1 79 1 4111 A CWPN029140f2010 m1 ln theHighCourt ofPunjab and Haryana at Cllandigall Dateofdecisionlll082010 1 CWPN029140f2010 1 Vs StateofHaryana and others 2 CWP No6427 of2009 1m Krishan Kumar and olhers Vs StateofHaryana and otllers 0 C 3 CWP No 3329 of201 0 RajbirSinghand othersVs Stateofllaryana nd othcrs C5 I 4 CWPNo 1403of2009 Z Prem Singh Vs StateofHaryanaand othcrs CWP No 3401 nf2010 r EItlC Kulbir SinghandanotherVs State01Haryana alodotllers I 08 6 CWPN075360f2010 ClO KaptanSingbVs StateofHaryana and others We2 Z CWP No7203 of2010 tl lOeshRaj and othersVs StateofHaryana and oihers 8 CWPN0 8147 of2010 EHC Ram Mehar and othersVs Stateofllalyanaand othcrs e 9 CWP No 6443 of2009 Ce Jai Pal and another Vs State ofHaryanaand otllcrs 10 CWPNo6619 of2009 SatyawanEIiC Vs State of Haryanaand others 11CWPN0104870f2009 Head Constable Ashok Kumar Vs StateofHaryanaand othcrs 12 CWP No 12237 of2009 1 1 Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 80 CINPN029140f2010 2 NarenderKumar ConstableVs StateofHaryana and others 13CWP N0122480f2009 Jit SinghEHC Vs StateofHaryana and otllers 14 CWPN012253 of2009 SubhashChander EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 15 CWPNo16975 of2009 0 Krishan Kumar EHC Vs StateofHaryana and others C 16CWP N0184300f2009 I C5 PannaLal EHC Vs State and others I 17 CWP No 18863of2009 Z RajKumar and anotherVs StateofHaryana and oth C 18 C No 18919of2009 I Kamal ParkashEHC Vs StateofHaryana rs c6 19 CWPN06360f2010 CO r LadyConstableRajbala Vs 1 ofHaryana and others m Z 20 CWP No 2775 of2010 t1 Rishi Parshadand othersVs StateofHaryaluiid others 21 CWPN028750f2010 LadyConstable Suman Vs StateofHaryanaand others 1 r7 22 CWPN029680f2010 Ga Sada Ram EHC Vs State ofPana and others 23 CWPN0 3338 of2010 KaptainSinghand another Vs StateofHaryana and others 24CWP N03367 of2010 EHC Mohan Lal Vs StateofHaryana and others 1 Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 81 e9 CWP No 2914 of2010 e 25 CWPN03556 of2010 Hans Ram and othersVs StateofHaryana and otls 26 CWP NoA258 of2010 Hari Krishan HC Vs Financial CommissionercOPrincipalSecretary to GovemmentofHaryana and others 27 CWP NoA274 of2010 m r Amar SinghEHC Vs StateofHaryana and others 0 C 28 CWPNoA749 of2010 Mohinder SinghEASI and anotherVs StateofHaryana and others C5 29CWPN04765of2010 Z ChhajuRam andanotherVs StateofHaryana and otherS r 30 CWP N049600f2010 Ct RajbirSinghand othersVs StateofHaryana and others I 06 31 CWPNoA963 of2010 CtO SatbirSinghVs StateofHaryana and others e Z 32 CWPN07923 of2010 Ll Jaivir Singhand othersVs StateofHaryanaand others 33 CWP No6031 of2010 Hardayal HC and othersVs StateofHaryana and others 42 CORAM HONBLE MR JUSTICE PEOD KOF Presentl Mr SK Redhu MrVikram Singh MrSN Yadav r12le4ailc MrPritam Saii MroSurender Imba AlhRP SinghAdvocatesfor the petitioners MrRS Kundu Addl AG Haryanaforthe respondents PEOD KOlI J Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 82 ey CWPNo914of2010 4 On the basis ofcommonand identicalissuesboth On factsand law all thesepetitions are beingdecidedbythis common order The entire controversyrelatesto the of Rule 133 ofthe PunjabPolice Rules 1934 as applicable to the StateofHaryana and amended vide Punjab Police Hwyana Rules 2001 Q hereinafterreferredto as the Rulesl This rule relatcsto for 0 LOWer School Course and for enlistingof the eligibleofflcers in List B1 Ca3 I for their promotion The amendedrule subjectmatter of debate in the C5 presentwrlt petitionsis reproduced hereunder I 1 37eSelectionof candidatesfor admissionto Z courses at thePolice TrainingCollege19List C c B in Form 1379shall be maintainedby each I 08 of Police It shall include the CO names of all constablesselectedfor admissiun er 7 Z to the Lower School Course to be held at the C Police TrainingCollegeSelectioj to the list B shall be made in the month of Januaryeach yearand shall be limited to the number of seats allotted to the district for the year The number C of seats in Lower School Course 111 a year shall be on the basis of existingvacancies and the vacancies likely to be created within one year in the respective unit 55 of the seats allotted to a unit 111 the Lower School Course shall be filled lnon