 111termsof DGPs instructionsdated13022007 0 I7romthereadingofRule 137 6ll it cmergesas followsl Z 6a that 55Io of the seats aIlottcd tc1 a unit lIl the Lower School Course are meant to be fllled lll Oll the basis of coinpetitilc CC I examtnalolOll O bl 35Io ofthe seats on thebasis alld Cll 6c9 1OIo seats on the basis of consistent 111 meo Z etc Clm Selection against55Io quota 1S to be made by the Promotional Committce All the constables 1 oftheir educational who arclessthan35 ycarsofageand have 5 yearsof service on Ist dayof Januaryofthe year of C selection are eligibleto appear for e1 test under meril seE of 55Io quota Siinilarly all the constables of their educational havingcompleted flve years ofservice and 111 the age of 40 years on the Ist dayof Januaryof the year of sclection Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 74 CWPN029140f2010 A are eligibletO llc brought on list B on the basis of meritagainst 35Io quota Sportspersons under 10Io quotaare to bc considered subIectto eligibility 111 the abovc two categories m Ct The controversyrelating to theeligibilityofthc candidates 0 who failedto securc therequisite merit in the extlnlination 0 I under55Io quotato be againconsidered under 35Io C5 I merit quota cameto be consideredby a Division Bencll of this Court Z ln Naresh Kumars case 6supralThis Division Bench judgment was t before the Honble Supreme Court ln SpecialLeave to C AppealCivillNo10409 of2005 which hasbcen dismissedin Iimine I 06 on 10052005 00 4r A similar issue came up for considerationbeforctIhisCourt me Z lIl the case of Hawa Singh Vs Stateof Harvanaand others 6CWP Ll No1194 of20051decided on 14052008 After admissionofthe wrlt petition bythe Honble DivisionBench the matter was considcredbya 1 IearnedSingleJudgeof this Court for flnal disposal Oll 2911006 1 The learnedSingleJudgeofthis Court was ofthe opinionthal certain 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 matlers by a Division Bench of this Court The aforesaid writ petitioncametobe heard by a Division Bench ofthis Court Thc Ilonble Division Bench Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 75 CWPN029140f2010 10 b4 vide its dated 14052008 affinned the ratio 111 Naresh Kumarscasc Isupralwith thefollowing obscrvationsl In view of the facts inentioned above tllese writ are allowedin the samc tcrms as 1r1 Naresh Kumars case supral The Im are dirccted to deputethe 0 to the Orst Lower SchtIol Course C I which will commence aftcr tlle C5 I ofjudgmcntin this case Hovvever The C Z shall bc deemedto have qualified Ill the Lower School Course O1ointhc datewhcn r I otherconstablcs have qualied whose names 08 were to Lowcr School CQ Coursevidescicct list Annexure P 1 It is made W2 Z e clear that if by date of Qm passingthe Lower School Course the becaineeligible for prolnotionthen he will get only deemed benefits without gettingany actualflnancial benefits in vicw of C principleof no work no pay as laid down by their Lordsllipsof the Honble SupremcCoull 111Union of India and another vs Tarscm Lal and others 2006110 SupremeCourt Cascs 145 97 1 Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 76 CWPNo9140of2010 11 Honblethe Division Bench furtherconsideredthc validityof the instructions dated13022007 anduphelditsvaliditywilh thefollowing observationsl So far as CWP N03609 of2007 is concerned lll that writ petitionselect list preparcd to 1m Lowcr SchoolCourse Oll the basis0inslructions f dated 13022007 as rcferredto abovc has been 0 C As has been held earlier above said I C5 instructionsae perfectlyjustifiedand are in consonance with the directions issued by this Z Courlin NareshKumars case supral ll C The claims of soine of thc writ petitionersfor to I Lower SchoolCourse have been on thegroundthattheyhaIing 06 failed in 55Io meritquotaare not entitledto be consideredfor bcillgbrought ClO Cr on List 131 in 35Io quota The claims ofsotne ofthe writ havc emo Z been for beingbrought in List 13I under 35Io quotaon the ground 0 that theywere of Iessthan 35 yearsof age as on Ist dayof Januaryof the year of selection In some cases the claims have bcen rcjectcdfor non 1 achievingthe