Selections overlooked earlier than 10 years cannot be overseen and be the subject of interference : Supreme Court of India

Non Reportable IN THE CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ PetitionNo.13618 Arvind Kumar Tiwari & Ors .... Petitioner(s The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. …. RespondentNo.13319 Writ PetitionNo.6019 Writ PetitionNo.14818 Writ PetitionNo.419 Writ PetitionNo.419 Writ PetitionNo.3319 Writ PetitionNo.2619 Writ PetitionNo.3319 Writ PetitionNo.3719 Writ PetitionNo.4819 Writ PetitionNo.7519 1 | P a g e J U D G M E N T L. NAGESWARA RAO J The complaint of the Writ Petitioners is that their result marks of “Sub Inspector Ranker’s Examination 2000 2008” have not been declared. The further grievance of the Petitioners is that the benefit of the judgment dated 30.01.2017 of this Court in Writ PetitionNo.416 Raghuraj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) has not been extended to them. A Notification was issued on 12.06.2010 by U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Boardfor selection to 5389 posts of Sub Inspector Service Rules 2008 100 marks 2. Basic Law Construction and Police Procedure100 marks 3. Numerical and Mental Ability Test 50 marks 4. Mental Aptitude Test I.Q. Test Responding 50 marks Except the subject Hindi Essay questions of other subjects would be of objective type. Note 2 to Rule 16(2 stipulates that a candidate who fails to obtain minimum 50 marks in each subject shall not be eligible for promotion. The examination was conducted on 13.03.2011. The Board issued a Notification on 20.04.2011 cancelling 08 questions which were found to be incorrect. Thereafter 3 | P a g e another Notification was issued by the Board on 26.05.2011 cancelling 18 questions which were found to be incorrect. On 11.06.2011 the result of the written examination was declared and 3891 candidates were selected out of whom 3351 candidates qualified after going through the physical test and group discussion. A Writ Petition was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by some of the unsuccessful candidates to set aside the result of the written examination. They complained of irregularities in the conduct of written examination. The cancellation of 18 questions was the main point taken by the Writ Petitioners. As the cancellation of questions was not due to any mistake of the candidates a learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the Board to award full marks for the cancelled questions. Having been informed that there were several vacancies the Respondents therein were permitted to send the Writ Petitioners for training if found eligible after revision of the list. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged by a Special Appeal before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court vide interim order dated 30.08.2012 stayed the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and directed that no person shall be sent for training. The State of U.P 4 | P a g e approached this Court questioning the order passed by the Division Bench on 30.08.2012. This Court set aside the order of the Division Bench on 07.10.2013 By an order dated 18.07.2014 this Court took note of the ongoing litigation pertaining to the selection to the posts of Sub Inspectors by promotion in the State of Uttar Pradesh and issued 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 b) The U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board Lucknow shall scrutinize 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. 5 | P a g e If a candidate has not answered any erroneous question the same shall be proportionately reduced. To clarify the candidate shall only get full marks of 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 be completed within a period of three months hence the successful candidates shall be duly intimated and subsequent action shall be taken by the State. From the 3358 candidates who were declared successful by a Notification dated 11.06.2011 3248 candidates actually joined. 110 candidates who were not permitted to join due to their crossing the age of 40 years were given the benefit of relaxation of age pursuant to an order passed by this Court. In Writ Petition No.45 2016 Raghuraj Singh this Court directed the Petitioners to be accommodated in the existing vacancies of Sub Inspectors Ranker if they have obtained 6 | P a g e marks between 190.16667 and 223.33333. It is clear from a perusal of the order that the Petitioners therein were qualified for being selected and promoted as Sub Inspectors Civil Police) Ranker. These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking a direction that the order passed in Raghuraj Singhshould be extended to them after declaring the marks obtained by them. The contention of the Petitioners is that there are several unfilled vacancies. It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that there is no reason for which their marks are not declared. It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioners that there can be no objection for declaring their marks and their promotion if they are found eligible. Finally it was argued on behalf of the Petitioners that they are entitled for the same order that was passed in Raghuraj SinghNo.45 2016. On behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh it was contended that