KARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has prayed for the following reliefs:

(2.) ANNEXURE P -4 reads as under: OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE HIMACHAL PRADESH POLICE HEADQUARTERS SHIMLA - 174002 To The Secretary, State Selection Committee - cum - Sub Regional Employment Officer, Ex -Serviceman Cell Hamirpur, H.P. No. P.II(3) Rec. (S1)/2011 Dated:25.3.2011 Subject: Nomination of Ex -Serviceman against the post of Sub -Inspector on regular basis in the pay scale of Rs. 10300 -34800+3600 Grade Pay reserved for Ex -servicemen. Sir, Kindly refer to your letter No. DSW Emp. Ex -cell 4/76 dated 09 -03 -2011, on the subject cited above. 2. In this connection, it is intimated that the cut off date for calculation of upper and lower age limit for appointment as Sub Inspector of Police against reserved post may be considered as 24.02.2011 i.e. the date on which the requisition has been placed upon the Ex - serviceman Cell Hamirpur, Distt. Hamirpur, H.P. Yours faithfully, For Director General of Police Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.

(3.) IN the year 2008 Respondents No. 1 and 2 took decision of filling up 65 posts of Sub - Inspectors of Police in the pay scale of Rs. 10300 - 34800. The posts were to be filled up after fully complying with the procedure prescribed under the Rules. Out of 65 posts, nine posts were reserved for Ex -servicemen as per the reservation roster. Such posts were to be filled up by Respondents No. 3 and 4, for which purpose requisition was to be sent by Respondent No. 2. Record does not reveal as to why steps for filling up these posts were not taken by Respondent No. 2 between the years 2008 - 2011. Undisputedly, all other posts, except the one reserved for Ex -servicemen were filled up before December, 2010. According to the Petitioner he was fully eligible for being considered for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector even up till 30.1.2011. It was only in terms of letter dated 24.2.2011 (Annexure P -3) requisition for filling up these nine posts was sent by Respondent No. 2 to Respondent No. 4. This letter categorically refers to the decision taken by the State Government to fill up all 65 posts taken in the year 2008 itself. As such, Respondent No. 3 was required to send names of persons eligible as on the date when the Government took decision to fill up the posts or at best the date on which effective steps for filling up the remaining posts were taken by Respondent No. 2. As already noticed herein above, there is nothing on record to justify delay in filling up the posts in question between the year 2008 and 2010. Further it was only by way of a subsequent letter dated 25.3.2011 (Annexure P -4), that it was clarified that the date of eligibility with respect to the age is to be considered is 24.2.2011. There is no rationality in fixing such date. Simply because requisition was sent on the said date, that fact by itself would not be a factor determining the cut off date with respect to the eligibility criteria. Rules are absolutely silent on this aspect. The Government itself had taken decision to fill up the posts in the year 2008. Since effective steps for filling up the remaining posts were actually taken by Respondent No. 2 in the year 2008 -09 itself, there was no justification for Respondent No. 2 to have fixed the cut off date of eligibility for these nine reserved posts to be 24.2.2011. In this background Annexure P -4 needs to be quashed. Ordered accordingly.