HP High Court Dismisses Constables' Plea Against Promotion Criteria, Citing Participation and Precedent

Shimla: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has dismissed a batch of petitions filed by police constables challenging the minimum qualifying marks for the B-1 promotion test and the method of filling subsequent vacancies from a 2017 merit list. Justice SandeepSharma , in a common judgment disposing of multiple writ petitions, ruled that the petitioners, having participated in the selection process under the challenged Standing Order and having failed, were estopped from questioning the criteria or process afterward.

The judgment, delivered on April 22, 2025, involved CWP Nos. 8907 of 2022, 483 & 1019 of 2023, and 15421 of 2024, with Roshan Lal and others, Rajender Singh and another, Sem Singh, and Vijay Sharma and others as petitioners, challenging the State of Himachal Pradesh and another.

Case Background

The petitioners, serving as Constables, sought promotion to the rank of Head Constable. The promotion process involves clearing a B-1 test, followed by a Lower School Course. Historically, the process was governed by the Punjab Police Rules (HP amendments). In 2017, the Director General of Police (DGP) issued a Standing Order dated January 2, 2017, under Section 143 of the HP Police Act, 2007, regulating the B-1 test.

A key change introduced by the Standing Order was the increase in minimum qualifying marks for the written test and the overall B-1 test from 50% to 60%. The petitioners participated in the B-1 test conducted in 2017 under this new criteria but failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks in the written test, thus not progressing to subsequent stages.

Aggrieved, and after a delay of over five years, the petitioners filed representations and subsequently approached the High Court, challenging the Standing Order primarily on the ground that it illegally raised the minimum qualifying marks contrary to Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, which specifies 50%. They also contended that vacancies arising in subsequent years should be filled by conducting fresh annual B-1 tests, not by utilizing the merit list from the 2017 test.

Arguments Presented

Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the Standing Order, issued by the DGP, could not override the statutory Punjab Police Rules. They submitted that Section 143 of the HP Police Act permits Standing Orders only to "carry out the performance of the Act" and subject to the Rules, not to alter fundamental eligibility criteria laid down in the Rules. They asserted that Rule 13.7 mandated 50% minimum marks, and the Standing Order's 60% requirement was unsustainable. They also argued that filling vacancies from the 2017 list in subsequent years was contrary to the intent of conducting annual tests.

Conversely, the learned Advocate General, representing the State, argued that the Standing Order was validly issued under Section 143, in line with the amended Punjab Police Rules. He contended that the petitioners, having participated in the 2017 test under the terms of the Standing Order without objection, were now estopped from challenging the process after failing. He relied on previous Division Bench judgments of the High Court which had dealt with aspects of the B-1 test and the utilization of the 2017 merit list.

Court's Analysis and Reliance on Precedent

Justice Sharma noted that the issues raised had been substantially adjudicated by previous Division Bench judgments. The court referred to:

1. LPA No. 158 of 2014 (Suresh Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh): This judgment held that a Standing Order could not override the Punjab Police Rules, specifically ruling that the DGP could not prescribe a one-year validity for the B-1 list when the amended rules had deleted such a requirement. The Division Bench stated that the DGP's power under Section 143 is limited to regulating the manner of the test, not adding or subtracting from the Rules. It also held that constables who clear the B-1 test are not required to undergo a fresh test for subsequent promotions.

   The Single Judge quoted relevant paragraphs from this judgment, including: "17. ...in such circumstances, it was impermissible for the Director General of Police to have issued Standing Orders which infact were contrary not only to the letter but even the spirit and in utter violation and contravention of Rule 13.7 of the Rules." "20. ...Even, under Section 143 of the Act though the Director General of Police is authorized to issue Standing Orders to carry out the performance of the Act, however, even this power is subject to the rules and regulations made under the Act." "21. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that once the rules did not prescribe for a cap or time period of one year validity of the HPPR list, the same could not have been prescribed by issuing Standing Orders as the same is in conflict with the rules." "23. Once the Constables have successfully competed B-1 test and were admittedly not sent for the Lower School Course only because of Clause 16 of the Standing Orders, we see no reason why they should be subjected to again undergo a test."

2. CWPOA No. 3141 of 2019 (Constable Bhupinder Kumar and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh): This judgment, rendered subsequently, held that the Standing Order governs the procedure for the B-1 test and that it is open for respondents to amend it if not in conflict with the Statute or Rules. Crucially, this Division Bench applied the principle of estoppel, holding that candidates who participate in an examination without objection cannot challenge the process later after failing. It directed the State to send qualified candidates from the 2017 State Level Merit List for the Lower School Course as and when vacancies arise, giving preference to qualified candidates from previous years' lists (without violating LPA 158/2014 findings).

   The Single Judge cited the application of the estoppel principle from this judgment: "...when a candidate appears in the examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, his challenge to the selection process is precluded; (ii) question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate had appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was lacuna therein merely because his or hers result was palatable..."

3. LPA No. 5 of 2022 (Umadutt Sharma and others vs. State of Himachal Pradesh): This judgment dealt with candidates who were initially excluded despite clearing the written test, directing the respondents to sponsor them for the Lower School Course if they had obtained minimum pass marks in the outdoor test.

The Single Judge acknowledged the petitioners' argument, finding "force" in their submission based on LPA 158/2014 that the DGP could not change eligibility criteria contrary to Rule 13.7 via a Standing Order. However, the court found the principle of estoppel applied in Bhupinder Kumar's case to be decisive against the current petitioners. They participated in the 2017 test knowing the 60% criteria in the Standing Order and only challenged it after failing and a significant delay.

Furthermore, the court noted that 931 candidates cleared the 2017 B-1 test. As per the Division Bench judgments, these qualified candidates have priority for promotion against available vacancies in subsequent years, rendering the petitioners' claim for promotion based on the 2017 test results moot, even if a lower pass mark was considered.

While acknowledging the prejudice caused by the failure to conduct annual B-1 tests after 2017, the court concluded that the petitioners could not be compensated at this stage due to their participation, failure, and significant delay in challenging the process. They would have to await and participate in future examinations.

Decision and Implications

Based on the detailed analysis and the binding precedents of the Division Bench judgments, the High Court dismissed all petitions. The decision reinforces the principle that candidates cannot challenge a selection process after participating in it and failing, particularly when there is a significant delay in raising the challenge. It also confirms the State's ability, guided by previous judgments, to utilize the merit list of a validly conducted B-1 test for filling vacancies in subsequent years, prioritizing those who have already qualified. The court also noted the commitment by the State to resume conducting B-1 tests annually after exhausting the 2017 qualified list.

( SandeepSharma ) Judge April 22, 2025.