CONSTABLE (M) DEEPAK JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents issued an advertisement dated 18th December, 2008 inviting applications for recruitment in the clerical cadre in the police department on the post of Constable (M) Clerk and Constable (M) Steno. As per Clause 11 of the advertisement, a procedure was provided for the recruitment process namely, a physical test and a written test. Candidates, who had passed the written test were thereafter required to give a typing test and, under Clause 14, the selected candidates were required to be subjected to a verification of their character/antecedents and, upon verification of the antecedents, appointment letters was to be issued for vacancies existing in various police departments. Under Clause 12 of the advertisement, it was provided that with regard to the recruitment process, directions could be given by the Director General of Police from time to time.

(2.) BASED on the aforesaid advertisement, the petitioners applied and underwent the various processes given in Clause 11 of the advertisement. On 6th August, 2009, a select list was prepared by the respondents, in which the names of the petitioners were found. In this select list, it was stipulated in Clause 3 that candidates would be sent for training for four months after submission of their medical examination and under Clause 7, it was stipulated that upon completion of the training, the candidates would be appointed in the vacancies existing in the department.

(3.) BASED on the aforesaid select list and, the appointment letters so issued, the petitioners were sent on training and, in anticipation of the completion of the training, the respondents issued an order dated 27th November, 2009 issuing allotment orders indicating the place of posting of the petitioners upon completion of their training. It is alleged in paragraph 11 and 12 of the writ petition that upon completion of the training and pursuant to the order dated 27.11.2009, the petitioners joined their place of posting and started discharging regular duties. In paragraph 2 of the writ petition, the petitioner contended that they are discharging the regular duties which have been allotted to them. It is alleged that after starting their regular duties, the respondents issued an order dated 23rd December, 2009 directing the petitioners to undergo a further training for six months and further directing that the petitioners would be paid a stipend during this period of training for six months. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order directing payment of stipend, have filed the present writ petition praying for the quashing of the order dated 23rd December, 2009 issued by the Director General of Police, insofar as it related to the payment of stipend during the period of training.