DAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this judgment, we propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos. 15365 and 15413 of 1992. The facts have been taken from the former case.

(2.) The petitioners passed the B-1 test held under Rule 13.7. of the Punjab Police Rules 1934 Vol. II as applicable in the Haryana State (hereinafter called the Rules) held in January 1991 for being deputed to the Lower School Course in the Police Training College at Madhuban. The petitioners secured very high marks in the written examination but were left out of the course by the respondents by giving marks below the prescribed level in the service examination record. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioners filed a writ petition which was decided along with writ petition No. 8097 of 1991 in this Court and during the pendency of this writ petition some constables in the connected matter, were infact, allowed provisional admission in the course under the orders of this Court. It has been stated by the petitioners that as they had come late to this Court, they were not given the interim relief of provisional admission, and their petition was ultimately decided on 13th March, 1992 and a direction was issued to the respondents to prepare a fresh merit list after fixing the maximum marks in the service record examination. It appears that after the fresh merit list was prepared a wireless message dated 9th November, 1992 Annexure P-2 was received by the petitioners requiring them to report for the medical examination so as to enable them to attend the Lower School Course which was to start on 11th November, 1992. In compliance with the directive petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were medically examined on 11th November, 1992 whereas the other two petitioner who were posted out of Hissar and had not received the wireless message Annexure P-2 could not be examined on that day. On having been found fit in the medical examination, petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 were isssued a movement order on November 12, 1992 Annexure P4 to the petition but it has been stated by them that when they went to make an entry of departure in the Daily Diary Report on that day they were told that the higher authorities had restrained them from going to the Course. Petitioner Nos 3 and 4 however were not even medically examined in compliance with the order of the higher authorities referred to above. The petitioners have impugned the action of the respondents in restraining them from attending the Course after having first cleared them for the said Course. The additional grievance of the petitioner is that as they had been assured by the respondents that they were being deputed to the Lower School Course by virtue of their success in the B-I test held in 1991, they had chosen not to appear in the test held in the year 1992, and as such the respondents were estopped from detaining them from the Course.

(3.) The State of Haryana in its reply has admitted that the petitioners had been initially directed to attend the Lower School, as alleged by them, but it has been stated that this was done inadvertently and when the respondent-authorities found that a mistake had been made, the petitioners were restrained from attending the Course. It has further been clarified that a fresh merit list was prepared in accordance with the directive of this court given in C.W.P.No. 8097 of 1991 and, as per the merit list prepared, none of the petitioners could secure 50 per cent marks in the test of service record examination in terms of Rule 13.7 (3). The assertion of the petitioners that they did not attend the P-1 test held in 1992 on account of the assurance given by the respondent-authorities that they were to be deputed to the course on the basis of the 1991 test has also been denied. It has further been clarified that all the eligible candidates for the B-I test, including the petitioners were duly informed about the date of the test which was to be held on 28th October, 1992.