Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
Arvind Kumar Tiwari and Others – Petitioners
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1369, 1488 of 2018, 41, 42, 267, 330, 339, 376, 487, 606, 754, 1330 of 2019
Decided On : 26-07-2021
Service Law – Selection – Posts of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Rankers’ by promotion from eligible Constables and Head Constables on the basis of Departmental examination – Petitioners could not secure 50% marks in objective type subjects and are not entitled to seek evaluation of Hindi Essay paper – There are four different subjects and candidates should secure 50% marks in each of subjects to be qualified – Subjects C and D cannot be clubbed together – Subjects C and D would be treated separately though both subjects were clubbed for the purpose of holding examination – Certain errors that were made in preparation of list were pointed out by Petitioners – These Writ Petitions relate to selection conducted for promotion to post of Sub-Inspectors pursuant to advertisement issued in 2010 – Scheme of examination has also undergone change – Selections conducted more than a decade earlier cannot be subject matter of interference by this Court – Writ Petitions dismissed. [Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008 – Rules 5 and 16](Paras 10 and 11)
Facts of the case:
A Notification was issued on 12.06.2010 by U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board (Board) for selection to 5389 posts of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Rankers’ by promotion from eligible Constables and Head Constables on the basis of a Departmental examination. The vacancies pertained to the years 2000-2008. Constables and Head Constables who completed a period of three years’ service on the first day of the year of recruitment and who have not attained 40 years of age were eligible to take part in the selection. Complaint of the Writ Petitioners is that their result/marks of “Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) Ranker’s Examination 2000-2008” have not been declared. The further grievance of the Petitioners is that the benefit of judgment dated 30.01.2017 of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.45 of 2016 (Raghuraj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. ) has not been extended to them.
Findings of Court:
Such of those candidates who failed to secure 50% marks in objective type subjects stood disqualified. The Writ Petitioners are in such category. Therefore, their Hindi Essay paper was not evaluated and the marks were not declared. The decision of the Board was taken prior to the date of the examination and no fault can be found with the same. More than 50,000 candidates appeared for the examination and short-listing of the candidates in stages is within domain of the Board and cannot said to be arbitrary and discriminatory.
Result : Writ Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The complaint of the Writ Petitioners is that their result/marks of “Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) Ranker’s Examination 2000-2008” have not been declared. The further grievance of the Petitioners is that the benefit of the judgment dated 30.01.2017 of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 45 of 2016 (Raghuraj Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others) has not been extended to them.
2. A Notification was issued on 12.06.2010 by U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board (for short “the Board”) for selection to 5389 posts of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Rankers’ by promotion from eligible Constables and Head Constables on the basis of a Departmental examination. The vacancies pertained to the years 2000-2008. Constables and Head Constables who completed a period of three years’ service on the first day of the year of recruitment and who have not attained 40 years of age were eligible to take part in the selection. Recruitment to posts of Sub-Inspectors is governed by Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008 (for short “the Rules”). Rule 5 thereof provides that 50% of the posts of Sub-Inspectors shall be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% by promotion on the basis of Departmental examination from amongst substantially appointed Head Constables and Constables of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Police/Armed Police/Armed Police Mounted Police/P.A.C. Procedure for recruitment by promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector is governed by Rule 16 of the Rules according to which the Board shall conduct a written examination. The written examination shall carry 300 marks. The allocation of marks is as follows:
2. Basic Law, Construction and Police Procedure (Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Evidence Act and Police Manual etc.) - 100 marks
3. Numerical and Mental Ability Test - 50 marks
4. Mental Aptitude Test/I.Q. Test/Responding - 50 marks
3. Except the subject Hindi Essay, questions of other subjects would be of objective type. Note 2 to Rule 16(2) stipulates that a candidate who fails to obtain minimum 50% marks in each subject shall not be eligible for promotion.
4. The examination was conducted on 13.03.2011. The Board issued a Notification on 20.04.2011 cancelling 08 questions which were found to be incorrect. Thereafter, another Notification was issued by the Board on 26.05.2011 cancelling 18 questions which were found to be incorrect. On 11.06.2011, the result of the written examination was declared and 3891 candidates were selected out of whom 3351 candidates qualified after going through the physical test and group discussion.
5. A Writ Petition was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by some of the unsuccessful candidates to set aside the result of the written examination. They complained of irregularities in the conduct of written examination. The cancellation of 18 questions was the main point taken by the Writ Petitioners. As the cancellation of questions was not due to any mistake of the candidates, a learned Single Judge of the High Court directed the Board to award full marks for the cancelled questions. Having been informed that there were several vacancies, the Respondents-therein were permitted to send the Writ Petitioners for training if found eligible after revision of the list. The said judgment of the learned Single Judge was challenged by a Special Appeal before the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide interim order dated 30.08.2012, stayed the operation of the judgment of the learned Single Judge and directed that no person shall be sent for training. The State of U.P. approached this Court questioning the order passed by the Division Bench on 30.08.2012. This Court set aside the order of the Division Bench on 07.10.2013.
6. By an order dated 18.07.2014, this Court took note of the ongoing litigation pertaining to t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
