Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

(d) A fresh select list shall be drawn up taking into account the aforesaid marks in respect of 2031 posts which are available in present pertaining to the year 2008. Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. 7 (e) The aforesaid exercise shall complete within a period of three months hence and the successful candidates shall be duly intimated and subsequent action shall be taken by the State. By virtue of our order, any matter pending in the Writ Court or before the Division Bench shall be deemed to have been disposed of.”

6. The select list was thereafter published on 27.11.2014.

7. In SLP(C) No.25377-78 of 2014 (Qamar Hasan Khan & others v. State of U.P. & Ors.) an order was passed on 10.08.2015 by this Court as under: “It is hereby made clear that no court shall entertain any grievance relating to this particular selection. Our present order would not dislodge, if any candidate, who has already been selected or sent for training. Needless to emphasize, the present order has been passed regard being had to the special features of the case.”

8. In April 2018 a writ petition being Writ A-No.10308 of 2018 was preferred by the appellants submitting inter alia that the selection process was undertaken without applying Reservation Policy and that while considering 50 per cent cut off marks criteria must be “paper” wise and not “subject” wise.

9. In view of the order passed by this Court on 10.08.2015 in (Qamar Hasan Khan & others v. State of U.P. & Ors.) the High Court refused to entertain the writ petition and dismissed the same by its order dated 20.04.2018, which order is now under challenge. Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. 8

10. When the matters were taken up on 15.04.2019 Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellants relied upon Order dated 30.01.2017 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No.45 of 2016 whereunder the concerned petitioners having secured more than cut off marks were directed to be sent for training. It was submitted that similar benefits be given to the appellants. Submissions advanced by Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned Senior Advocate were noted in the order dated 15.04.2019 as under: “According to the Rule, the eligible candidates are to appear in the written examination which is to carry 300 marks and the details of the subjects are given in Rule 16(A). The subjects so specified are 1 to 4 (subjects 3 & 4 carry 50 marks each). According to the petition, the requirement to secure 50% marks is not to be reckoned subject-wise but ought to reckon paper-wise. And since there is common paper for subjects 3&4, the minimum marks which ought to be insisted upon must be in terms of the entire paper and not per subject i.e., subjects 3&4. Mr. Shishodia submits that his clients have secured 54% in the paper though the clients may not have secured 50% minimum in subjects 3&4. According to Mr. Shishodia, if this submission is accepted, the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of Order dated 30.01.2017 passed by this Court as the aggregate marks secured by them are more than 50%.”

11. The stand of the State Government is: (a) That the candidates were awarded full marks in the manner prescribed by this Court; (b) That even then, none of the appellants in all these matters were fulfilling the criteria of having obtained 50 per cent marks in all the subjects; Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. 9

12. The fact that the appellants had not obtained 50 per cent marks in each of the subjects is accepted and what is submitted by the appellants is that Subject Nos.[3] and 4, namely, “Numerical and Mental Ability Test” and “Mental Aptitude Test/I.Q, Test/Reasoning” carrying 50 marks each, were part of the same paper. The further submission is that on the strength of the aggregate from all the subjects, the appellants would be entitled to be promoted.

13. We have given anxious consideration to the submissions as advanced. We are concerned in these matters with limited Departmental examination where the idea is, regardless of seniority levels, a meritorious candidate be given chance to reach higher levels. Merit is therefore the key element and there can be no compromise and dilution of the criteria. What is required in terms of the Rules is minimum of 50 per cent marks “in each subject”. The subjects are delineated in the Rules and there are four subjects. Irrespective whether subjects 3 and 4 form part of the same paper, the express language of the Rules does not permit any such interpretation and the construction suggested by Mr. Shishodia cannot be accepted.

14. The reliance placed on the order dated 30.01.2007 is also completely misplaced. The order by itself did not decide any controversy Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. 10 and as a matter of fact it was observed that the order would not automatically operate as a precedent for other cases.

