ORDER H.C. Mital, J. - Udai Narain Rai, Kamla Prasad Rai and Ram Dutt Misra, the petitioners, are Sub Inspectors of Police and have filed this petition challenging the action of the Selection Committee in not selecting them to the post of Circle Inspector of Police. 2. Udai Narain Rai, petitioner No. 1, is B.A.L.L.B. and at the time of filing the writ petition was working as confidential officer, Basti. He was appointed as Sub Inspector with the Uttar Pradesh Police in the year 1973-74 and was posted as Inspector, C.B.I. at Patna and served there from January 1986 to October, 1988. In October, 1988 he came back to the State of Uttar Pradesh and was again posted as Sub-Inspector. He has also worked as Station Officer from 1979 to 1985. His name was also forwarded to be promoted as Inspector by the C.B.I. and was also called for interview by the Selection Committee in the year 1986 but was not promoted. He was also given selection grade and had no bad entry nor any punishment or misconduct was ever reported against him. His competence, efficiency and integrity were always found to be above board. He has obtained more than 100 rewards from the various officers for meritorious and courgeous work during his service as Sub-Inspector and Station Officer In charge and on that account he was selected for deputation with C.B.I. That he was eligible for the post of Inspector since 1984 after completing ten years of service. 3. Kamla Prasad Rai, petitioner No. 2, was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the year 1969 and at present is working as Station Officer since 1976. He is eligible to be promoted as Inspector since 1982. According to him, there has not been any adverse entry against him. He has also earned more than 100 rewards and has been appearing for interview for selection since 1982. 4. Petitioner No. 3, Ram Dutt Misra, was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the year 1966 and was working as Station Officer since 1972. That there has not been any adverse entry against him during the last five years. He has also obtained more than 100 rewards for his outstanding performance as Sub Inspector and Station Officer. 4. Petitioner No. 3, Ram Dutt Misra, was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the year 1966 and was working as Station Officer since 1972. That there has not been any adverse entry against him during the last five years. He has also obtained more than 100 rewards for his outstanding performance as Sub Inspector and Station Officer. That the basic requirement for promotion to the post of Inspector is that a Sub-Inspector should have completed ten years of service and should have held charge as Station Officer for three years. In the instant case, according to the petitioners, all of them fulfil the aforesaid requirements and as such they are entitled to be promoted to the post of Circle Inspector. 5. According to the petitioners, the clearance to the petitioners for being promoted as Inspectors was given by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Basti the concerned Officer through the D.I.G. Police Headquarters and all the three petitioners were called for interview which was held in the month of December, 1988. That the result of the selection Board for the post of Circle Inspectors was declared on 31-12-1988, the day on which the Director General Sri R.N. Gupta, the Chairman of the Selection Committee,had retired. The petitioners have specifically alleged that the records of respondent No. 3 Sri Rajendra Singh, respondent No. 4 Sri Loknath Varma, respondent No. 5 Sri Lal Chand Bharti, respondent No. 6 Sri Baleshwar Yadav, respondent No. 7 Sri Raghvendra Singh, respondent No. 8 Sri Tirath Raj Pandey and respondent No. 9 Sri Mahesh Narain Mishra were bad and they stood disqualified on some grounds but still they have been selected and the petitioners who are senior and whose claims were better have not been selected. It has further been specifically stated that respondent No. 3 Sri Rajendara Singh was only VIIIth Class pass and was aged about 50 years and he never held the charge of Station Officer for the last 3 years and he has also been facing the proceedings under Section 7 of the U.P. Police Act and was punished in the year 1988. That special favour has been shown to him as he had worked as Munshi of Sri R.N. Gupta, Director General and Chairman of the Selection Committee even though the Senior Superintendent of Police Basti had not given clearance about him and he was only posted as Sub-Inspector at Khalilabad. That special favour has been shown to him as he had worked as Munshi of Sri R.N. Gupta, Director General and Chairman of the Selection Committee even though the Senior Superintendent of Police Basti had not given clearance about him and he was only posted as Sub-Inspector at Khalilabad. That he was much junior to the petitioners as he was appointed in the year 1975-76. 6. As regards respondent No. 4 Sri Loknath Varma, it is stated that the Senior Superintendent of Police, Basti also did not give clearance about him and he has been working as Sub-Inspector in S.I.S. That a number of proceedings were pending against him which were reported by the Senior Superintendent of Police Basti to the D.I.G. of Police Headquarters and even then he was called for interview and selected. 7. Regarding respondent No. 5 Sri Lal Chand Bharti it is stated that he has been facing trial under Section 302, I.P.C. in connection with a false encounter and proceedings regarding misconduct and C.I.D. inquiry was pending against him. That Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur, under whom he was working had not given the necessary clearance for interview and even then he was called and selected. 