JUDGMENT :

Suneet Kumar, J.

1. Heard Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel assisted by Shri Durvesh Kumar, Shri Vinod Shanker Tripathi, Shri Vijai Shanker Tripathi and Shri Shikher Trivedi, learned counsels for the petitioners and Shri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Shri Vikram Bahadur Singh, learned counsels for the State-respondents.

2. Petitioners (33 in number) seek to declare Rule 15(f) of U.P. Police Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police), Rules, 2015 (for short ''Rules, 2015'), as amended in the year 2020, ultra vires, of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

3. A further direction has been sought to the State-respondents to invite the petitioners for medical test against the vacancy which could not be filled up as some of the candidates were declared medically unfit, and/or, were absent.

4. The facts, inter se, parties are not in dispute.

5. The second respondent-Uttar Pradesh (Police Recruitment and Promotion Board) U.P., Lucknow, (for short ''Board'), issued an advertisement dated 24 February 2021, inviting online applications for recruitment of 9,027 posts of Sub-Inspector (Police), 484 posts of Platoon Commander and 23 post of P.A.C. and Fire Station Second Officer, i.e., total 9,534 posts were advertised.

6. The rules governing recruitment/selection is provided under Rules, 2015.

7. The candidates as per the scheme of selection were required to clear: (i) Written Examination, (ii) Scrutiny of documents and physical standard test, (iii) Physical efficiency test.

8. The petitioners herein being eligible, applied for the post and successfully cleared the written examination. Thereafter, their documents were scrutinized and petitioners, thereafter, appeared for the physical standard test. It is claimed that all the petitioners cleared the physical standard test and their documents were also found to be valid and genuine. Thereafter, petitioners appeared for the physical efficiency test.

9. The petitioners claim that they qualified the physical efficiency test. In the result published by the Board on 12 June 2022, the name of the petitioners did not find place in the select list. The Board forwarded the final merit list with its recommendation to the Head of Department, in terms of Rule 15(e) of Rules, 2015. The final select list was subject to the candidates clearing medical test and character verification. There is no provision for preparation of waiting list under the Rules, 2015. The Head of Department after according his approval shall forward the list sent by the Board to the Appointing Authority for further action.

10. Rule 15(e) is extracted :

"15(e) Selection and Final Merit List- From amongst the candidates found successful in Physical Efficiency Test under clause (d), on the basis of marks obtained by the each candidate in written examination under clause (b), Board shall prepare, as per the vacancies, a select list of each category of candidates, as per the order of merit keeping in view the reservation policy and send it with recommendation to the Head of Department subject to Medical test and character verification. No waiting list shall be prepared by the Board. List of all candidates with marks obtained by the each candidate shall be uploaded on its website by the Board. The Head of the Department shall after his approval forward the list sent by the Board to the Appointing Authority for further action."

11. On plain reading of Rule 15(e), it mandates that there would be no waiting list, i.e., the Board is required to recommend that many number of candidates against the vacancies notified. Further, the list so forwarded is subject to the candidates clearing medical test and character verification to be undertaken by the Appointing Authority before issuing appointment letter to the recommended candidates.

12. The impugned Rule 15(f) provides for medical test. The Rule is extracted :

15(f) Medical Test- The candidates, whose names are in as per 15(e), will be required to a