IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Sunita Agarwal, Suneet Kumar, JJ.
Atul Kumar Dwivedi and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos. 23733, 13010, 14296, 15764, 16160, 18032, 19426, 20684, 21610, 25140, 26059, 26793 of 2018, 395, 862, 1318, 1498, 3011, 3877, 3906, 4001, 4048, 4051, 4144, 4255, 4270, 4325, 4328, 4330, 4333, 4402, 4413, 4451, 4468, 4498, 4502, 4517, 4781, 4783, 4785, 4787, 4801, 4834, 4845, 4850, 4851, 4863, 4868, 4892, 4910, 4912, 4938, 4981, 4988, 5041, 5158, 5243, 5354, 5427, 5483, 5493, 5533, 5538, 5564, 5567, 5598, 5608, 5624, 5685, 5730, 5753, 5830, 6036, 6076, 6236, 6246, 6250, 6329, 6500, 7000, 7092, 7157, 7215, 7366, 7458, 7615, 7740, 7790, 7815, 7981, 7988, 8149, 8152, 8172, 8184, 8188, 8293, 8295, 8297, 8311, 8318, 8321, 8322, 8323, 8326, 8328, 8330, 8425, 8574, 8877, 8892, 9036, 9926, 10781, 11431, 11632, 12191, 12194, 12302, 12451, 12514, 12641, 13247 and 13259 of 2019
Decided On : 11-09-2019
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Petitions filed by the candidates who had obtained 50% marks in each Section/subject in the online written examination held in multiple shifts – Notification was issued advertising 2707 posts of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police), Platoon Commander P.A.C. and Fire Brigade Second Officer – The recruitment was to be made on the basis of online written examination of one question paper – Criteria of selection had been changed during the course of the selection process which was not permissible in view of the settled legal proposition that rules of the game cannot be changed during mid of the game – Appeal against – Held, Appropriate method to bring about uniformity in evaluation is left to the examining authorities and method adopted by the examining authority/Selection Board is not subject to judicial review until it is shown that the exercise of the authority was mala fide, violative of the statutory provision or the method had resulted in absurd results rendering the entire selection manifestly arbitrary – In the facts of the instant case no allegation of mala fide has been made against the Selection Board or its members or with regard to the procedure of selection – It has not been shown by either of the parties based on hard statistics that normalisation had resulted in manifest, arbitrary or fair result – It is, therefore, urged that the Selection Board would not be required to undertake any fresh exercise of selection/recruitment in preparation of the select list in order to merit – Provisions mandated by the Recruitment Rules followed, the – writ petition is allowed. [Paras 119 to 122]
Facts of the Case:
Petitions filed by the candidates who had obtained 50% marks in each Section/subject in the online written examination held in multiple shifts – Notification was issued advertising 2707 posts of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police), Platoon Commander P.A.C. and Fire Brigade Second Officer – The recruitment was to be made on the basis of online written examination of one question paper – Criteria of selection had been changed during the course of the selection process which was not permissible in view of the settled legal proposition that rules of the game cannot be changed during mid of the game – Appeal against.
Finding of the Court:
Appropriate method to bring about uniformity in evaluation is left to the examining authorities and method adopted by the examining authority/Selection Board is not subject to judicial review until it is shown that the exercise of the authority was mala fide, violative of the statutory provision or the method had resulted in absurd results rendering the entire selection manifestly arbitrary – In the facts of the instant case no allegation of mala fide has been made against the Selection Board or its members or with regard to the procedure of selection – It has not been shown by either of the parties based on hard statistics that normalisation had resulted in manifest, arbitrary or fair result – It is, therefore, urged that the Selection Board would not be required to undertake any fresh exercise of selection/recruitment in preparation of the select list in order to merit – Provisions mandated by the Recruitment Rules followed, the.
Result: writ petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, Sri Ashok Khare Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, Sri Shashi Nandan Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Udayan Nandan, Sri Tarun Agrawal, Sri Satyendra Tripathi and Ms. Shreya Gupta, learned counsels for the petitioners at length. All other counsels appearing for the petitioners in the writ petitions tagged with this bunch have adopted the arguments extended by the above noted counsels.
