Hon’ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.—This bunch of writ petitions raise common questions of law and fact, and have been heard together. They are, thus, being disposed of by this common judgment. Writ Petition No. 4379(S/S) of 2013 (Ram Babu Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others) is taken as the leading case.

2. Petitioners have been promoted as Sub-Inspectors after clearing departmental competitive examination, in civil police, in 2008, and are claiming seniority from a previous date. Parity is sought with those who have been promoted as Sub-Inspectors under seniority subject to rejection category, as well as direct recruits appointed pursuant to recruitment exercise initiated in the same year of recruitment as that of petitioners. The seniority list as well as the orders rejecting their claim in this regard are the subject-matterof challenge in these writ petitions.

3. Background facts, giving rise to the controversy are therefore noticed first. Police Act, 1861 is the parent legislation operating in the field. On 29.10.1965, a Government Order was issued laying down procedure for the selection of Constable/Head Constable for their admission to the Sub-Inspector, Civil Police Course at Police Training College, Moradabad. This Government Order was issued with reference to paragraph 245 of the report of the Uttar Pradesh Police Commission, 1960. A subsequent Government Order was issued on 5.11.1965 for the selection of Sub-Inspector for promotion to the Rank of Inspectors. This Government Order was referable to recommendation contained in para 246 of the U.P. Police Commission Report. On 31.8.1977, a fresh Government Order was issued in supersession of previous Government Orders laying down procedure for training on the post of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police for the departmental candidates (Rankers). This Government Order provided educational qualification of Intermediate or equivalent, with three years’ service as Constable, or Head Constable who has passed police course and for him educational qualification was not relevant. A note was appended that educational qualification of Intermediate in place of High School would apply only in respect of those candidates who join police department after issuance of this order. The maximum age for Rankers was increased from 30 years to 40 years and age was to be computed with reference to January 1 of the year of recruitment.

4. On 15.7.1986, a Government Order was issued fixing ratio of 50:50 between direct recruits and promotees, for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police). It was contemplated that recruitment in the cadre of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) be made in such a way that in future their ratio remains 50:50, as far as feasible, provided eligible candidates are available. This Government Order was partially modified on 8.3.1995 providing that 25% post would be filled by seniority from Head Constables, who possess requisite eligibility in terms of Government Order dated 31.8.1977, by following the principles of seniority subject to rejection of unfit. Remaining 25% vacancy under promotion quota was to be filled from departmental candidates (Rankers) who clear departmental competitive examination in the manner provided, whereas remaining 50% vacancy was to be filled by direct recruitment. This Government Order was to apply uniformally to Civil Police, P.A.C. and Armed Police. This Government Order is relevant for the controversy raised, and therefore, is extracted hereinafter:

^^Lksok esa]

iqfyl egkfuns'kd]

mRrj izns'k]

y[kuÅA

fo"k;% lc&bULisDVj in ij izf'k{k.k ds fy, foHkkxh; vH;fFkZ;ksa gsrq vkj{k.k fd;k tkukA

mi;qZDr fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la[;k 4138@vkB&10&86&1200 ¼39½ fnukad 15 tqykbZ] 1986 esa vkaf'kd la'kks/ku djrs gq, eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k gqvk gS fd 'kklu }kjk fopkjksijkUr mi fujh{kd ukxfjd iqfyl dh fjfDr;ksa ds 25 izfr'kr in ij 'kklukns'k la[;k