the basis of a coinpetitive Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 83 1 CWP No2914 of2010 5 examinatlOll 35Io on the basis of seniority cumfitness and 10Ioon the basisof consistent in Gold or Silver Medal in All India Police MeetlNationalGamesor displayof m l braveryduringthe course of of 0 0 official duty Selectionof personsagainst55Io I C5 seats tn listllower school on the basis of merit shall be done by a Promotion Z Committeeon the basisofl C C 1 Examinationof servicesand I a5 2 A competitive test called l CO test inl 7 Z tl a9Prade b1Law andpracticalpolicework and 3 An Interview C 2 il All constables irrespectiveof their educational qualificationsshall be eligibleto appear for Bl test if they are under the age of 35 years and have completed 5 years of service on 1 day of Januaryof the year 111 which selection is made However if a 1 Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 84 4 CWP No914 of2010 6 constable belongingto reserved category who is recruitedafter attaining the age of 27 yearsas per Government instructionslorders then he shall be allowed lo appear for mmlmum three consecutivechancesafter cr offive years ofservice even ifhe 0 Cs0 has crossed the age of 35 years up to a I C5 minimum of 10 years I Z 6ii All Constables of their educational shall be eligibleto I be broughton List B1 seniority Cum merit 06 basis if they are under the age of 40 years C and have 5 years of service on the m Z W first dayof Januaryof the ycar in which L selectionis made 97 The StateofHaryanaissued instructionsdated 13022007 the minimum mentto llfil l the criteria for seniorio cumetltnessrelyingupon the observations of this Court in the case of Naresh Kumar Vs State of Harvana and o1hers CWP No7952 of 20041decided on 05112004 Director General ofPolice Haryana issued these instructions prescribingminimum bench marks for selection to BI list under 35Io quota The relevant extract of the instructions dated 13022007 64nnexurePm79 in CWP No6427 of 1 Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 85 V CWPN029140f2010 7 2009 is hereunderl 3 In view ofthe Honble HighCourtjudgment in the Naresh Kumar case supra9it has been decidedto fix the benchmarksfor fltnessunder 35Io seniorityunitness quota The assessment of service record should be made 0 C on the basis of education trainingcourses I C5 passedcommendationcerti8cates and lengtll of service etc as given in PPR 133 All the er Z candidates who obtain a rninlmum 31 marks a Ct or more would be deemed to be fit for I selection of B l seats against35Io quota on the IOll basis of interse seniorityof the candidatesand m 6 for a11such candidatesinterse senioritvwould 0 be the sole criteria for deputingon their turn l under 35Io quotaln view of the explicitorder of HighCourt Please take further necessary action 99 The validityof these instructions has been upheldby this Court in Hawa Singh Vs State ofHaryanailnd others CWPNo1194 of2005 decided on 14052008 1 There are three sets of writ petitionsunder consideration The same are broadlycategorisedin the following mannerl a9 the eligibilityofthe candidates who appearedin 5510 merit ae 4 Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 86 dl CWPN029140f2010 3 promotionquotaunderRule 137 629i9to be consideretlfor promotion under35Io on basis underrule 137 6296ii even if theyhavefailed under 55Ioquota b considerationof the candidateswith lessthan 35 years of age as on Ist dayof Januaryof the year in which selectionis made in 350Io 1 C quotaof 0 C C 9 lnterse seniorityof the candidates Oll the basis of bench marks I in termsof DGPs instructionsdated 13022007 C9 I From the readingofRule 137 6l it emcrgesas follolvs Z 6a9 that 55Io of the seats allotted to a unit in the Lower School Course are nleant to be fllled Ill on the basis of tr I examlnation 08 b9 35Io ofthe seats on the basisofsenioriolmltness and 00 c 10Io seats on the basis of consistent performance e7 ln 1 etc Selection against55Io quota 1S to be made by the Promotional Committee All the constooles 7 oftheir educationalqualication who are less than 35 years of age and have completed5 years of servlce on Ist dayofJanuaryof the year of selection are eligibleto appear