ANITA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of six writ petitions 14896, 14983, 14984, 15587, 15761 of 1992 and 11370 of 1993 which involve common questions of law and fact and have been referred to us for disposal by a learned single Judge. For the sake of convenience facts are being taken from civil writ 14896 of 1992.

(2.) PETITIONER was enrolled in the Haryana Police as a lady constable in July, 1984 and is serving in the District of Sonepat. Prior to the year 1984, lady constables in the State were not required to take the B-I test for being deputed to the Lower School Course. However, as per the instructions issued by the Director General of Police, Haryana on 17. 2. 1984 (Annexure P-2 with the writ petition), it was decided that like male constables lady constables should also be put through the B-I test in terms of the amended Rule 13. 7 of the Punjab Police Rules 1934 as applicable to the state of Haryana (for short, 'the Rules') for the purpose of getting further promotion in their separate cadres. This decision was taken as lady Police which constitute a Separate cadre in the Haryana State Police were available in sufficient numbers. They were required to compete amongst themselves and selection for B-I test as to be made was limited to the number of seats allotted to each range with 25 percent seats reserved for lady constables. In the common B-I test held on 23. 10. 1992 in District Sonepat six lady constables including the petitioner competed. Petitioner was the only lady to have passed the test and as per the result sheet (Annexure P-1) with the petition she was placed at Sr. No. 58. She was not deputed to the Course as according to the respondents there was no reservation for lady constables and the total number of constables to be deputed was only 30.

(3.) WE have heard counsel for the parties at length. In our opinion, the instructions dated February 17, 1984 are clear on the subject and 25 percent seats had to be reserved for lady constables. Admittedly, the petitioner was the only lady to have cleared the test. We, therefore, see no reason why she was not deputed for the course. Similarly, Santosh Kumari and Gayatri Devi petitioners in civil writ petitions 15761 of 1992 and 11370 of 1993 had passed the B-I test held in their respective Districts and they too were entitled to be deputed for the Course. Petitioners in Civil Writ Petitions 14983, 14984 and 15587 of 1992 did not, however, pass the B-I test held in their Districts and, therefore, they cannot claim that they should be deputed for the said Course. It may be mentioned that these petitioners failed in the race which is a part of the parade test and Smt. Maya Rani obtained only 9-1/2 marks out of 30 in the parade test and these being less than 50 per cent of the total marks she was rightly declared to have failed in the test.