llllnunum 31 bench marks in terms ofthe DGPs instructions 9 dated 13022007 In Naresh Kumars case the Honble Division Ca9 Bench ruled theeligibilityofthe constables for their considerationboth lll 55Io and 35Io quota This judgmenthas attained Onality The SLP has also been dismissedby the HonbleSupremeCoun The ratio of the said judgmenthas been reiterated ln Hawa Singhscases supral as also in Constable Dharmbir Vs Stateof Haryana and others 200C1 9 RSJ 310 whercin the followingobservationshave becn madelm Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 77 CWPNo2914of2010 e12 13 So there arc three distinct with their own qualifications atld lor eligibilityfor consideration Thcre is no bar to considerationof a constablcin any catcgoryifhe fulfills thecligibility Cnteria ee if he is eligible ill s all three he has a statutoryrightto 0 considcration111011three The Rules C do not or requiresomc minimum agc I C5 for eligibility uildcrany ofthe Whatit I 4r speci8es is thc upper agc limit for consideration Z under a categoly r Despitethese instructions certaill issues referred to I hereinabove have againcroppedUP The controversyregardingthe 08 eligibility ofcandidates under 35 yearsofagcfor beingbrought on List B1 ClO r for 35Io quota againcame up for considerationby another DivisionBcnch 7 Z ofthis Court in Dhannbirs case supraland Balrai Singhand othersVs Ll StateofI4c7rvana and others 2009 21RSJ 463 In Dharmbirs case supral a Division Bcnch ofthis Court heldas underl 7 17 A conjointreading ofboth the suleruleswould show thatonlythe upperageIiinit C e has been prescribed under the rules and 110 minimum age has been prescribedeither under subrule 2 i or suberule2il which means that if a constable fulfills the rcquirement of the upper ageand the other qualifiationsprescribedunder the respectivecategory as per suberule2 there 1S Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 78 CWPN029140f2010 1 110 bar to his considerationunder each of them Meaningthereby a constable who is eligiblelll one underRule 137 6211can also be consideredin the otller categoryunderRule 137 21 iil of thePunjabPolice Rules as there IS 110 1 bifurcation between thc rules as far as the 0 1S concemedwith regardto the C0 minimum age as none is C5 18 The minimum age if bywayof I t executlve lnstructlollS would go againstthe Z interest of the Constables who are otherwise eligibleunder the statutoryRules Rule 137 6iOconfers a rightwhich a Constable attalllS on 05 the basis of his seniorityin the service As and OO whenhis turn comes basedon the seniority a right e2 Z to considerationdevolves on hiln This rightOll the basisofhis senoritycannot bc deprived 011the basis of executivc instructions This would bc 111 contravention to the statutoryrules and therefore C not sustainable 22 What emerges from the above discussions 1S that a constable who has coinpleted5 years of service on the Ist day of Jttnuaryof the year lll which the selection is made is undcr tlle age of 35 years and is eligible for considerati on and selection for includinghis name in List Bal of Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 79 CWPNo914 of2010 a14 selectedconstablesfor adinissionto Iower School Courseunder thc 55Io quotaon the basisof lnerit as perRule 13 21 ofthe PunjabPoliceRules 1934 and having in thc test 0 11 and failed or was unable to get m enlistment duc to lower merit can also claim 0 considerationand selectionunder the 3596quota 0 C on the basis of as per Rule I C 133 62Ioii if he 1S cIigibleunder both the Z As noticed above the constablcswho have attaincd llllnlmum r 31 bench marks under 35Io quotahave beenignoredand thcir juniorswere deputed to the course on the groundthatthcyare more mentorious having 08 betterbench marks This issue is in fact coveredunder Narcsh Kumars case 6supraland came to be clarifled ln I3alrajSinghscass 0supral ee Z wherein it has been held that wheiever tl junior has beendeputedfor Ll Lower SchoolCourse ignoringthe claim ofthe seniorsmerelyon the basis ofthe higherbcnch marksthe senior be deputed for the coursc and he will 7 be deemedto have passedthe course from the