for Bl test under rneritseats of55Io quot Similarly all the constables irrespective of their educational qualificationhavingcompletedSve years ofservice and in the age of 40 years on the Ist day of Januaryof the yearof selection F Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 87 V CWP No 2914 of2010 are eligibleto be brought on list B on the basis of senioritycur merit against35Ioquota Sportspersons under 10Io quota are to be considered subjectto eligibility the above two lIl categories m CL The controversyrelating to the eligibilityof the caildidates 0 who failed to secure the requisite mentin the examination C I under 55Io quota to be again considered under 35Io C5 seniorltycume merlt quota cameto be consideredby a Division Bench of this Court Z in Naresh Kumars case This Division Bench judgment was 5t m before the Honble Supreme Court SpecialLeave ln to C I AppealCivil9No10409 of2005 which hasbeen dismissedin limine Oll on 102005 A similar issue came up for considerationbeforethis Court eae Z in the case of Hawa Singh Vs Stateof Haryanaand others6CWP la No1194 of20059decidedon 14052008 After admissionofthe writ petitionbythe Honble Division Bench the matter was consideredbya 1 learnedSingleJudge of this Court for final disposal Oll 291 1 2006 1 The learned SingleJudge ofthis Court was ofthe opinionthat certain C prOVlSlOOS of Rule 137 ofthe rules were not brought to the notice of the D ivision Bench and on that basis a reference was made for consideration of the writ petition and other connected matters by a Division Bench of this Court The aforesaid wnt petitioncame to be heard by a Division Bench ofthis Court The Honble Division Bench Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 88 e a CWP No 2914 of2010 10 vide its dated 14052008 affirmedthe ratio 111 Naresh Kumars case supralwith thefollowing observations In view of the facts mentioned above these wnt petltionsare allowed 111the same terms as 111 Naresh Kumars case supra The 1 t are directed to deputethe 0 C petitionerslto the first Lower School Course I ClO which will commence a8er the pronouncement I ofjudgmentin this case However The Z petitioner shall be deemedto h3t e quali6ed 111 2 C the Lowcr School Course from the date when I other constables have qualiOedwhose names C45 were approvedto undergo Lower School oo Coursevide select list Annexure I 1 It is made 7 Z e clear that if by getting date of Ll passing the Lower School Course the petitionerbecaineeligiblefor promotionthen 1 he will get only deemed beneflts Hithout gettingany actual flnancial benefits in view of C 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 C2006910 Supreme Court Cases 145 99 Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 89 4 P CWP N02914 of2010 m11w Honble the Division Bench furtherconsideredthe validityof the instructionsdated 13022007 and upheldits validitywith the following observationsl So far as CWP N03609 of2007 is concerned ln that writ petitionselect list prepared to undergo C Lower School Course on the basis of instructions 0 dated 1302007 as referred to uhove has been 43 As has been held earlier above said I C5 instructions are perfectlyjustifiedand are in I consonance with the directions issued by this Z Court in NareshKumars case 6supral 2 C The claims of some of the writ petitionersfor deputing to I Lower SchoolCourse have been rejected on the groundthat theyhaving C45 failed in 55Io merit quotaare not entitledto be consideredfor beingbrought CO on List B1 in 35Io quota The claims ofsomc ofthe writ petitioners have e7 Z beenrejectedfor beingbroughtin List B under 35Io quotaon theground C that theywere of Iessthan 35 years of age as on Ist dayof Januaryofthe yearof selection In some cases the claims have been rejected for non achievingthe minimum 31 bench marks in terms ofthe DGPs instructlons datod 13022007e In Naresh Kumara oase cawpra9e the Honble Division ee Bench ruled the eligibility ofthe constables for their consideration both in 55Io and 35Io quota This judgn has attained flnality The SLP has also been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court The ratio of the said judgmenthas been reiterated 111 Hawa SingWscases 6IIOralas