RAJESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY these writ petitions, petitioners, serving as constables in civil police/armed police/PAC in Uttar Pradesh, have challenged selections to the post of head constables, to the extent of 50% of the vacancies, held in pursuance of circular dated 12 -10 -2001 issued by U.P. Police HQ, Allahabad, out of which 21% of the total number of 1392 vacancies were reserved for scheduled castes. Petitioners have prayed for directions, commanding to respondents to re -arrange the merit list of head constables selected for being sent for undergoing head constables training course in accordance with their seniority as visualized in paragraph 456 of U.P. Police Regulations and further for directions to complete the entries in the service records of petitioners by including therein all the awards given to them and by completing the annual entries upto date, and thereafter to publish revised merit list.

(2.) THE orders dated 18 -4 -2001 and 12 -10 -2001 issued by Police HQ under signatures of Inspector General of Police (Establishment) for holding Prantiya Yogyata Pariksha, 2002, were challenged by some of the constables who appeared in the selections, on the grounds that Deputy Inspector General of Police HQ U.P. Allahabad is not authorised to provide the method of selection inasmuch as the criteria for promotion, eligibility, and method can only be laid down by the State Government under the Police Act, 1961. The elimination of candidates in selection process after written examination and consideration of their service records, discriminated seniors in service, inasmuch as they have been deprived of the benefits of long period of their service, which is a relevant criteria for promotion, and that the selection board of IT/PT was required to act as a body, whereas each member of the board acted individually and allocated marks to the group assigned to each member, where by chances of the favouritism were increased. The selection was also challenged on the ground that vacancies were required to be filled up each year, and that by clubbing these vacancies for several years, those who have put in long years of service have been discriminated as against their juniors. The aforesaid grounds raised in a batch of writ petitions were considered and decided by this Court in writ petition No. 42286 of 2002 and other connected petitions in Kavindra Kumar and Ors. v. Deputy Inspector General of Police Moradabad Range Moradabad reported in 2003 (1) LBESR 985 (All) : 2003 (1) ESC (All) 235. It was held that, selections are being held in pursuance of the Government orders dated 31st May, 1995, which is referable to Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861. The method of promotion was provided the Government order dated 2 -8 -1949. These Government orders have amended/modified paragraphs 454 and 456 of U.P. Police Regulations, and thus it cannot be said that the criteria for promotion has not been provided by the State Government. In selections to 50% quota for constables, seniority plays is a secondary role. The submission with regard to irregularities and possible discrimination with regard to awarding marks and IT/PT test, was not accepted and all the writ petitions were dismissed.

(3.) REPLYING to the aforesaid submissions, Sri S.N. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel submits that this Court had already held in Kavindra Kumar's case (supra) that the criteria for promotion has been provided by Government orders dated 2nd August, 1949 and 31st May, 1995, and that modifications made from time to time do not disturb the criteria and tries to achieve the same purpose. According to him in selection to 50% posts, this Court has accepted the submission that seniority plays the secondary role. The remaining 50% posts are to be filled up by the criteria of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Paras 454 and 456 of the Police Regulations read together shows that only those constables will qualify for promotion who complete the course prescribed in the police training school and their respective seniority is to be regulated by the number of marks obtained by them in the training course. Thus it is clear that the seniority of constables in their feeding cadre is not to be taken into consideration for these 50% quota to be filled up by selection. There are about 7000 eligible constables for which 900 posts of head constables are available. The department has, therefore, provided for a fair and reasonable criteria and method for selection. A Prantiya Yogyata Pariksha was to be held in pursuance of circular dated 27 -12 -2000/9 -1 -2001 which was subsequently cancelled due to some errors. A number of constables had applied in pursuance of these circulars. Subsequently another circular was issued by Police HQ on 18 -4 -2001 with certain modifications in which apart from constables from civil police/constables from armed police and PAC were also permitted to appear. The constables who had earlier moved their applications in pursuance of circular dated 27 -12 -2000/9 -1 -2001 and who had not applied afresh in pursuance of circular dated 18 - 4 -2001, were not permitted to appear in the said examination. Aggrieved they filed writ petitions. In one such Writ Petition No. 38469 of 2001 interim orders was passed on 29 -11 -2001 whereby respondents were asked to consider feasibility of holding examination for candidates who had earlier applied, and were qualified. In pursuance of the aforesaid directions of this Court names were collected from the concerned district/units and these left over constables were allowed to undergo a process of selection by way of supplementary examination. The final result of the examination was earlier declared on 14 -8 -2002. Since these petitioners in the above writ petitions were to appear in the supplementary examination under the orders of this Court, the result of only 1247 vacancies were declared keeping 118 vacancies undeclared with intention to await the result of the supplementary examination which was held on 1 -9 -2002 and IT/PT test and interviews were held on 4 -10 -2002 and 7 -10 -2002. Thereafter the result according to marks obtained by these candidates appearing in supplementary examination was merged together with the original merit list dated 14 -8 -2002. It was found that none of the candidates who had appeared in the supplementary examination, could secure marks to include their names merit list dated 14 -8 -2002. The last selected candidates in general category candidates secured 373.5 marks, scheduled tribes category 356 marks and scheduled tribe category 319 marks, and since none of the candidates who appeared in supplementary examination secured marks equal or higher, a supplementary result containing 115 names of those who had appeared in the first examination was declared in respect of total number of 1389 vacancies. With the aforesaid change the last person who qualified in general category secured 371.5 marks whereas the last candidate belonging to scheduled caste categories secured 354 marks. The result of three candidates was not declared as it was found that they were given adverse remarks in the service record and that their matters is still under scrutiny. Sri Srivastava submits that in fact 86 candidates of general category and 29 candidates belong to reserved category, from the earlier examination were included in the merit list.