1. Promotion examination for Sub-Inspector posts — Requirement of minimum marks in each subject — Dispute over non-declaration of results and extension of prior judicial benefits. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 384
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
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Selections conducted more than a decade earlier cannot be subject matter of interference by Apex Court.
(2) Short-listing of candidates in stages is within domain of Recruitment and Promotion Board.
(1) Selections conducted more than a decade earlier cannot be subject matter of interference by Apex Court.
(2) Short-listing of candidates in stages is within domain of Recruitment and Promotion Board.
Subject
Employment Law - Recruitment and Promotion
Act Referred
SERVICE LAW: .
UTTAR PRADESH SUB-INSPECTOR AND INSPECTOR CIVIL POLICE SERVICE RULES: R.5, R.16
UTTAR PRADESH SUB-INSPECTOR AND INSPECTOR CIVIL POLICE SERVICE RULES: R.5, R.16
Headnote
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.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the parties :Pallavi Sharma, Ajay Bansal, Pawan Shukla, Gaurav Yadava, Veena Bansal, Satpal Singh, Yadav Narender Singh, Dinesh Diwivedi, Raj Singh Rana, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Manish Shankar Srivastav, Rakesh Kumar Mugdal, Kamal Kumar Pandey, Garima Prashad, A. Deb Kumar, Akshay Amritanshu, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Raj Singh Rana, Ranjit Kumar Sharma, Deepak Goel, Kamal Kumar Pandey, Pawan kumar Shukla, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Siddharth Krishna Dwivedi, Vibha Dwivedi, Rakesh Mishra, Arvind Gupta, Anil Kumar Sahu, Ashish Kumar Sinha, Binita Jaiswal, Md. Shahid Anwar, Syed Rehan, Intakhab Alam, Mohammad Naseem Mughal, Rshid Izhar, Anil Kumar, Satyajeet Kumar, Manohar Pratap, Ajit Kumar Ekka, P. N. Puri, Abhishek Singh, Alok Singh, Manju Jetley, Vishal Prasad, Advocates
For the parties :Pallavi Sharma, Ajay Bansal, Pawan Shukla, Gaurav Yadava, Veena Bansal, Satpal Singh, Yadav Narender Singh, Dinesh Diwivedi, Raj Singh Rana, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Manish Shankar Srivastav, Rakesh Kumar Mugdal, Kamal Kumar Pandey, Garima Prashad, A. Deb Kumar, Akshay Amritanshu, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Raj Singh Rana, Ranjit Kumar Sharma, Deepak Goel, Kamal Kumar Pandey, Pawan kumar Shukla, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Shail Kumar Dwivedi, Siddharth Krishna Dwivedi, Vibha Dwivedi, Rakesh Mishra, Arvind Gupta, Anil Kumar Sahu, Ashish Kumar Sinha, Binita Jaiswal, Md. Shahid Anwar, Syed Rehan, Intakhab Alam, Mohammad Naseem Mughal, Rshid Izhar, Anil Kumar, Satyajeet Kumar, Manohar Pratap, Ajit Kumar Ekka, P. N. Puri, Abhishek Singh, Alok Singh, Manju Jetley, Vishal Prasad, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners seek extension of judicial benefits and declaration of marks — State contends petitioners failed to meet minimum qualifying marks in objective subjects. (Para 8 )
3. Board's staged evaluation process is valid — Minimum marks in objective subjects are a prerequisite for essay evaluation — Subjects clubbed for examination remain separate for assessment. (Para 9 , 10 )
4. Candidates failing to secure minimum prescribed marks in each subject are ineligible for promotion and cannot seek evaluation of remaining papers or judicial extensions. (Para 9 , 10 )
5. Writ petitions dismissed. (Para 11 )
6. Can a candidate seek evaluation of a subjective paper if they fail the minimum qualifying marks in objective papers?
No. If the rules stipulate a minimum percentage in each subject, the examining board may validly decide to evaluate subjective papers only for those who first qualify in the objective subjects. (Para 9 )
7. Does clubbing two subjects into one examination paper merge them for the purpose of calculating minimum qualifying marks?
No. If the rules specify that a candidate must secure minimum marks in each subject, the subjects are treated separately for assessment regardless of whether they were clubbed for the purpose of holding the examination. (Para 10 )
8. Can a court interfere with a selection process conducted over a decade ago?
The court may refuse to entertain challenges to selection processes where several years have passed, as such delayed interference is not warranted. (Para 10 )
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:
1. Hindi Essay (based on Law and Order case study and police functioning) - 100 marks
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
