JASMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions involve determination of identical questions of law and therefore the same are being decided by a common order.

(2.) Civil Writ Petition 14973 of 1994 has been filed by Jasmer Singh and Sultan Singh both of whom are presently serving as Constables in the police department of the Government of Haryana. Petitioner No. 1 was enrolled in Haryana Police on 3.12.1988 and petitioner No. 2 was enrolled on 21.8.1988. In the year 1994, B-1 test was held for the police personnel to District Karnal. About 500 candidates appeared in the test. According to the petitioners, 112 candidates passed the Law Paper. Over 90 candidates passed the Parade test and thereafter the Departmental Promotion Committee prepared a merit list. Out of which a list of 25 candidates was given to District Karnal for being sent to the Lower School Course. 5 candidates were kept in the waiting list. Names of the petitioners appeared at serial Nos. 1 and 3 in the waiting list whereas name of the respondent No. 5 appeared at serial No. 4 This list was approved by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, vide his letter dated 1.3.1994. Petitions have further pleaded that out of list of 25 candidates, 13 were sent for the Lower School Course which commenced w.e.f. 1.4.1994. 12 other candidates have been detailed for the Lower School Course which commenced on 1.10.1994. They have further stated that the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, had written a letter, Annexure P-4 dated 8.7.1994, to the Director General of Police, Haryana, for allotment of 5 more seats to this District. A further request to this effect was made by the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, which was turned down by respondent No. 2 vide his Savingram dated 16.8.1994. Notwithstanding this the same authority, i.e., respondent No. 2 issued a direction for admission of respondent No. 5 to the Lower School Course vide Annexure P-6. This action of respondent No. 2 has been challenged by the petitioners on the ground that respondent No. 2 does not have any legal authority to pick out a candidate having lower merit for being sent to the Lower School Course. Petitioners have pleaded that on the basis of their placement at serial Nos. 1 and 3 in the waiting list, they have a preferential right as against respondent No. 5 to be sent for Lower School Course. Another ground of challenge to the impugned order passed by respondent No. 2 is that if at all respondent No. 2 had created an additional seat, the policy of reservation could not have been applied against one seat. Yet another ground of challenge is that even though the Superintendent of Police, Karnal, had requested for creation of 5 additional seats, the respondent No. 2 rejected that request in August, 1994 and in less than two months, he issued a direct order for sending respondent No. 5 to the Lower School Course.

(3.) The writ petition has been opposed by respondents 1 to 4 who have pleaded that the respondent No. 5 has been sent to the Lower School Course as a special case. It has been pleaded that the respondent No. 5 belongs to the Scheduled Caste and as per policy of the Government circulated vide Memo dated 18.9.1992, Annexure R-1, the Government is bound to give effect to roster system. Respondents have pleaded that the additional seat was allocated to respondent No. 5 in order to make good backlog of the vacancies meant for reserved categories. Respondents have further stated that only one vacancy meant for the Scheduled Caste was allotted to respondent No. 5 and the petitioners who belong to the general category have no right to compete with the respondent No. 5.