2. Sri Mahish Goyal learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav learned Standing Counsel has been heard on behalf of the State-respondents and the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Selection Board. Sri Sankalp Narain learned Advocate has extended his arguments on behalf of the selected candidates, private-respondent Nos. 4 to 23, in the leading writ petition.
3. These writ petitions have been filed by the candidates who had obtained 50% marks in each Section/subject in the online written examination held in multiple shifts between 12.12.2017 and 23.12.2017. The facts relevant to appreciate the controversy at hands are that a notification dated 17.6.2016 was issued by the third respondent namely the Additional Secretary (Recruitment), Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow (Selection Board) advertising 2707 posts of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police), Platoon Commander P.A.C. and Fire Brigade Second Officer in the pay scale/pay band/9300-34800 and grade pay Rs. 4200. The recruitment was to be made on the basis of online written examination of one question paper (total 400 marks) comprising of four Sections/subjects of 100 marks each, named as:
| Sl No. | Subjects | Maximum marks |
| 1. | General Hindi | 100 marks |
| 2. | Basic Law/Constitution/General Knowledge | 100 marks |
| 3. | Numerical and Mental Ability Test | 100 marks |
| 4. | Mental Aptitude Test/I.Q. Test/Reasoning. | 100 marks |
4. Before conducting the written examination, in order to provide method and modalities of the selection process, a notification dated 28.6.2017 was issued by the Selection Board in continuation of the advertisement notification dated 17.6.2016. The aforesaid notification provides that online applications were invited for filling up total 2707 vacancies of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police (Male and Female), Platoon Commander and Fire Service Second Officer where-under total 6,30,926 applications had been received. Looking at the huge number of applicants, the Board had resolved to hold written examination in multiple shifts which would require preparation of different sets of examination papers. As there was possibility of variation in the difficulty level of the questions papers, it had decided that for preparation of merit list of successful candidates, the marks obtained by the candidate papers/subjects wise would be normalized by using "Standardized Equi-percentile Method" in the same line as adopted in M.A.H., M.B.A/M.M.S., C.E.T. 2015 examination. The notification further states that the questions papers would be of 160 multiple choice questions carrying total 400 marks. Each Section/subject comprised of 40 questions carrying maximum 100 marks; 2.50 marks allocated for each right answer. There was no negative marking for the wrong answer. It was further notified that the candidates who failed to obtain 50% marks in each subject would not be eligible for recruitment.
5. The recruitment to the posts in question is governed by the U.P. Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules' 2015, Recruitment Rules, whereunder Rule 15 provides for detail procedure for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector. The said rules have been framed in exercise of powers under clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 46 read with sub-section (3) of the said Section and Section 2 of
V.K. Sood v. Secretary, Civil Aviation
Veerendra Kumar Gautam and others v. Karuna Nidhan Upadhayay
Ashok Kumar and another v. State of U.P. and others
Chandigarh Administration v. Usha Kheterpal Waie and others
D. Saibaba v. Bar Council of India and another
D. Sarojakumari v. R. Helen Thilakom and others
Disha Panchal and others v. Union of India the Secretary and others
Dr. Krushna Chandra Sahu and others v. State of Orissa and others
J. Rangaswamy v. Govt. of A.P.
K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala and others
Karuna Nidhan Upadhya and another v. State of U.P. and others
Mahinder Kumar, Mahinder Kumar and others v. High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Man Singh v. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal Pauri and others
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills v. State of U.P.
Paradise Printers and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others
Raj Kumar and others v. Shakti Raj And others
Rakesh Wadhawan and others v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others
Ramachandra Iyer and others v. Union of India and others
Sanjay Singh and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and another
Sant Ram v. State of Rajasthan
State of Kerala v. Kumari T.P. Roshana and another
State of Madhya Pradesh and others v. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and others
Sunil Kumar and others v. Bihar Public Service Commission and others
U.P.S.C. v. S. Thiagarjan and others
Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India and others
Union Public Service Commission v. S. Thiagarajan and others
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.