JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. 

1. Reply by way of additional affidavit dated 13.01.2026 of Mr. Charanjit Singh, I.P.S., Assistant Inspector General of Police, Intelligence, Headquarter, Punjab is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at an appropriate place.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking quashing of Clause 28(b) of Standing Order No.10 of 2016 dated 06.09.2016 which provides that relative merit of candidates having equal marks shall be determined on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in graduation. He is further seeking directions to respondents to revise merit list of candidates selected as Intelligence Officer in the Intelligence Cadre of Punjab Police against Advertisement No.2 of 2016 dated 08.09.2016.

3. The petitioner, pursuant to Advertisement No.2 of 2016 dated 08.09.2016, applied for the post of Intelligence Officer. He cleared all the prescribed stages of recruitment. The respondent issued provisional list of selected candidates on 26.12.2016. Few candidates preferred CWP No.365 of 2017 before this Court. On account of interim orders of this Court, the respondent could not fill vacancies, out of waiting list candidates, arising on account of non-joining of selected candidates. The petitioner preferred CWP No.19529 of 2017 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 19.07.2019. In view of orders of this Court, the petitioner was issued appointment letter dated 22.01.2020. He joined service on 30.01.2020. The selection process of 2016 was based upon Standing Order No.10 of 2016 issued by respondent No.4. As per Clause 28(b) of Standing Order, if there are equal marks of candidates, their relative merit shall be prepared on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in graduation. The respondent has determined merit list on the basis of marks in the graduation where candidates have obtained equal marks. The petitioner is elder to candidates who figured at Serial Nos.41 to 58, however, his seniority has been determined on the basis of marks of graduation.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause 28(b) of Standing Order is contrary to Punjab Civil Services (General and Common Conditions of Services) Rules, 1994 (for short ‘1994 Rules’). As per Punjab Intelligence Cadre (Group ‘C’) Services Rules, 2015 (for short ‘Intelligence Cadre Rules’), matters which are not specifically provided in the Rules are governed by 1994 Rules. As per Rule 8 of 1994 Rules, in case persons recruited by direct recruitment obtain equal marks, their inter se seniority is determined on the basis of their age. The respondent could not determine merit on the basis of marks obtained in graduation. 1994 Rules clearly provide that where two candidates have scored equal marks, their merit shall be determined on the basis of age. The standing order cannot run contrary to statutory provisions. Director General of Police, Punjab has power to issue Standing Order with respect to recruitment of subordinates, however, Standing Order must flow within the banks of Punjab Police Act, 2007 (for short ‘2007 Act’) as well as Rules made thereunder. The aforesaid clause was contrary to 1994 Rules, thus, is liable to be declared invalid. The respondent in subsequent recruitments has adopted criteria of age which vindicates stand of the petitioner.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that as per terms and conditions of the advertisement particularly Clauses 10 & 17(iv), the petitioner was supposed to go through instructions enumerated in Standing Order No.10/2016. He cannot challenge terms and conditions underscored in the Standing Order after participating in the selection process and joining service. He joined service in 2020 against advertisement of 2016. He remained silent for five years even after joining service. There is no contradiction between impugned clause and 1994 Rules. The recruitment of petitioner was further governed by Punjab