Point of law : appellants/petitioners cannot take advantage of the defective drafting of the Rule, as the position in the year 2016, is not the same as existing now. The earlier procedure followed by the Police Recruitment Board has lost significance. After the amended Recruitment Rules were adopted, this was the first notification issued by the respondents and it cannot be urged that the Board should adopt the old procedure as was adopted in the earlier selection process.

JUDGMENT :

Hima Kohli, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.10.2019, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.15675 of 2019, preferred by the appellants/petitioners.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to, as they were arrayed before the learned Single Judge.

3. The relief sought for in the writ petition is as under:

“… the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the Respondents in not selection the Petitioners on the basis of their relative merit in the Recruitment to the Post Code No.12 – Stipendary Cadet Trainee Reserve Sub-Inspector of Police (AR) (Men and Women) notified vide Recruitment Notification Rc.No.89/Rect/Admn-I/2018 dated 31.05.2018 by application of non-transparent, alleged normalized marks referred to in the Rule 18 (C) (iv) of the Recruitment Notification resulting in practicing gender discrimination as violative of Article 14 read with 15(1) of the Constitution of India as illegal and without jurisdiction and consequently set aside the “Normalised Marks” merit list of and direct the Respondents to re-evaluate and publish the merit list of all the candidates including the Petitioners without reference to the alleged “Normalised Marks” by converting 3 events points of the Petitioners to marks against 5 event to men candidates as mentioned in the Notification dated 31.05.2018 and issuing appointments as per the said merit list – with all consequential benefits and reliefs.”

4. In brief, the following averments have been made in the writ petition:-

(a) The petitioners are women candidates, possessing requisite qualifications and eligibility against Post Code No.12, as per the notification dated 31.05.2018 issued by the respondent No.2/Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board (TSLPRB). The petitioners had applied and appeared for selection in the written and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) events.

(b) Under the recruitment procedure for Post Code No.12, the male candidates were expected to qualify in all the 5 events of PET, carrying 125 marks, as detailed under Rule 18(C)(iii) and the women candidates were required to qualify in all the 3 events of PET carrying an aggregate of 125 maximum marks, as detailed in Rule 18(C)(iv) of the notification. Sub-clauses (iii) and (iv) of the said Rule prescribes that while drawing the merit list, “These 125 marks will be normalized as per the procedure followed by the TSLPRB”. In terms of Rule 18(E) of the notification, the final selection of the candidate would be based strictly on the merit, as obtained by them in the final written examination and the PET. Further, the Rule states that “Marks secured by men and women in PET shall be normalized as per the procedure followed by the TSLPRB to ensure fairness. The normalized marks shall be used while drawing the final merit list”.

(c) As per Rule 10 of the notification, 10% of the vacancies in each category were to be reserved for women in Post Code No.12, under direct recruitment, in relaxation of the relevant Rules under the Telangana State and Subordinate Service Rules. Annexures I(A) and I(B) provide the Gradation Table for converting the performance into marks from the points awarded for men and women, against 5 events and 3 events of the PET, respectively. The petitioners claim that they were unable to verify their merit marks and nor were they able to ascertain the practice adopted by TSLPRB of normalizing the marks by any known procedure and also other relevant information. When the petitioners applied under the RTI Act for gathering the requisite information, the authorities replied by referring to Para 3(f) on page 5 of G.O.Ms.No.49 dated 10.05.2018 as the procedure adopted for normalizing the marks. Para 3(f) reads as follows:

“3(f) Selection: -The final selection of the candidates shall be made strictly on their relative merit as obtained by them based on their score in the Final Written