65 20 CWP No2914 of2010 4 1l theHlghCourtofPunjab and Haryana at Dateofdecisionl l082010 CWPN02914of2010 e Vs StateofHaryana and others 2 CWP No 6427 of2009 m Ct Krishan Kumar and others Vs StaleofHaryailaand othcrs 0 4 CWP N03329 of201 0 wO 0 RajbirSinghand othersVs Stateof lIaryana anciothcrs C0 I 4 CWP No403 of2009 e Z Prem Singh Vs StateofHaryana anclotbcrs 5 CWP No3401 of2010 C Cr EHC Kulbir SinghandanotherVs StateoflIaryana and otlJcrs 08 6 CWP N03536 of201 0 OO KaptanSinghVs StateofHaryana and others 3 7 CHlP No7203 of2010 Z tl 19eshRaiand otloersVs StateofHaryana and others 8 CWP No 8147 of2010 EHC Ram Mehar and othersVs State and Olhers 9 CWP No 6443 of2009 C Jai Pal and 8nother Vs State ofHaryanaand otllers 10CWPN06619of2009 Satyawan EHC Vs State ofHaryanaand others 11 CWPN0 104870f2009 Head Constable Ashok Kumar Vs State ofHaryanaand othcrs 12CWP N0122370f2009 Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 4Z CWPN029140f2010 2 r NarenderKumarConstableVs Stateof Haryana and others 13 CWPNo12248of2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs State and others 14 CWP No2253 of2009 SubhashChanderEHC Vs State and others j C 15CWP No169750f2009 0 Krishan KumarEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others C 16 CWPN0184300f2009 I C 0anna Lal EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 17CWPN018863of2009 Z 4 RajKumarand anotherVs StateofHaryana and others C 18 CWPNo18919of2009 I KamalParkashEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 08 19 CWPN06360f2010 wm LadyConstableRajbalaVs StateofHaryana and others Z 20 CWP No 2775of2010 Ll Rishi Parshadand othersVs StateofHaryana and others 21 CWP N02875 of2010 1 LadyConstableSumanVs State and others 1 2 CWPNo2968of2010 e Sada EHC Vs State ofHmyanaand others 23 CWPN033380f2010 KaptainSinghand another Vs StateofHaryanaand others 24 CWP N03367 of2010 EHC Mohan Lal Vs State ofHaryanaand others Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 67 1 J CWPN029140f2010 3 7 1 25 CWP N3556 of2010 L HansRam and othersVs StateofHaryana and others 26 CWP NoA258 of2010 HariKrishanHC Vs Financial CommissionercQPrincipalSecretary to Government ofHaryana andothers 27 CWP No 4274 of2010 AmarSinghEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 0 28 CWPNoA749 of2010 C I MohindersinghEASI andanotherVs StateofHarYanaandOtherS C5 I 29 CWPNoA765 of2010 r ChljuRam andanotherVs StateofHaryana andothers Z 30 CWPN049600f2010 C ICr RajbirSinghand othersVs StateofHaryana andothers 31 CWPNoA963 of2010 08 t SatbirSinghVs StateofHaryana andothers 4 7 32 CWP N07923 of2010 Z 2 JaivirSinghandothersVs StateofHaryana andothers r 33 CWP No 6031 of2010 HC and othersVs StateofHaryanaand others CW CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present Mr S Redhu Mrikram Singh MrN Yadav MrDinesh Malik Mrritam Saini Mrurender Lamba MrP Singh Advocatesfor the petitioners MRS Kundu Addl AG Haryanaforthe respondents PERMOD KOHLI J Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 CWPN09140f2010 4 On the basisof common andidenticallSSues both on factsand law all thesepetitions are beingdecidedbythiscommon order The entirecontroversyrelatesto the of Rule 137 ofthe Punjab Police Rules 1934 as to theStateofHaryana and amendedvide PunjabPolice Haryana Rules 2001 lr hereinafterreferredto as the Rules This rule relatesto for 0 Lower SchoolCourseand for enlisting of the eligibleofflcers in List B1 0 for their promotionThe amendedrule subjectmatter of debate in the C5 presentwrit petitionsis hereunder 4t 137mSelectionof candidatesfor admission to Z 5t courses at the Police TrainingCollege List c B n Form 1371shall be maintainedby each I of Police It shall include the 08 C10 names of all constablesselectedfor admissiun t e2 Z to the Lower School Course to be held at the Cl Police TrainingCollegeSelectionto the list B shall be made 111the month of Januaryeach yearand shall be limited to the numberof seats allottedto the district for the year The number C of seats in Lower School Course ln a