8. As regards respondent No. 6 Sri Baleshwar Yadav it has been stated that he was reverted from Station Officer Etwa in the district of Basti and posted as S.I.S. Basti. He is also of 1975-76 Batch. That he has been guilty of misconduct in the district of Deoria and departmental inquiries were pending against him. That Senior Superintendent of Police, Basti, also did not give clearance of his name even then he was called and selected. 9. As regards respondent No. 7 Sri Raghvendra Singh, it is stated that he is also of 1975-76 Batch and a C.I.D. inquiry is pending against him for a false encounter and his service record is also not clean. 10. The petitioners through an amendment application impleaded respondent Nos. 8 and 9 in the writ petition and it is stated that respondent No. 8 Tirath Raj Pandey also was not nominated by the Senior Superintendent of Police nor his name was approved by the D. I.G. of the Range. He was given entries regarding misconduct prior to the interview and he was not even called for interview but he directly appeared before the Board and was selected. 11. He was given entries regarding misconduct prior to the interview and he was not even called for interview but he directly appeared before the Board and was selected. 11. Sri Mahesh Narain Mishra, respondent No. 9 also was not recommended by the Senior Superintendent of Police nor approved by the D.I.G. Range nor he was called for interview but he directly appeared before the selection Board and got himself selected. 12. The case of the petitioners is that in spite of various disqualifications and demerits of respondent Nos. 3 to 9 they have been selected whereas the petitioners who have a meritorious and outstanding record have been ignored by the selection committee without any justification and thus the selection has been on extraneous considerations and it has not been in accordance with the Government Order dated 5-11-1965 for promotion to the rank of Inspectors. Hence the selection of respondent Nos. 3 to 9 and non-selection of the petitioners has been challenged on the ground that the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right as guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. That selection has been arbitrary and against the rules as provided by the Government, hence the selection was liable to be quashed and the petitioners be declared selected and appointed as Circle Inspectors of Police from the date they are eligible. 13. On the other hand, on behalf of the State in the counter-affidavit the allegations made in the petition against respondent Nos. 3 to 7 have not been denied except that regarding respondent No. 3 it is stated that it was wrong that he had passed only VIIIth class and it is alleged that in fact he had passed B.A. examination and it is further stated that he is not 50 years old but his age is 48 years, It has, however, been specifically admitted to be correct that respondent Nos. 3 to 7 are junior to the petitioner. The fact that other allegations mentioned against respondent Nos. 3 to 7 have, however, not been specifically denied and the records which were summoned have not been produced to meet the allegations and the stand of the State has been that the record is not available. It has also not been alleged that these petitioners were found disqualified on any ground. 3 to 7 have, however, not been specifically denied and the records which were summoned have not been produced to meet the allegations and the stand of the State has been that the record is not available. It has also not been alleged that these petitioners were found disqualified on any ground. It has only been alleged that on an overall assessment the work of the eligible candidates the Selection Committee prepared a merit list. 14. On behalf of the petitioners reliance has been placed on Dhurva Lal Yadav v. State of U.P., 1988 U.P. Local Bodies and Educational Cases 381 : 1988 Lab IC 1520, decided by a Division Bench of Hon. R.M. Shai, J. (now Hon'ble Judge of the Supreme Court) and Hon. B.L. Yadav, J. In that case also the validity of selection of Circle Inspectors from the post of Sub-Inspector of Police had been challenged primarily on the ground that the selection was made in violation of Government Orders and also because the selection committee took into consideration irrelevant material and failed to take into account the relevant material which resulted in the non-selection of the petitioner, a person of outstanding achievements. Hon. R.M. Shai, J. (Now Hon'ble Judge of the Supreme Court) who delivered the judgment held at page 1521, 1988 Lab IC : "Method of selection of Sub-Inspectors for promotion to rank of Inspectors was laid down by Governor in an order issued on 5th Nov. 1966 relevant portion of which is extracted below : "The existing quota system by which a certain number of Sub-Inspectors are at present selected from each Range should be abolished, Sub-Inspectors, Civil Police who have put in not less than 10 years service as such "and are below 50 years of age" has been deleted vide G.O. No. 4384/VIII-l-140/73, dated March 5, 1974 Home Police Annexure 140/73, dated March 5, 1974 Home. Police Annexure I. effective from the date of this order" on the 1st day of April of the year in which the selection is made will now be eligible for promotion to the post of Inspector. The Range