2003 Supreme(All) 1597
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunil Ambwani
RAJESH KUMAR
Versus
STATE OF U P
Decided On : 01 August 2003
C. M. W. P. Nos. 37035 of 2002 with 38286, 38408, 38650, 38652, 39004, 39363, 39401, 39618, 89, 39830, 39833, 40035, 41012, 41018, 41073, 41075, 3752
Ashok Khare, V.D.Chauhan,
The criteria for promotion was the number of marks obtained in the selection, and seniority played a secondary role in the 50% quota for constables.
Headnote:
POLICE REGULATIONS - SELECTION - 454, 456 - The court considered the challenge to selections for the post of head constables and held that the method of promotion was provided by Government orders dated 2-8-1949 and 31-5-1995, which amended/modified paragraphs 454 and 456 of U. P. Police Regulations. The court emphasized that the criteria for promotion was the number of marks obtained in the selection, and seniority played a secondary role. The court also addressed the issue of irregularities and discrimination in awarding marks and IT/pt test, and dismissed the writ petitions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, constables in Uttar Pradesh, challenged selections to the post of head constables, alleging irregularities and discrimination in the selection process. They sought directions to re-arrange the merit list and complete their service records.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the method of promotion was provided by Government orders, and the criteria for promotion was the number of marks obtained in the selection. It dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the 50% quota for constables was based on merit, and seniority played a secondary role.
Issues: The issues included the method of promotion, irregularities in the selection process, and the role of seniority in the 50% quota for constables.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the criteria for promotion was the number of marks obtained in the selection, and seniority played a secondary role in the 50% quota for constables.
Final Decision: The court dismissed all the writ petitions, with no order as to costs.
By these writ petitions, petitioners, serving as constables in civil police/armed police/pac in Uttar Pradesh, have challenged selections to the post of head constables, to the extent of 50% of the vacancies, held in pursuance of circular dated 12-10-2001 issued by U. P. Police HQ, Allahabad, out of which 21% of the total number of 1392 vacancies were reserved for scheduled castes. Petitioners have prayed for directions, commanding to respondents to re-arrange the merit list of head constables selected for being sent for undergoing head constables training course in accordance with their seniority as visualized in paragraph 456 of U. P. Police Regulations and further for directions to complete the entries in the service records of petitioners by including therein all the awards given to them and by completing the annual entries upto date, and thereafter to publish revised merit list.
2. The orders dated 18-4-2001 and 12-10-2001 issued by Police HQ under signatures of Inspector General of Police (Establishment) for holding "prantiya Yogyata Pariksha, 2002", were challenged by some of the constables who appeared in the selections, on the grounds that Deputy Inspector General of Police HQ U. P. Allahabad is not authorised to provide the method of selection inasmuch as the criteria for promotion, eligibility, and method can only be laid down by the State Government under the Police Act, 1961. The elimination of candidates in selection process after written examination and consideration of their service records, discriminated seniors in service, inasmuch as they have been deprived of the benefits of long period of their service, which is a relevant criteria for promotion, and that the selection board of IT/pt was required to act as a body, whereas each member of the board acted individually and allocated marks to the group assigned to each member, where by chances of the favouritism were increased. The selection was also challenged on the ground that vacancies were required to be filled up each year, and that by clubbing these vacancies for several years, those who have put in long years of service have been discriminated as against their juniors. The aforesaid grounds raised in a batch of writ petitions were considered and decided by this Court in writ petition No. 42286 of 2002 and other connected petitions in Kavindra Kumar and Ors. v. Deputy Inspector General of Police Moradabad Range Moradabad reported in 2003 (1) LBESR 985 (All) : 2003 (1) ESC (All) 235. It was held that, selections are being held in pursuance of the Government orders dated 31st May, 1995, which is referable to Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861. The method of promotion was provided the Government order dated 2-8-1949. These Government orders have amended/modified paragraphs 454 and 456 of U. P. Police Regulations, and thus it cannot be said that the criteria for promotion has not been provided by the State Government. In selections to 50% quota for constables, seniority plays is a secondary role.
The submission with regard to irregularities and possible discrimination with regard to awarding marks and IT/pt test, was not accepted and all the writ petitions were dismissed.
3. In these writ petitions the same selections have been challenged, albeit, on different grounds. Sri Ashok Khare leading the argument in these batch of writ petitions submits that paragraphs 454 and 456 of the U. P. Police Regulations provide for promotion of constables to head constables and for sending then for training. The opening part of para 456 provides that the promotion of constables of the civil police/armed police/pac to the rank of head constable will be made by seniority on the list of constables qualified for promotion. Minimum qualifying marks are prescribed, and as such all those who have qualified and have not failed have to be subsequent arranged in order of their seniority in service as constables, for being sent for training. He has relied upon a commu