DAN SINGH MEHTA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN order to be promoted from the post of Constable or Head Constable to the post of Sub -Inspector Civil Police, there appears to be no dispute that the Police Regulations of the U.P. State are still applicable to the State of Uttarakhand. In terms of Clause 445 of the said Regulations, the persons, eligible in terms thereof, are required, at the first stage, to appear in a pre -examination test. A person, who has qualified in the pre -examination test, in terms of the provisions contained in the said Regulation, is thereupon entitled to appear at a test of general drill and physical examination. Clause (B)(2)(c) of the said Regulation provides the necessary parameters for general drill and physical examination of such persons. The same is as follows:

(2.) THE composite State of Uttar Pradesh, while following the directions contained in Regulation 445 (B)(2)(c), as appears from the order dated 27.02.1999, constituted one board for the purpose of general drill and physical examination. While the State of Uttarakhand initiated the process of promoting Constables/Head Constables to the post of Sub -Inspector Civil Police, by an order dated 15.03.2007, it indicated that it would take steps in terms of what had been provided in the order of State of Uttar Pradesh dated 27.02.1999. After having had said so in paragraph 2 of the said order dated 15.03.2007, the State of Uttarakhand in its order dated 15.03.2007 at paragraph 6 provided for constitution of two boards, one for Kumaon Range and the other for Garhwal Range for conducting general drill and physical examination.

(3.) IN the event, we accept that the appellants, having had failed to succeed before the board, were competent to challenge the constitution or the authority of the board and hold that the appellants are right and that instead of two boards there ought to have had been one board, then the logical conclusion would be that the authority competent in terms of the said Regulation to declare that the appellants have passed the general drill and physical examination has not yet declared them to have passed the same. In such view of the matter, the success at the third stage and consequent promotion is without selection at the second stage. We fail to understand how the State Government could agree to promote a person or persons who has/have not been judged to have passed general drill and physical examination by a competent board. In such view of the matter, we have deprecated the stand taken by the State Government before the writ court.