LAWS(P&H)-1991-9-160

KAMAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On September 25, 1991
KAMAL KISHORE Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was enrolled as a Constable in Haryana Police on 2.1.1981. At the time of filing the writ petition on 11.7.1991, the petitioner was posted at Police Training College, Madhuban on deputation. On 29th November, 1990, a telegram was issued to all concerned including Director, Police Training College, Madhuban intimating that a test for admission of suitable constables to promotion - List B.1. would be held in G.R.P. Lines, Ambala City in January, 1991 by the departmental promotion committee and in accordance with Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules (as applicable to the Haryana State also) the Constables who were under 35 years of age on 1st July, 1991 were eligible and those Constables who were willing to appear in the test were required to report in G.R.P. Lines, Amabala City. By another intimation sent later on, it was informed that the test in G.R.P. Lines for the above-said purpose would be held on 4th January, 1991 and the Constables who wished trust in the test were required to report on the evening of 3rd January, 1991.

(2.) It has been averred by the petitioner that he was summoned to appear in the B-1 test on 4.1.1991, and in fact he went to appear to B-l test on 4.1.1991, but when the papers were being distributed in the Examination Centre to the candidates, the Superintendent of Police, Railways, Haryana, (Respondent No. 3) who was present, in the Examination Hall asked the petitioner to go out and did not allow him to sit in the test saying that he was overage. The case of the petitioner is that he was not overage and was under 35 years of age on 1st July, 1991 and consequently the respondent wrongly did not allow him to appear in the test, which was deprived him to be brought on List B-1.

(3.) In reply to the writ petition, it has been stated on behalf of the respondents that in fact the petitioner did not come at all to appear in the B. 1 test and the question of his being turned out of the Examination Hall on the ground that he was overage, did not arise. Mr. R.C. Setia, Addl. A.G. appearing on behalf of the respondents has produced before me attendance sheet signed by various candidates numbering about 350 to show that whosoever was present in the Examination Hall had signed the attendance sheet and the signatures of the petitioner are not there. According to him this would go to show that the petitioner had not appeared in the test.