year shall be on the basis of existingvacancies and the vacancies likely to be created within one year 111 the respectiveUnlt 50 of the seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course shall be filled in on the basis of a competitive Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 4 CWPN029140f2010 5 examinatlon 35Io on the basis of and 10Ioon the basisof consistent in Gold or Silver Medal in All IndiaPolice MeetlNationalGames or displayof W C braveryduringthe course of of 0 C oftlcial duty Selectionof personsagainst55Io I C5 seats lll listllower school on the basis of ment I shall be done by a Promotion et Z Committeeon thebasisofl r Cr Cr 1 Examinationofservicesand I 06 2 A test called B n0 e 7 test9 lnl Z lm a9Prade b1Law andpracticalpolicework and 3 An Interview 1 C 2 6iI All constables irrespectiveof their educational qualificationsshall be eligibleto appear for B l test if theyare under the age of 35 years and have completed 5 years of servlce on 15 day of Januaryof the year ln which selection is made However if a 1 Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 CWPAT02914of2010 constable to reserved category who is recruitedafter the ageof 27 years as per Government instructionslorders then he shall be allowed to appear for lllllllmum three consecutive chances after m r offive years ofservice even ifhe 0 has crossed the age of 35 years up to a C I minimumoflO years 0 I Z iil All Constables of their educational shall be eligibleto C I be broughton List Bml seniority cum ment C8 basis if theyare underthe age of40 ve CO 41 and have 5 yearsof servlceon the e Z flrst dayof Januaryof the year in whicb Ll selectionis made 92 The Stateof Haryanaissuedinstructionsdated 13022007 the minimum merit to fulfill the criteria for seniorio l cum4ltnessrelyingupon the observations of this Coun in the case of C Naresh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and others CWP No952 of 20041decided on 051 12004 Director General of Police Haryana issued these instructions prescribing minimum bench marks for selectionto B4 list under 35lo quota Thc relevant extract of the instructionsdated 13022007 P79 in CWP No6427 of Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 V4 CWP Nc2914 of2010 7 2009 is hereunderl In Vlew ofthe Honble HghCourt Ill the Naresh Kumar case it has been decidedto fix the bench marksfor fltnessunder 35010 quota The m assessment of service record shouid be made 0 C0 on the basis of education trainingcourses I passedcommendationcertificates and length 0 I of serviceetc as givenin PPR 137 All the e Z candidates who obtain a minimum 31 marks C or more would be deemed to be flt for I selection of B l seats against3596quotaon thc C45 basisof intermse of the candidatesand OO c for all such candidates intereseseniority would m Z be the sole criteria for deputingOll their turn 0m under 35Io quotaln vlevv of the explicitorder of HighCourt Please take rther necessary action The validityof these instructionshas been upheldbythis Court in Hawa Singh Vs StateofHarvana and others No194 of20051decided on 14052008 There are three sets of writ petitionsunder consideration The same are broadlycategorisedin the followingmannerl a the eligibilityofthe candidates who appearedin 55010ment Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 CWPN029140f2010 43 promotlonquotaunderRule13 O216i to be consideredforpromotion under35Ioon basis underrule 137 62Iio even if theyhavefailed under 55Ioquota b considerationofthe candidateswith Iessthan 35 yearsofageas on Ist dayof Januaryof the year in which selection 1S madein 35Io 1 OlC quotaof 0 C C 9 interse seniorityof the candidateson the basis of benchmarks I ln termsof DGPs instructionsdated13022007 C5 I From thereadingofRule 137 611it emergesas followsl Z that 59Io of the seatsallottedto a unit lll the Lower School 5 m Course are meant to be fllled in on the basis of C I examination 08 b9 35Ioofthe seats on the basis and 10 14 6c 10Io seats on the basisof consistent m3 lIl Z etc Ll