K.M. JOSEPH, C.J.

Heard. The Delay Condonation Applications filed in Special Appeal Nos. 238 of 2016, 649 of 2015 and 655 of 2015 will stand allowed and the delay will stand condoned. Leave granted.

2. Eleven Special Appeals arise out of a common judgment rendered in four writ petitions. Special Appeal Nos. 622 of 2015, 625 of 2015 and 655 of 2015, along with Special Appeal No. 238 of 2016, arise out of judgment in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 257 of 2015. Special Appeal No. 13 of 2016, Special Appeal No. 608 of 2015 and Special Appeal No. 306 of 2016 arise out of judgment in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2125 of 2015. Special Appeal Nos. 635 of 2015 and 637 of 2015 are directed against the judgment in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 650 of 2015. The judgment in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 256 of 2015 has generated Special Appeal No. 649 of 2015. Special Appeal No. 282 of 2015 arises from the judgment passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 859 of 2015.

3. These matters, essentially, arise from the selection made to the post of Sub-Inspector (Rankers) in the Uttarakhand Police. Different questions arise in different appeals.

4. The question, which is raised in Special Appeal Nos. 622 of 2015, 625 of 2015, 238 of 2016 and 655 of 2015, arising out of judgment in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 257 of 2015, is as to whether Constables belonging to the Provincial Armed Constabulary (hereinafter referred to as the “PAC”) and the Indian Reserve Battalion (hereinafter referred to as the “IRB”) are entitled to be included in the selection process for consideration/appointment as Sub-Inspector (Rankers). The learned Single Judge found that, in view of the directions contained in the judgment in earlier round of litigation and as the matter has not been considered as directed therein, constables belonging to PAC and IRB could not be included.

5. The question, which is raised in Special Appeal No. 608 of 2015, Special Appeal 13 of 2016 and Special Appeal No. 306 of 2016, arising out of judgment in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 2125 of 2015, is concerned with the effect of 140 candidates as found by the learned Single Judge, who were permitted to fill-in the OMR sheet.

6. The question, which is raised in Special Appeal Nos. 637 of 2015 and 635 of 2015, arising out of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 650 of 2015, relate to the award of marks for ACR. The question also raised therein was to the marks to be given for reward under Regulation 464(b) of the Police Regulations and the true purport of the word “basic course” for which no marks are to be given. The learned Single Judge did not find merit in the said writ petition and the same was dismissed.

7. In Special Appeal No. 635 of 2015, in fact, filed by persons belonging to IRB cadre constabulary, appellants are aggrieved by the observations made, which show that the court took the view that even the courses, which the appellants describe as counter insurgency and jungle war fare, will be treated as basic courses and, for which, IRB personnel would not get the marks.

8. Writ Petition (S/S) No. 256 of 2015, which has led to Special Appeal No. 649 of 2015, relates to the question of age-based seniority.

9. The prayer sought in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 257 of 2015 is to quash Communication dated 28.01.2015 of the Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Uttarakhand and the Communication dated 31.01.2015 of the Inspector General of Police, Personnel. Therein, writ petitioners also sought to quash Advertisement dated 12.02.2014 issued by the Inspector General of Police calling applications for undergoing civil police training and it is described as contrary to the provisions of the Uttarakhand Police Act, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “2007 Act”). Proposal dated 07.09.2010 of the Police Establishment Committee, Uttarakhand (hereinafter referred to as the “PEC”) prescribing the procedure for making promotion on the post of Ranker Su