also in Constable Dhannbir Vs State of Haryanaand others 2009 19RSJ 3 10 wherein the followingobservations have been madel Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 90 4 b J CWP No 2914 of2010 2 13 So there are three distinct categorieswith their own qualifications and for eiigibilitvlfur consideration There is no bar to considerationof a constable in any categoryif he fillfllIs the eligibility crltena if he is eligibleln L all three categorieshe has a statutoryright to 0 considerationln all three categoriesThe Rules C do not categorize or require some ininimum age I 0 for eligibilityunder any ofthe categoriesWhat it I e speciflesis the upper agelimit for consideration Z t under a particularcategory C Despitethese instructions certain issllls referred to Cr hereinabove have againcroppedup The controversyregardingthe a5 eligibilityofcandidates under 35 years ofagefor beingbrought on List B for 35Io quota againcame up for considerationbyanotherDivision Bench 17 Z of this Court in Dharmbirs case and Balrai Singh and othersVs CL StateofHyana and others 2009 62ORSJ 463 In Dhannbirs case 0supra9 a Division Bench ofthis Coun held as under r 17 A conjointreadingofboth the subeules wouid show that only the upper age limit e has been prescribed under the rules and no minimum age has been prescribedeither under suberule 2 09 or sulule 2 iio which means that ifa constable fulfills the requirementofthe upper age and the other qualiflcations prescribed under the respectivecategory as pcr subule 2 there 1S P1 Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 91 4 CWP N02914 of2010 13 no bar to his considerationunder each of them Meaningtherebya constable who is eligible111 one category under Rule 13 6296i can also be considered in the other categoryunder Rule 133 621i of the PunjabPolice Rules as thereis no 1 C bifurcation between the rules as far as the 0 eligibility 1S concerned with regard to the C3 llllnlmum age as none is prescribcd C5 18 The minimum age if prescribedby way of I executive instructions would go against the Z lnterest of the Constables who are otherwise 12 Q eligibleunder the statutoryRules Rule 133 629 I 6iil confers a rightwhich a Constable attains on 08 the basis of his seniorityin the service As and OO when his tum comes based On the seniority a right m2 Z to consideration devolves on hiin This righton CL the basisofhis senioritycannot b0 dcprivedon the basis of executive instructions Thls would be tIl contravention to the statutoryrules and therefore not sustainable 22 What emerges from the above discussions 1S that a constable who has completed5 years of servlCe on the Ist day of January of the year m which the selection is made is under the age of 35 years and is el igible for considcration and selection for includinghis name in List B1 of Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 92 ed CWPNo 2914 of2010 4 selectedconstablesfor admissionto Lower School Course underthe 55Io quotaon the basis of merit as per Rule 133 6210iJofthe PunjabPoIice Rules 1934 and havlng in the test B 9 and failed or was unable to get 1 r enlistment due to Iower merit can also claim 0 consideration and selectionunder the 35Io quota C on the basis of as per Rule C5 137 21 6iiJ if he 1S eligibleunder both the categories Z As noticed above the constableswho have auained lnlnlmum C 3 1 bench marks under 35Io quotahavebeen ignoredand their juniorswere er deputed to the course on the groundthat theyare more mentorious having a5 betterbench marks This issue is in fact covered under Naresh Kumars cto case supra9and came to be clarified ln Balral Singhs cass 6supra 7 Z wherein it has been held that whereever a junior has been deputedfor n Lower School Course ignoringthe claim ofthe seniorsmerelyon the basis ofthe higherbench marks the senior be deputedfor the course and he will 7 be deemedto have passedthe course from the date his juniorhasqualiOed 4 In such situation senior will retain his seniority 4e There is atlother aspecl of thc mattera The DGPs instructions dated 13022007 are onlyprospectiveln nature Prior to these instructions no bench marks were prescribed under the statutoryrules and thus all those constables who