Selection against55Io quota is to be made by the PromotionalCommittee All the constables of their educationalqualiflcationwho are lessthan 35 years ofageand havecompleted5 years of service on Ist dayof Januaryof the year of C selection are eligibleto appear for Bl test under merit seats of 55Io quota Similarly all the constables irrespectiveof their educationalqaliftcation havingcompletedfive years of service and 1n the age of 40 years on the Ist day of Jamlaryof the year of selection Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 73 CWP N029140f2010 e are eligibleto be brought on list B1 on the basis of senioritycun meritagainst35Ioquota Sportspersons under 10Io quotaare to be considered subjectto eligibility 1Il the above two categories 1m C The controversyrelating to the eligibilityofthe candidates 0 who failed to secure therequisite merlt 111the examination 0 I under55Io quotato be againconsidered under 35Io C5 I merlt quota came to be consideredbv a Division Bench ofthis Court e1 Ct Z in Naresh Kumars case This Division Bench judgment vvas before the Honble Court in SpecialLeave to Q CivillNo10409 of2005 which hasbeen dismissedin limine I C45 on 10052005 00 et A similarissue came up for considerationbeforethis Court U3 Z thecase of Hawa Singh Vs Stateof Harvanaand others VP 10 Ll No1194of20059decided on 14052008 After admissionofthe writ bythe Honble Division Bench the matter was consideredbya 1 learnedSingleJudgeof this Court for Snal disposal on 2912006 The learnedSingleJudge ofthis Court was ofthe opinionthat certain C provisionsof Rule 137 ofthe rules were not broughtto the notice of the Division Bench and on that basis a reference was made for considerationof the writ petitionand other connected matters by a Division Bench of this Court The aforesaid writ petitioncame to be heardby a Division Bench ofthis Court The Honble Division Bench Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 74 3 CWP N02914 of2010 10 vide its dated 14052008 affirmed the ratio in Naresh Kumars case supralwith thefollowing observatiollsl In view of the facts mentioned above these wrlt petltionS are allowed in the same terms as ln Naresh Kumars case 6supra The 1 C are directed to deputethe 0 C petitionersl to the flrst Lower School Course I which will commence after thepronouncement 0 I of judgmentin this case However The Ct Z shaIlbe deemedto have qualified 111 cr the Lower School Course from the date when C e I other constables have qualifiedwhose names a5 were approved to Lower School CO Coursevide selectlist AnnexureP1 It is made meo Z clear that if by getting date of CL passingthe Lower School Course the petitioner becameeligiblefor promotionthen he will get only deemed benefits without gettingany actual financial benefits in view of Ce principleof no work no pay as laid down by their Lordshipsof the Honble SupremeCourt in Union of India and another vs Tarsem Lal and others 62006910 SupremeCoun Cases 145 97 Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 75 J CWP No2914 of2010 1 Honble the Division Bench further considered the validioIof theinstructionsdated 13022007 and upheld its validitywith the following observationsl So far as CWP N03609 of2007 is concemed 111 that writ petitionselect list to undergo m LowerSchoolCourse on thebasisof instructions Q 0 dated 13 022007 as referredto above has been 40 As has been held earlier above said I C instructlons are perfectlyjustifiedand are in I consonance with the directions issued by this Z Courtin NareshKumars case 6supra a C The claimsof some of the writ petitionersfor deputing to I Lower SchoolCourse have been jectedon the groundthattheyhaving oll failedin 55Io merit quotaare not entitledto be consideredfor beingbrought OO on List Bl in 350Ioquota The claims ofsome ofthe writ petitioners have 7 Z been for beingbrought in List B1 under 35Io quotaon the ground that thev were of less than 35 yearsof age as on Ist dayof Januaryof the 4 yearof selection In some cases the claims have been rejectedfor non 1 the