RAMPHAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was selected for the Lower School Course in the test for selection held by the Departmental Promotion Committee at Yamunanagar on 1.4.1991. The Committee had prepared a merit list of 53 candidates, which was then submitted for perusal and approval to the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Ambala Range. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, on the basis of certain verbal complaints made to his, called for the answer sheets of this examination and proceeded, thereafter to re-evaluate the answer sheets himself, purporting to exercise this power as the approving authority of the list. A fresh merit list in accordance with the marks given by him on re-evaluation was then prepared. Petitioner was one of those who were rendered ineligible for this course which led him to file CWP 7949 of 1991 in this Court. This writ petition was dismissed against which Letters Patent Appeal No. 17 of 1992 was filed. This Letters Patent Appeal was accepted and the decision was rendered on 11.1.1994. It was held that the petitioner v as entitled to be sent to the Lower School Course. Since the Course to which the petitioner was to be sent had already been completed, a direction was issued that he be now sent to the next course which was to start from 1.4.1994. Further direction issued was that he would get the seniority of 1991 batch. The direction issued was in the following terms: -

(2.) As per judgment rendered in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeal, the petitioner should have been sent to the next Course which was to start from 11.4.1994. Unfortunately, petitioner's case was recommended on 18.4.1994 by the authorities for joining the Lower School Course and he joined the Course from 14.9.1994. On 15.9.1994, when the written examination was to start, the petitioner was stopped from taking the examination on the ground that he had not attended 75% of the lectures delivered and, therefore, was not eligible to take the examination. Petitioner filed the present writ petition with a prayer that he be allowed to take the written examination.

(3.) On facts, it has been stated that the petitioner had attended 75% of the lectures delivered. In the alternative, it was argued that even if it was assumed that the petitioner did not attend 75% of the lectures delivered, even then the percentage of 75 is to be taken of the lectures which were delivered after 19.4.1994 as the petitioner was not at fault and the fault lay with the respondent authorities in recommending the case of the petitioner for joining the Course late. It was also argued that the petitioner be given the benefit of lectures which were delivered from 1.4.1994 till 18.4.1994 as he was denied detailment to the Lower School Course by the respondents in violation of the directions issued by this court in the above referred to L.P.A.