Deputy Inspector General of Police will send to the Police Headquarters every year the following list. (i) List of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police considered suitable for officiating promotion a Inspector in order of Seniority in a prescribed Form, which may be laid down by the Police Head Quarters. The Range Deputy Inspector General of Police will send to the Police Headquarters every year the following list. (i) List of Sub-Inspector, Civil Police considered suitable for officiating promotion a Inspector in order of Seniority in a prescribed Form, which may be laid down by the Police Head Quarters. (ii) Lists of Sub-Inspectors, who are not considered fit for officiating promotion with brief reasons." The departmental selection committee will thereafter have a final consolidated list prepared of Sub-Inspectors. Civil Police considered suitable for officiating promotion arranged in the order of their seniority. From the final consolidated list four times the number of Inspectors required to be approved for officiating promotion will be called for interview by the Departmental Selection Committee as constituted by Government vide G.O. No. 438-A/VIII/388/1961, dated August 2, 1968. The assessment made by the Committee will be done ........ and a list of approved candidates will be prepared on which the names of selected candidates will be arranged in order of their seniority. Those who are borne on the approved list of an earlier year will rank above those selected and brought on an approved list of later year." Criteria for selection, therefore, was merit." 15. Their Lordships also laid down that the Courts could not assess to what extent the various of factors influenced the decision of the Committee. However, the Committee in that case certainly committed an error of basing its decision on the documents which were irrelevant and thus the consideration of irrelevant documents did vitiate the decision of the Committee. 16. In the present case the following facts regarding the petitioners have not been denied in the counter-affidavit on behalf of the State. 17. Petitioner No. 1 is B.A.LL.B. and was posted as Confidential Officer, Basti. He was appointed as Sub-Inspector in the year 1973-74 and was appointed as Inspector C.B.I. at Patna from January, 1986 to October, 1988. He was eligible to the post of Inspector since 1984 and has worked as Station Officer from 1979-85. His name was forwarded for promotion as Inspector and was called for interview in 1986 also. He was given selection grade as well. It is also not denied that he had no adverse entry regarding punishment or misconduct and his integrity was beyond doubt. He has also obtained more than 100 rewards during the tenure of his service. 18. His name was forwarded for promotion as Inspector and was called for interview in 1986 also. He was given selection grade as well. It is also not denied that he had no adverse entry regarding punishment or misconduct and his integrity was beyond doubt. He has also obtained more than 100 rewards during the tenure of his service. 18. Petitioner No. 2 was appointed as Sub-Inspector in 1969 and is working as Station Officer since 1976. He is eligible for promotion as Inspector since 1982 and was called for interview in 1982 but was not promoted. He has also got more than 100 rewards and has been regularly called for interview since 1982 and no punishment has ever been awarded to him. His name was also cleared by Senior Superintendent of Police, Basti and the D. 1. G. for selection in 1988. 19. 'Petitioner No. 3 was also appointed as Sub-Inspector in 1966 and has been working as Station Officer since 1972 till today. He has also got more than 100 rewards. There is no entry of misconduct or adverse entry against him during the last five years. He was also cleared by Senior Superintendent of Police, Basti, and the D.I.G. and was called for interview in 1988. 20. On behalf of the State it has not been denied that the candidates who have been selected, one of them was facing the trial under Section 302, I.P.C. and departmental and C.I.D. inquiries were pending against him and that respondent No. 3 was also punished under Section 7 of the U.P. Police Act in 1988 and that he worked as Munshi of the Director General of Police who was Chairman of the Selection Board and that he was posted only as Sub-Inspector and not as Station Officer at the time of his selection. 21. The fact that proceedings against respondent No. 4 Loknath. Verma were pending and his name was not cleared by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Basti and even then he was balled for interview and was selected, have been denied by the State. 22. Regarding respondent No. 5 Sri Lal Chand Bharti it has not been denied that he is facing trial under Section 302, I.P.C. and also proceedings of misconduct and C.I.B. inquiry are pending against him. 22. Regarding respondent No. 5 Sri Lal Chand Bharti it has not been denied that he is facing trial under Section 302, I.P.C. and also proceedings of misconduct and C.I.B. inquiry are pending against him. It is also not denied that his name was not cleared by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Gorakhpur and even then he was called for interview and selected. 