BADIUZZAMAN Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the aforesaid matters are heard together as the points of law involved in these matters are identical and decision on the question of law is depending upon the decision of each and every individual case. In all those cases the learned Tribunal had rejected by a common judgment, claim and contention of the respective applicants. In all those cases the applicants before us on diverse dates participated in selection process for appointment of Constables in Calcutta Police establishment. Almost in all the cases the applicants, though having qualified themselves in physical measurement test had failed to qualify in various endurance tests, namely 100 meters, 800 meters run within stipulated time, long jump of particular distance, and interview. It was legal contention that under Regulation 11 of Police Regulation Calcutta, 1968 (hereinafter PRC in short) the method of recruitment to the posts of constables and sepoys are provided. In this regulation recruitment shall be by direct selection from and amongst the candidates having qualification of ages of 18 and 25 years, ability to read and write the vernacular, and having minimum measurement of physique as mentioned therein. None of the modes namely completion of 100 meter run within 14. 5 seconds, 800 meters within 2. 50 minutes, long jump of distance minimum 15 feet and interview can be undertaken as there is no provision in the said published regulation. The learned tribunal having relied on notification issued by Deputy Commissioner of Police dated 4th July, 1994 whereby existing provisions of the method of recruitment to the post of constable, sipahi, police driver in Calcutta Police has been sought to be changed by way of addition of some other mode, held that their elimination on the basis of amended provision of the Regulation was valid and lawful.

(2.) THAT apart factually the learned Tribunal in the common judgment held that most of the claimants approached beyond the period of limitation.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties we have decided to address the question of law relating to the legality and validity of the amendment of the Regulation by the above notification, naturally competency of the Commissioner of Police, and thereafter we shall examine each and every individual applicant's case on merit. Therefore as far as the point of limitation is concerned we think all these cases can not be bracketed in one omnibus findings, because facts relating to limitation in these cases substantially diverse and different.