IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.
Sushil Kumar Singh and Others – Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT A No. 4924, 5077 of 2021, 5324 of 2021, 5777 of 2021, 6132 of 2021, 6271 of 2021, 6272 of 2021, 6273 of 2021, 6274 of 2021, 6275 of 2021, 6277 of 2021, 6293 of 2021, 6298 of 2021, 6299 of 2021, 6303 of 2021, 6322 of 2021, 6326 of 2021, 6327 of 2021, 6328 of 2021, 6338 of 2021, 6341 of 2021, 6350 of 2021, 6351 of 2021, 6352 of 2021, 6353 of 2021, 6354 of 2021, 6355 of 2021, 6356 of 2021, 6357 of 2021, 6363 of 2021, 6365 of 2021, 6371 of 2021, 6373 of 2021, 6374 of 2021, 6420 of 2021, 6421 of 2021, 6440 of 2021, 6451 of 2021, 6473 of 2021, 6477 of 2021, 6490 of 2021, 6494 of 2021, 6516 of 2021, 6551 of 2021, 6552 of 2021, 6557 of 2021, 6559 of 2021, 6567 of 2021, 6577 of 2021, 6586 of 2021, 6646 of 2021, 6664 of 2021, 6705 of 2021, 6718 of 2021, 6724 of 2021, 6866 of 2021, 6889 of 2021, 6891 of 2021, 6915 of 2021, 6924 of 2021, 6979 of 2021, 6981 of 2021, 7008 of 2021, 7009 of 2021, 7015 of 2021, 7018 of 2021, 7326 of 2021, 7359 of 2021, 7460 of 2021, 7517 of 2021, 7533 of 2021, 7543 of 2021, 7553 of 2021, 7556 of 2021, 7594 of 2021, 7747 of 2021, 7758 of 2021, 7787 of 2021, 7798 of 2021, 7914 of 2021, 8079 of 2021, 8080 of 2021, 8123 of 2021, 8124 of 2021, 8144 of 2021, 8188 of 2021, 8415 of 2021, 8462 of 2021, 8818 of 2021 and 8892 of 2021.
Decided On : 24-08-2021
Police Act, 1861 - Section 46(2)(c) and 46(3) - Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 - Advertisement - Claim of petitioners - UP Police Recruitment Board Lucknow advertised vacancies were of recruitment respectively- Clause advertisement required age of applicant to be not below years and not above on - Age relaxation was permissible for SC/ST candidates in terms of State policy –Held, Court took note that no recruitment was held after and in event age relaxation was not allowed large number of applicants would be denied of a chance to appear against posts advertised- There was otherwise delay of only else age would have been counted instead case however are distinct minimum and maximum age of recruitment years - Last recruitment was in - It cannot be said that those who loose out due to non-holding of annual recruitment would have no chance of appearing for recruitment unlike Constables relaxation sought in this case is four years if basis of petitioners’ claim is accepted unlike one year for Constables process of recruitment already stands delayed by several years and would be further delayed in case prayer made by petitioners is accepted- Thus very object of Supreme Court's order of early appointment shall stand frustrated Court comes to inescapable conclusion that despite assurance given by State of UP- before Supreme Court no ground exists to accept petitioners’ claim for grant of age relaxation on ground of parity with Constables for purpose of recruitment – Petition dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. Recruitment to 9534 posts of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police (Male and Female), Platoon Commander PAC, and Second Officer in Fire Brigade came to be initiated by the Government of Uttar Pradesh, in furtherance of which an advertisement was issued by U.P. Police Recruitment Board, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Board’) on 24.2.2021. The advertised vacancies were of the recruitment years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 2019-20, respectively. Clause 3.4 of the advertisement required the age of applicant to be not below 21 years and not above 28 years as on 1.7.2021. Age relaxation was permissible for SC/ST candidates in terms of the State policy. The recruitment is regulated by the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules of 2015’).
