HARVEER SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VINEET Saran, J. The short question involved in this case is as to whether the candidates, who were selected and appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector, would be entitled for payment of salary for the period during which they had undergone training for such appointment. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

(2.) THE petitioners appeared in the selection process held in the year 1987-1988 for appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector. Initially the petitioners were placed in the waiting list and thereafter they were sent for training only in the year 1994. During the period of training, they were paid stipend of Rs. 1,000/- per month. After successfully completing their training, they were given appointment as Sub- Inspectors under Regulation 406 of U. P. Police Regulations and only thereafter they were paid their regular salary. THE petitioners had filed representations for payment of salary for the period of training. Since their representations were not decided, they filed a writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondent- authorities to decide the same. By the impugned order 30-4-1996, the representations of the petitioners have been rejected. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

(3.) THE admitted position is that no appointment was given to the petitioners prior to being sent for training. An appointment is given only to such candidate who successfully undergoes training and then a seniority list is prepared on the basis of the marks obtained during the training period. THEre could be a situation where a candidate does not successfully complete his training and thus does not even get appointment as Sub-Inspector. In such a case if the direction to pay salary for the period of training is made, it would be a case where he gets salary without being ever appointed as Sub-Inspector. THEre could be another situation where a person does not successfully complete his training in the stipulated two years period and has to continue his training for another year or two. THEn also it would be totally unjustified to direct for payment of salary for the training period in favour of a person who lacks merit and is unable to complete his training within time.