23. Regarding respondent No. 6 Sri Baleshwar Yadav it was argued that he was reverted from the post of Station Officer and was posted as Sub-Inspector and he was held guilty of misconduct and is facing department inquiry and his name was not cleared by the Senior Superintendent of Police. He was called for interview and was selected and this fact is also admitted by the State. The State has also admitted that respondent No. 7 Sri Raghvendra Singh is also facing C.I.D. inquiry. The State has also not denied that entries of misconduct were awarded to Sri Tirath Raj Pandey, respondent No. 8, and his name was not recommended by the Senior Superintendent of Police nor by the D.I.G. Range and that he was not called for interview. He directly appeared before the Board and was selected. 24. Similarly, it has not been denied that Sri Mahesh Narain Mishra, respondent No. 9, was not recommended by the Superintendent of Police and the D.I.G. nor called for interview but he directly appeared before the Board and got himself selected. Thus it was admitted by the State that the Selection Committee did not follow the rules and various provisions of the Government Order but arbitrarily selected the candidates who were neither recommended by the Superintendent of Police nor by the D.I.G. and some of whom were not even called for interview and thus the entire selection suffers from arbitrariness and violation of Government Orders directing selection to be made on merits alone. The respondents have prima facie failed to justify the decision of the Selection Committee on both the counts. The petitioners are senior as well as anything adverse has not been pointed out against their merit. It was the duty of the State to bring on record the facts which could justify the decision of the Selection Committee. 25. The respondents have prima facie failed to justify the decision of the Selection Committee on both the counts. The petitioners are senior as well as anything adverse has not been pointed out against their merit. It was the duty of the State to bring on record the facts which could justify the decision of the Selection Committee. 25. Coming to the claim of the petitioners that the Selection Committee acted illegally in not selecting the petitioners, it may be observed that in such matters the State should be careful in taking its stand as these are sensitive issues which casts serious reflections on deliberations of the Committee which is normally constituted of high Officers. When dispute is raised and attack is made on ground of arbitrariness then it becomes the duty of the State to bring on record facts which may demonstrate unquestionably that decision was arrived at objectively by the Selection Committee and not to harp on discretion and its exercise by the Selection Committee. Unfortunately in the counter-affidavit the State has not been able to meet the allegations made by the petitioners that the persons with worse records and without, being recommended for interview and some even without being called for interview had appeared and selected. The State has given an evasive reply. In the absence of the clear averments on behalf of the State the allegations made on behalf of the petitioners stand established that the selection Committee did not follow the normal rule of procedure, ignoring the seniority and meritorious service of the petitioners but selected and put on the merit list at higher places the respondent Nos. 3 to 9, who are Junior and have adverse entries and one of them is even facing the trial under Section 302, I.P.C. 26. As regards the relief which the petitioners may be granted, the learned counsel for the petitioners was candid enough to state that as respondent Nos. 3 to 9 were not personally served and had no opportunity to counter the allegations made in the petition, the petitioners do not want that their selection be set aside and it would satisfy the petitioners if they are duly selected and placed after respondent Nos. 3 to 9 who stand already selected by the Selection Committee. 27. 3 to 9 were not personally served and had no opportunity to counter the allegations made in the petition, the petitioners do not want that their selection be set aside and it would satisfy the petitioners if they are duly selected and placed after respondent Nos. 3 to 9 who stand already selected by the Selection Committee. 27. In view of the facts discussed above, it is clear that the present petitioners were in all manner better than respondent Nos. 3 to 9 who have been selected in the 1988 batch, but the petitioners have not been selected for the reasons best known to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 who have not cared to disclose them and bring relevant facts on record and, therefore, the learned Standing Counsel also could not justify why respondent Nos. 3 to 9 were selected in preference over and above the present petitioners when they were not even qualified and some of them were not even called for interview. The question, therefore, remains as to what relief the petitioners should get, so that injury caused to them be undone and those selected would also not be disturbed. It would, therefore, be proper in the ends of justice if the names of the present petitioners be also recommended by the Selection Committee. 28. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to constitute a Selection Committee within one month of filing of the certified copy of this order and then it may recommend the names of the petitioners for promotion as Inspectors of Police and accordingly they be promoted. The petitioners have given an undertaking that they would not claim seniority from those selected promotees in 1988 batch. The names of the petitioners be kept at the bottom of the select 1988 batch keeping in mind their inter se seniority.