acquired eligibilityprior to issuance of these instructions have been denied the deputationto the Lower School Course for non achieving the minimum bench marks It is settled Iaw that Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 93 1 4 e CIVPN029140f2010 4 5 governmentinstructions cannot overrule the statutoryrules Thus these instructionscannot be pressedinto serviceto deprivethe constablesofther right for for not havingachievedthe minimum bench marksas under tbese lllStrUCtlOllS 1SSUed Iater Thus such of the constables who becalne ellslblepriorto issuanceofthese instructions and m CL 1nored 101Ilot theminiJnumbenchmarks are to oe 60r 4 0 Lower School Course and on successfulcompletion ofthe course theyare Ca3 to be treated senior than their juniorswho were earlier deputed to the C0 Lower School Course In other words theywill retaln their seniorityfor I beingbrought on List B 1 thattheywere deputed for the Z course Iater than their juniorsor theydid not achieve minimum bench r tnarks er Srllilarly soch ofthe constableswho are lot u r Oll ateCt of acbievino less than the precribedbench irIarks thtw their lUlliors are 1 r also entitledto be deputed to the course and on completion ofthe same will 5 0 retain their seniority over theirjuniors In some of the writ petitionsthe constables have already the Lower School Course but they have been denied the 1 71 senlonty over their juniorson the ground that the juniorswere either havingbetterbench marksor deputedfor the course prior in time than the Ce Wrlt petitionerSe Iri view of the aloove observations these writ petitionersshall be deemed lo be senior to tbeir juniorsdeputedearlier on account of better bench marks or on any other ground of eligibility To sum UP these petitions are disposedofwith the followingdirections 95 i9 Such ofthe constableslpetitioners who have failed in 55010merit quota A 1 1 1 Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 94 1 1 0 CHTPN029140f2010 16 areentilled tt bo consideredfor beilljllroullt on List Ral unoer 35Io quola on the prillcipieof seniorityulrlerit provicIedthe bavc ths requisitc experience and are otherwiseeligibleunder therules iil such ofthe constableswho were lessthan 35 years ofageas on theday oftheir consideration but not more than 40 years theywill be entitledto be 1 brought on List B1 bydeputingthemto Lower SchoolCourse 5 0 iii9 thepetitionerswho acquiredeligibilitypriorto the DGPs instructions C dated 13022007 will be deputed for the course without consideringthe I C5 questionof minimum benchnlarks as prescribedllncler the vernment Z instructions and in their cases Sttnioritv aod othcr eligibilitycriterIa Z 5r under the rules will beenougbfor their to the course 12 C iv9 thepetitioners who becameeligiblefor aer the issuanceof the instructionsdated 13022007 and have achieved the minimum bench 08 markS be dePutedto the course their juniorshave beUer OO bench inarks wm Z v1 lnterse seniorityof the constableswill be deterJninedon the basis of Clm their seniorityin their respective districts in the and not on the basis of pa55108 01 ihe Lower School CoUr5l ln 311such cases who ale ignored hrl the above directions NoMe7E the nterease scnioritv of constables will not be governedby the above directions where senlor was q rgnoredon account of pendencyof any disciplinaryproceedingsor who suffered any other disqualificationfor deputationto Lower School Course Vl deputationof the petitionersshall be made on the basis of their seniorityin their respectivedistricts and againstthe available vacancies Let the claim ofthe petitionersbe considered in the light ofthe J1 above directions and their deputationwhere7er reouired be made in 1 Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 1 1 l 95 ea 1 1 CWPN029140f2010 7 accordancewith the abovedirections A copy ofthis order be placedon the record ofeach connected flle Va Lee 11082010 6PERMODKOHLII BLS 6 1 1 Ie ee1e 1 J l J 1 en C 4e 0 Notel Wllether tc be refcrredto theReporter9 ES C I C5 I Z Y m C e I 08 CQ e we Z Ll 1 1 Pooja 2014.03.26 14:53 True Copy of the Original PHHC, Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 10:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document