minimum 31 bench marks in terms ofthe DGPs instructions dated13022007 In Naresh Kumars case lpra9theHonble Division edme Bench ruledthe eligibilityof the constables for their consideration both in 50 and 35Io quota This judgmenthas attained finality The SLP has also been disrnissed by the Honble SupremeCoun The ratio of the said judgmenthas been reiterated 111 Hawa Singhs cases supra9as also in ConstableDhair Vs Sta of Hanlana and others 2009 619RSJ 310 whereinthe following observationshave been madel Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 76 J V 1 CWP Nol914 of2010 12 13 So there are three distinct with their own and for for consideration There is no bar to consideration of a constable in any categoryif he fulfills theeligibility criteria 18 if he is eligible 111 1 all three he has a statutoryrightto C consideration in all three The Rules 0 C do not categorize or requiresome minimum age I C5 foreligibility under any of the What it I i s the upper age Iimit for consideration IC Z under a category m tr Despitethese instructions certain issues referred to have againcroppedup The controversyregardingthe o8 ofcandidatesunder 35 yearsofagefor beingbrought on List B1 00 for 35910quotaagaincameup for considerationbyanotherDivision Bench vm Z ofthisCourt in Dharmbirs case 6supral and Balrai Singhand othersVs tl State ofHaryanaand others 2009 629RSJ 463 In Dharmbirscase 6supral aDivision Bench ofthis Courtheld as under 7 17 A conjoint readingof both the subruleswould show that onlythe upper agelimit a has been prescribed under the rules and no rninimum age has been prescribedeither under submrule2 G9or suberule 2 ii9 which means that if a constable 8llfllls the requirement of the upper ageand the other qualificationsprescribedunder the respectivecategorYas per subrule 2 there is Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 77 F CWPN029140f2010 13 no bar to his considerationunder eachof them Meaningthereby a constablewho is eligible111 one under Rule 137 629 can also be considered in the other categoryunder Rule 1377 296i of thePunjabPolice Rules as there is no 1 bifurcationbetween the rules as far as the r 0 eligibility1S concerned with regardto the C minimum age as none is I C5 18 The minimum age if by way of I e executive instructions would go againstthe Z r interest of the Constables who are otherwise m C eligibleunder the statutoryRules Rule 133 621 r I 6ii9confers a rightwhich a Constable attainson 08 the basis of his seniorityin the service As and OO whenhis turn comes basedon the seniority a right W3 Z to considerationdevolves on him This righton e thebasis ofhis seniority cannot be deprived on the basisof executive instructions This would be in eO the statutoryrules and therefore contravention to C not sustainable 22 What emerges from the above discussions is that a constable who has completed5 years of on the Ist day of Januaryof the year Ul service whichthe selection is made is under the age of 35 yearsand is eligible for consideration and selection for includiilg his name in List B l of Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 78 e CWP N02914 of2010 44 selectedconstablesfor admissionto Lower School Course under the 55Io quotaon the basisof inerit asper Rule 137 621i9ofthe PunjabPoliceRules 1934and having in the test Bell and failed or was unable to get m enlistmentdue to lower merit can also claim Q consideration and selection under the 35Io quota 0 C on the basis of senioritycumnerit as per Rule I C 133 29 io if he is eligibleunder both the I categories 91 Z As noticed above the constableswho have attainedininimum 3 bench marks under 35Io quotahave been ignoredand their juniors were I deputed to the course on the groundthat theyare more mentorlous having 08 betterbench marks This issue is in fact coveredunderNaresh Kumars co case 6supraland came to be clarified in Balrai Singhs cass supra ew Z whereinit has been held that whereler a junior has been deputed for L1 Lower SchoolCourse ignoring the claim ofthe