the Petitioners are not entitled for the relief sought as they did not qualify in the selection of the test. According to the Respondents the selection test is conducted in four stages. In the first stage of written examination the candidates failing to obtain 50 marks in each of the four subjects prescribed for written examination shall be filtered out and the candidates 7 | P a g e obtaining minimum 50% marks in every subject shall be included in the list of candidates for physical ability test. The learned counsel appearing for the State referred to a decision of the Board dated 22.02.2011 according to which the papers of objective type answer sheets will be evaluated initially The Hindi Essay answer sheet will be taken up for evaluation thereafter only of those candidates who have obtained minimum 50% in each of the subjects which are of objective type. In other words the candidates who do not secure minimum 50% marks in the three objective type subjects shall be disqualified and the examination paper for Hindi Essay shall not be evaluated. Initially the marks of the candidates who were declared unsuccessful in the examination was not declared. By a Notification dated 17.05.2019 the Board uploaded the marks of all unsuccessful candidates. Several applications were filed seeking information relating to the marks obtained by them in the written examination. In response to the applications filed by 1815 candidates marks have been given to 1637 candidates. The scheme of the examination conducted for selection by promotion to the post of Sub Inspectors of Police is in accordance with Rule 16 of the said Rules. There are three 8 | P a g e subjects which are categorized as objective type. Note 2 of Rule 16 provides that a candidate who fails to obtain minimum of 50% marks in each subject shall not be eligible for promotion. The decision of the Board dated 22.02.2011 makes it clear that unless a candidate obtains minimum 50 marks in the objective type subjects they shall not be entitled to seek evaluation of the Hindi Essay Subject. Such of those candidates who failed to secure 50% marks in the objective type subjects stood disqualified. The Writ Petitioners are in such category. Therefore their Hindi Essay paper was not evaluated and the marks were not declared The decision of the Board was taken prior to the date of the examination and no fault can be found with the same. More than 50 000 candidates appeared for the examination and the short listing of the candidates in stages is within the domain of the Board and cannot said to be arbitrary and discriminatory. 10. The Petitioners are not entitled for extension of the order passed in Raghuraj Singh No. 28838 2019 this Court refused to entertain any challenge to the same selection process on the ground that several years have gone by. Selections conducted more than 10 | P a g e a decade earlier cannot be the subject matter of interference 11. For the aforementioned reasons the Writ Petitions are by this Court. dismissed. .....................................J [ L. NAGESWARA RAO [ ANIRUDDHA BOSE .....................................J New Delhi July 26 2021. 11 | P a g e

Summary: The court will not interfere in matters like selections for posts in a police force that took place more than a decade ago. This was held in the judgement passed by a bench consisting of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Aniruddha Bose in the case of Arvind Kumar Tiwari &amp; Others v The State of Uttar Pradesh [W.P/1369/2018]. A notification was issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board for selection to 5389 Sub Inspector posts by promotion from eligible constables and head constables through departmental examination. Constables below the age of 40 who would complete service of three years by the first day of the recruitment were declared as eligible to be a part of the selection. The recruitment process was governed by the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector Service Rules 2008 which state that 50% of the posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% by promotion on the basis of Departmental examination from among suitable head constables and constables. From the 3358 candidates who were found worthy, only 3248 ultimately joined. Additionally, a few of the candidates were allowed relaxation by the High court of Uttar Pradesh through the Raghuraj Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh [Civil Writ Petition No. 45 of 2016] judgement despite narrowly crossing the age of 40 years as they had proven themselves to be very good candidates. The petitioner, Arvind Kumar Tiwari had applied for the posts mentioned in the notice in 2010 and he was not among the selected candidates. He filed this petition requesting that the results of the examinations conducted to be revealed. The petitioner’s main contention was that there were several unfilled vacancies, so the marks of the examination should be revealed and the benefit allowed to the candidates in the Raghuraj Singh judgement (supra) should be extended to all the other candidates as well. The respondents pointed out the decision of the board which made it clear that a candidate would not be able to seek evaluation in further subjects unless they obtained a minimum 50% marks in the objective type subjects which the petitioner failed to do.