The differentiation in treatment of candidates from the same selection list based on training batches violates Article 14 of the Constitution and is impermissible.

JUDGMENT :

Swarupama Chaturvedi, J.

1. Heard Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Tej Bhanu Pandey, learned Standing Counsel, for the appellants in all the appeals, and Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Satyendra Chandra Tripathi and Sri Aditya Prakash Verma, learned counsel for the respondents in their respective appeals.

2. All these appeals have been preferred against the common judgment and order dated 09.04.2025 passed by learned single-judge in connected writ petitions decided along with Writ A No. 10689 of 2024, Sita Ram Sharma & 13 Others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others, whereby the writ petitions filed by respondents herein were allowed and the Appellant no. 3 (herein) has been directed to surrender benefit of last pay protection to the petitioners therein, as the same has been given to the first batch of trainees, pursuant to U.P. Police Constable Recruitment 2018 and appropriate order shall be passed and consequential benefit of maximum 30 days from the date of presentation of certified copy of the said order.

3. The appellant State of Uttar Pradesh has raised identical issue in all these appeals, and therefore, they were heard together and are being decided by this common order. The core question involved in all appeals is that whether candidates placed in the same selected list, could be treated as different class, based on the date of their respective appointment letters and the date mentioned for their training. The factual details regarding candidates in each appeal, such as their past service details, the date of appointment letter and date mentioned in the letter for their training period, may differ.

4. For convenience, the factual details are being taken from Special Appeal No. 1240 of 2025, as the same was leading petition in the judgment and order dated 09.04.2025 passed by the learned single-judge, however, the outcome of the present common order shall apply to all connected matters. Only factual difference being the number of respondents/candidates in the connected appeals.

5. After perusal of records in this consolidated group of Special Appeal matters, it appears that all respondents herein are former members of the Indian Armed Forces, having been enrolled at different points in time in various regiments. It further appears that each respondent was discharged or retired upon due completion of his term of engagement. Notwithstanding differences in their individual periods of service, the common fact emerges across these matters is that all respondents had concluded their military service and got selected after following due procedure and secured their place in the same selection list, which is the subject of these batch of appeals.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State, submits that the select list prepared pursuant to the direct recruitment of October 2018 did not conclude the process of appointment, as training forms an integral component of the process. He submits that, owing to the restrictions imposed during the Covid-19 pandemic, it became necessary for the State to conduct the training of selected candidates in phased manner, and therefore, appointment letters were issued on different dates corresponding to the respective training phases of the candidates. It is further submitted that the U.P. Directorate of Police Training, by its order dated 25.07.2020, divided the selected candidates into four batches for training on separate dates and for different periods.