seniorsmerely on the basis ofthe higherbench marks the senior be deputed for the course and he will bedeemedto have passed the course from the datehisjuniorhasquali8ed In such situation senior will retain his seniority CnW There is another aspect of the matter The DGPs instnlctions 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 seuled law that Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 79 1 r CWP No 2914 of2010 15 govemmentlnstructions cannot overrulethe statutoryrules Thus these instructionscannot bepressed intoserviceto deprive theconstablesoftheir rightfor for not havingachievedthe minimumbenchmarks as under these lnstructionS issued Iater Thus such of the constableswho became eligiblepriorto issuanceoftheseinstructionsand m r ignored for not theminimumbenchmarksare to be for 0 Lower School Course and on successful ofthe course theyare CO to be treated senior than their juniorswho were earlier to the I C Lower School Course In other words theywill retain their seniorityfor beingbrought on List B 1 that theywere deputed for the Z t course 1ater thantheir juniorsor theydid not achieve 21 C marks C I Similarlysuch of the constableswho are ignored on account a5 QO of achievingless than the benchmarks then their juniorsare 7 also entitledto bedeputed to the course and on completion ofthe same will Z retain their seniority over theirjuniors In some of the writ petitionsthe constables have already completedthe Lower School Course but theyhave been denied the senlOntyover their juniorson the ground that the juniorswere either havingbetterbench marksor deputed for the course prior in time than the C Wnt petltloners In view of the above observations these writ petitionersshall be deemed to be seniorto theirjuniorsdeputedearlier on account of better bench marks or on any other ground of eligibility To sum up these petitions are disposedofwith the followingdirectionsle i9 Such ofthe who have failed in 550Iomerit quota Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 Pc 11102914of2010 e16 areentitledto be consideredfor beingbrought on List B1 under 35Io quota on the principle of provided theyhave the requisite andare otherwiseeligible underthe rules iil suchofthe constableswho were lessthan35 yearsofageas on the day oftheirconsideration but not more than 40 years theywill be entitledto be 1 on List B1 by them to Lower SchoolCourse Ct 9 iiil the who eligibilitypriorto theDGPs instructions 0 0 dated13022007 will be for the course withoutconsideringthe I C5 of minimum bench marks as under the govemment instructions and in their cases seniorityand other eligibilitycriteria Z t under the rules will be enough for their to the course N2 C ivl thepetitioners who becameeligiblefor afterthe issuanceof the instructionsdated 13022007 and have achieved the minimum bench 08 marks be to the course their juniorshavc hc CQ er benchInarks 7 Z v1 lnter seniority of the constableswill be determined on the basis of Clm theirseniority in their respective districtsin the and not on the basisof passingof the Lower SchoolCourse in all such cases who are ignoredby the above directions However the interse seniorityof constableswill not be governed by the above directions where senior was ee rgnoredon account of pendencyof any disciplinaryproceedings or who sufferedany other disqualification for deputation to Lower School Course vi deputationof the petitionersshall be lnade on the basis of their seniorityin their respectivedistricts and againstthe available vacancies Let the claim ofthe petitioners be considered in the light ofthe abovedirections and their deputationwhereIer required be made in Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 CWP No 2914 of2010 7 accordance with theabovedirections A copy of this order be placed on the recordof each connected file eee eae 1082010 PERMOD KOHLlJ BLS JUDGE m e1 Notel Whetherto be referredto the YES 0 0 I C0 pJl Z 9ll W C I 06 ClO C mw Z CL Anita 2014.04.29 12: 24 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document