2. On the relevant date i.e. 1.7.2021 all the writ petitioners were above 28 years of age and therefore ineligible to apply against aforesaid advertisement. Petitioners, however, assert that since advertised vacancies are of the years 2017-18, 2018-19 and 201920 and therefore, they be permitted to apply against the advertisement inasmuch as they were eligible when the vacancies arose, being below 28 years of age on the date vacancies occurred. It is also contended that respondents failed to advertise the vacancies in respective years despite an assurance having been given before the Supreme Court. As such the maximum age specified in Clause 3.4 of the advertisement be relaxed for them, as a one time measure, to enable them to apply for the recruitment in question.
3. Since prayer is made in this bunch of writ petitions is substantially the same, Writ Petition No.4924 of 2021 (Sushil Kumar Singh And Others Vs. State Of U.P. And Others) is treated as leading writ petition, wherein following prayer has been made:-
(II) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to grant age relaxation to the petitioners and permit them to apply in pursuance of the advertisement dated 24.2.2021 by suitably amending the terms of the advertisement thereof;”
4. Petitioners have claimed above relief primarily on the basis of the orders passed by Supreme Court of India in Writ Petition (C) No. 183 of 2013 (Manish Kumar Vs. Union of India and others). According to them the State is bound by its undertaking given before the Court to fill up the vacancies caused in the respective recruitment years, annually, and their failure to honour such commitment has denied an opportunity to petitioners to apply for recruitment made to the posts of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police (Male and Female), Platoon Commander PAC, and Second Officer in Fire Brigade under advertisement dated 24.2.2021.
5. Before proceeding to examine the claim of petitioners, it would be appropriate to refer to the relevant provisions of Rules of 2015, which shall regulate recruitment, selection and appointment etc. on the posts so advertised. The Rules of 2015 have been framed by the Governor 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 the Police Act, 1861 with a view to regulate selection, promotion, training, appointment, determination of seniority and confirmation etc. of Sub-Inspectors and Inspectors of Civil Police in Uttar Pradesh Police Force.
6. Rule 3(b) specifies appointing authority to mean the Deputy Inspector General of Police, while Sub-rule (c) defines Board i.e. Uttar Pradesh Police Service Recruitment and Promotion Board. Rule 3(b), (c), (i), (m), (n) & (o) of the Rules of 2015 have
Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad and others
Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service
D.D.A. Vs. Skipper Construction Company
Hughes v. Department of Health and Social Security, 1985 AC 776
Kerala State Beverages (M and M) Corporation Ltd. Vs. P.P. Suresh and others
Noorali Babul Thanewala Vs. K.M.M. Shetty and others
Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India
Ram Pravesh Singh and others Vs. State of Bihar and others
Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar [Ram Pravesh Singh v. State of Bihar
Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang and another
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of V.P.
Sanjay Agarwal Vs. State of U.P. and others
Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India
Spencer & Co. Vs. Vishwadarshan Distt. Pvt. Ltd.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that petitioners cannot claim age relaxation based on alleged promises or inaction of the Government, and the court emphasized that the action of t....
One-time relaxation of age limit for recruitment is justified in light of extraordinary circumstances caused by COVID-19, reaffirming judicial intervention to ensure fairness.
The Government has power to grant relaxation in upper age limit on its own motion or upon getting intimation from any genuine or bona fide source can grant such relaxation subject to the condition th....
The court affirmed that exceptional circumstances may necessitate a one-time relaxation of recruitment age limits to ensure fairness, particularly due to delays caused by the pandemic.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to age relaxation for appearing in recruitment examinations is subject to specific provisions and factual considerations, and ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the State's decision in fixing the cut-off date for maximum age in accordance with the rules and the date of advertisement cannot be interfere....
The court directed the Government to consider age relaxation for candidates due to delays and irregularities in the recruitment process, affirming the need for fairness and transparency in public exa....
Eligibility criteria for recruitment posts cannot be altered for age relaxation without governmental approval, especially for Group-B posts, which necessitate UPSC's concurrence.
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.