15. We, therefore, reject the submission and dismiss the appeal. No costs.

CIVILAPPEAL Nos.4838-4839 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10674-10675 of 2018) CIVILAPPEAL Nos.4840-4842 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12891-12893 of 2018) and CIVILAPPEAL NO.4845 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12248 of 2019) [ D.No.42625 of 2018] Delay condoned. Leave granted. The issues involved in the matters being identical to the earlier matter where similar contentions were raised, we see no reason to interfere. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No costs.

CIVILAPPEAL NO.4844 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12247 of 2019) [ D.No.31847 of 2018] And CIVILAPPEAL NO.4846 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12250 of 2019) [ D.No.46457 of 2018] And CIVILAPPEAL Nos.4843 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.7168 of 2018) Delay condoned. Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. 11 Leave granted. It is additionally submitted that the appellants belong to reserved categories and as such are entitled, inter alia, to relaxation in qualifying marks. The criteria under the Rules is minimum of 50 per cent marks in each of the subjects. It was open to the State to have prescribed a relaxed or a different criterion for the reserved categories candidates. However, no such relaxation was granted by the State and consequently no relief can be granted by the Court. In terms of the Rules, as they stand, the criteria of minimum of 50 per cent marks has to be met. Since the appellants do not fulfil the criteria, no exception can be made. These appeals are, therefore, dismissed. No costs. M.A. No.732 of 2019 in TC (C) No.287 of 2017 Selection undertaken pursuant to an advertisement dated 19.05.2011 for recruiting 4010 posts of Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police) and 312 posts of Platoon Commanders (Provincial Armed Constabulary – PAC) in the State of UP by direct recruitment was the subject matter of decision by this Court in Alok Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others Civil Appeal No.11370 of 2018 and other connected matters. Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. 12 Writ Petition No.2604 of 2015 preferred by the present applicants in the High Court, was transferred to this Court and was numbered as TC(Civil) No.287 of 2017. It was disposed of along with aforesaid Civil Appeal No.11370 of 2018 etc. It is now submitted that the grievance raised by the applicants in the Writ Petition was in respect of selection through limited departmental examination for promotion to the post of UP Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) Rankers Examination and was not by way of direct recruitment and that the matter was wrongly clubbed with Civil Appeal No.11370 of 2018. We, therefore, recall the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 to the extent it disposed of Transfer Case (Civil) No.287 of 2017. Said Transferred Case is now taken up for consideration. The principal prayer in the writ petition is to the effect that the respondent be directed to give reservation and relaxation to the writ petitioners as SC/ST candidates. The submission in that behalf has already been considered in the matters dealt with above. We see no reason to interfere in the matter. Transferred Case No.287 of 2017, therefore, stands dismissed. Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. 13 M.A. No.643 of 2019 in TC (C) No.297 of 2017 Selection undertaken pursuant to an advertisement dated 19.05.2011 for recruiting 4010 posts of Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police) and 312 posts of Platoon Commanders (Provincial Armed Constabulary – PAC) in the State of UP by direct recruitment was the subject matter of decision by this Court in Alok Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others Civil Appeal No.11370 of 2018 and other connected matters. Writ Petition No.18788 of 2017 preferred by the present applicants in the High Court, was transferred to this Court and was numbered as TC(Civil) No.297 of 2017. It was disposed of along with aforesaid Civil Appeal No.11370 of 2018 etc. It is now submitted that the grievance raised by the applicants in the Writ Petition was in respect of selection through limited departmental examination for promotion to the post of UP Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) Rankers Examination and was not by way of direct recruitment and that the matter was wrongly clubbed with Civil Appeal No.11370 of 2018. We, therefore, recall the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 to the extent it disposed of Transfer Case (Civil) No.297 of 2017. Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. 14 Said Transferred Case is now taken up for consideration. The principal prayer in the writ petition is to the effect that the respondent be directed to give reservation and relaxation to the writ petitioners as SC/ST candidates. The submission in that behalf has already been considered in the matters dealt with above. We see no reason to interfere in the matter. Transferred Case No.297 of 2017, therefore, stands dismissed. …………………………..J. (Uday Umesh Lalit) ………………………….J. (Indu Malhotra) New Delhi May 09, 2019