Case: LANCE NAYAK PNO NO. 980510777 RAJ BAHADUR Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

raised in Writ Petition (Service Single) No.3918 of 2011 (Aarakshi Vimal Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench. The Single Judge by his order dated 03.08.2011 directed the authorities to award full marks to every candidate in respect of those 18 questions. The order passed by the Single Judge was stayed by the Division Bench in Special Appeal arising therefrom. The matter finally reached this Court and by an order dated 18.07.2014 following directions were issued by this Court in Civil Appeal No.6547 of 2014:?Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the convinced opinion, the controversy should be put to rest from all spectrums and accordingly we issue the following directions:-(a) The posts that have been filled up by successful candidates, as has been apprised to us at the Bar, are 3358 and the candidates who have joined in the said posts and presently working shall not be disturbed.(b) The U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow shall scrutinise the papers of all the candidates, namely, the persons who had approached the writ court and the candidates who had not approached the writ court and if they have attempted and answered the 18 questions, which were wrongly set out, they will be awarded full marks for said 18 questions.(c) If a candidate has not answered any erroneous question, the same shall be proportionately reduced. To clarify, the candidate shall only get full marks for the questions answered.(d) A fresh select list shall be drawn up taking into account the aforesaid marks in respect of 2031 posts which are available in present pertaining to the year 2008. (e) The aforesaid exercise shall complete within a period of three months hence and the successful candidates shall be duly intimated and subsequent action shall be taken by the State.By virtue of our order, any matter pending in the Writ Court or before the Division Bench shall be deemed to have been disposed of.?6. The select list was thereafter published on 27.11.2014.7. In SLP(C) No.25377-78 of 2014 (Qamar Hasan Khan & others v. State of U.P. & Ors.) an order was passed on 10.08.2015 by this Court as under:?It is hereby made clear that no court shall entertain any grievance relating to this particular selection. Our present order would not dislodge, if any candidate, who has already been selected or sent for training. Needless to emphasize, the present order has been passed regard being had to the special features of the case.?8. In April 2018 a writ petition being Writ A-No.10308 of 2018 was preferred by the appellants submitting inter alia that the selection process was undertaken without applying Reservation Policy and that while considering 50 per cent cut off marks criteria must be ?paper? wise and not ?subject? wise.9. In view of the order passed by this Court on 10.08.2015 in (Qamar Hasan Khan & others v. State of U.P. & Ors.) the High Court refused to entertain the writ petition and dismissed the same by its order dated 20.04.2018, which order is now under challenge.10. When the matters were taken up on 15.04.2019 Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants relied upon Order dated 30.01.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.45 of 2016 whereunder the concerned petitioners having secured more than cut off marks were directed to be sent for training. It was submitted that similar benefits be given to the appellants. Submissions advanced by Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned Senior Advocate were noted in the order dated 15.04.2019 as under:?According to the Rule, the eligible candidates are to appear in the written examination which is to carry 300 marks and the details of the subjects are given in Rule 16(A). The subjects so specified are 1 to 4 (subjects 3 & 4 carry 50 marks each).According to the petition, the requirement to secure 50% marks is not to be reckoned subject-wise but ought to reckon paper-wise. And since there is common paper for subjects 3&4, the minimum marks which ought to be insisted upon must be in terms of the entire paper and not per subject i.e., subjects 3&4. Mr. Shishodia submits that his clients have secured 54% in the paper though the clients may not have secured 50% minimum in subjects 3&4.According to Mr. Shishodia, if this submission is accepted, the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of Order dated 30.01.2017 passed by this Court as the aggregate marks secured by them are more than 50%.?11. The stand of the State Government is:(a) That the candidates were awarded full marks in the manner prescribed by this Court;(b) That even then, none of the appellants in all these matters were fulfilling the criteria of having obtained 50 per cent marks in all the subjects;12. The fact that the appellants had not obtained 50 per cent marks in each of the subjects is accepted and what is submitted by the appellants is that Subject Nos.3 and 4, namely, ?Numerical and Mental Ability Test? and ?Mental Aptitude Test/I.Q, Test/Reasoning? carrying 50 marks each, were part of the same paper. The further submission is that on the strength of the aggregate from all the subjects, the appellants would be entitled to be promoted.13. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions as advanced. We are concerned in these matters with limited Departmental examination where the idea is, regardless of seniority levels, a meritorious candidate be given chance to reach higher levels. Merit is therefore the key element and there can be no compromise and dilution of the criteria. What is required in terms of the Rules is minimum of 50 per cent marks ?in each subject?. The subjects are delineated in the Rules and there are four subjects. Irrespective whether subjects 3 and 4 form part of the same paper, the express language of the Rules does not permit any such interpretation and the construction suggested by Mr. Shishodia cannot be accepted.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]13. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions as advanced. We are concerned in these matters with limited Departmental examination where the idea is, regardless of seniority levels, a meritorious candidate be given chance to reach higher levels. Merit is therefore the key element and there can be no compromise and dilution of the criteria. What is required in terms of the Rules is minimum of 50 per cent marks ?in each subject?. The subjects are delineated in the Rules and there are four subjects. Irrespective whether subjects 3 and 4 form part of the same paper, the express language of the Rules does not permit any such interpretation and the construction suggested by Mr. Shishodia cannot be accepted.