Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
Ajay Prakash Mishra and others – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ -A No. 26813 of 2018
Decided on : 21-06-2021
Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 – Rules 14, 15 and 16 – U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board – Mode of selection to the post of Police Constable – Determination of vacancies – Procedure for Direct Recruitment to the post of Constable – Merit List on the basis of 10th and 12th examination results – To lower the respective category-wise merit and accord selection to them on the vacant posts of Constable (Civil Police/PAC) – Held, Such situation eventually leads to preparation of wait list, which is not contemplated in Rules, 2015
Finding of the Court :
Rules, 2015 were introduced, whereunder, Preliminary Written Test and Final Written Examination have been done away with and merit list of candidates now would be prepared on the basis of the marks obtained by them in 10th and 12th standard Board examination results. 300 marks have been awarded for Class 10th (100 marks) and Class 12th (200 marks) and out of the merit list prepared, candidates equal to 15 times the number of total vacancies, on the basis of merit shall be called for Physical Efficiency Test – Power of judicial review can be exercised in such matters only if it is shown that the action of the employer is contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions or is arbitrary or is vitiated due to mala fides - once a person takes part in the process of selection and is not found fit for appointment, the said person is estopped from challenging the process of selection - Undisputedly, under the 2015 Rules which apply, a specific provision has been engrafted prohibiting the preparation of a waiting list in respect of seats which may remain unfilled. The Court has also not been apprised of whether the vacancies which remained have not been carried forward or included in a subsequent recruitment. In any case, the petitioner does not rest his case on any statutory provision which may oblige the respondents to fill the remainder vacancies by lowering the merit. The action of the respondents is also not established to be arbitrary
Result: Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Siddharth Khare, Advocate; Shri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Seemant Singh, Advocate; Shri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Pradeep Kesharwani, Advocate, Ms. Atipriya Gautam, Advocate, Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Vibhu Rai, Advocate, Shri Vinod Kumar Mishra, Advocate and Shri Devesh Mishra, Advocate; Shri Tarun Agrawal, Advocate and Shri Mujeeb Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate for the petitioners and Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Bipin Bihari Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel, Shri A.K. Goyal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Shri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Shri Apurva Hajela, learned Standing Counsel, Shri Devesh Vikram, learned Standing Counsel, Shri Sheetala Prasad, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.
2. All the writ petitions relate to similar facts and raise common questions of law, therefore, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, all the petitions have been heard together and are being decided by means of a common judgment.
3. In this group of cases the petitioners are seeking suitable direction upon the respondents to consider their claim for selection and appointment on the vacant posts of Constables (Civil Police) and Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) Direct Recruitment-2015 initiated in pursuance of the advertisement dated 29.12.2015 published by the Additional Secretary (Recruitment), U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow.
4. For the sake of convenience, the facts of leading Writ A No.26813 of 2018 are being noted below:-
5. Ajay Prakash Mishra and 216 others are before this Court with following prayers:-
ii) Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
iii) Award the costs of the petition to the petitioners.”
6. The factual matrix, which is relevant for considering the relief that falls for consideration to this Court in all the writ petitions, is common. A notification was issued on 29.12.2015 by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, notifying recruitment of Constables (Civil Police) and Provincial Armed Constabulary (for short 'PAC') under the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2015 (for short, Rules, 2015). The respondents had notified 23200 posts of Constable (Civil Police) and 5716 posts for PAC, totalling 28,916, prescribing 17.2.2016 as last date for registration of online applications and 22.2.2016 for submission of the applications.
7. The Rule 15 (b), 15 (c) and 15 (e) of the Rules, 2015 were challenged before this Court in Ranvijay Singh and others vs. State of UP and others, Writ C No.3336 of 2016 for considering the question regarding ideal mode of selection to the post of Police Constable, by written examinations, as provided for under Rule 15 of the Uttar Pradesh (Civil Police) Constable and Head Constab
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