datehis juniorhasqualiOed 6 In such situation senior will retain his scniority Ge There is anotheraspcctof the mattero The DGPs inslructions dated 13122007 are onlyprospective in naturCe Prior to theseinstructions no bench marks were prescribedunder the statutoryrules and thus all those constables who acquiredeligibility prior to issuance of these instructionshave been denied the deputation lo the Lower School Course for non achieving the llllnimulll bench marks It is settled Iaw that Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 80 CWPN02914of2010 15 instructions cannot overrulethe statutoryrules Thus these instructionscannot be pressed lnto serviccto deprive thc constablesoftheir right for for not havingachievcd the mlllllTlUm benchInarksas under these instruCtlOtlS issucd Iatcr Thus such of thc constableswho becaine eligiblepriorto issuanceoftheseinstructionsand W Ct ignored for not achieving the 1Tllnlmum benchmarksare to be dcputed for 0 Lower SchoolCourse andon successful ofthe course they are C to be treated scnior than their juniorswho were carlier to the C5 Lower SchoolCourse In other words theywill retaill their seniority for beingbrougllt on List B l that theywere deputedfor the Z coursc Iaterthiin their juniors or theydid not achieve minimunlbench C marks I Sinlilarly such ofthe constableswho are ignoredon account 08 of achicvingIessthan the bench marks then theirjuniorsare OO also entitledto be to the course andon oftlIe same Will mm Z retaintheir seniority over Om In some of the writ petitionsthe constableshavc already the Lower School Course but theyhave been denied the 1 7 seniorityover their juniorsOll the ground that the juniorswerc either 6 havingbetterbench marksor deputed for the course prior in time than the C writ petitioners In view of the above observations thesewrit petitioners shall be deemedto be seniorto theirjuniorsdeputedcarlier on account of better bench marks or on any othcr groundof eligibilhy To suln up these petitions are disposcdofwith the followingdircctionsl i9 Such of thc who have failed in 550Iomerit quota Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 81 CWPN029140f2010 e16 areentitledto be consideredfor beingbrought on List I31 under35lo quota on the of provided theyhavc the requisite andare otherwiseeligible undertherules iil suchofthe constableswho were less than 35 yearsofageas on thc day oftheirconsiderationbut not more than 40 years thcywill be entitlcdto be m on List B1 by them to Lower School Course Ct 5 iii9 the who eligibilitypriorto theDGPs instructions 0 C3 dated13022007 will be for the COUrSC withoutconsidcringthe C5 of miniinum bench lnarksas under the govemment Z instructions and i n their cases seniorityand other eligibilitycriteria Z under thc rules will beenough for their to the course 0 ivl the who becameeligiblefor after the issuanceof theinstructionsdated 13022007 andhave achievedtlhe minimuln bench 08 marks be to the course their juniorshave better CO benchinarks m2 Z v1 intcreseseniy of the constableswill be detertnined on the basis of Ll theirseniority in their districtsin the andnot on the basis of passingof the Lower School Course in allsuch cases who are by the above directions Iwever the intermseseniorityof constableswill not be governedbythe above directions whcre senior was 49 ignoredOll account of pendencyof any disciplinaryproceedings or who suffered any other disqualification for deputation to Lower School Course vil of the petitionersshall be lnade on the basis of their seniority in their respective districtsand tigainslthe available vacanciese Let the claim ofthe petitioners be consideoredin the lightofthe above directionsand their deputationwheremevcr required be made i n Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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 82 CWPNo 2914 of2010 7 1 with theabovedirections A copy ofthis orderbepiaccd on therecordofcach connected file r ne eee 1108010 PERMOD KOHLI9 BLS JUDGE m ee Note to bereferredto the YES 0 0 I C5 4srP 9 Z L C Cr 06 CO e a7 Z Qe Anita 2014.04.22 11: 36 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