JUDGMENT : Sunil Ambwani, J. By these writ petitions, Petitioners, serving as constables in Civil Police in Uttar Pradesh, have challenged the selections to the post of head constables by promotion. They have challenged the orders dated 18.4.2001 and 12.10.2001, issued by the Police Headquarters under the signatures of Inspector General of Police (Establishment), to all the Senior Superintendent of Police/ Superintendent of Police/District Incharge, Uttar Pradesh for holding "Prantiya Yogyta Pariksha Satra 2002" for admission to head constables (civil police) course at the Police Training College, Moradabad and the orders dated 7.12.2001, 5.12.2001 and 6.12.2001, issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, Deputy Inspector General, Bareilly Zone, Moradabad, inviting applications for appearing in the aforesaid examination. They have also prayed a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to call them for interview for promotion on the post of head constables. 2. By an amendment application filed in Writ Petition No. 42286 of 2001, Petitioners have also prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to promote Petitioners on the post of head constables in accordance with the provisions of U.P. Government Servants (Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 1994. The amendment application has been allowed by this Court. 3. I have heard Sri Shashi Nandan and Sri Rashtrapati Khare, advocates, learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners and learned standing counsel for Respondents. 4. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42286 of 2001 is the leading petition in which pleadings have been exchanged. 5. All the Petitioners are serving in U.P. Police with more than three years' service to their credit, after recruits training and are less than forty years of age. All of them have applied for appearing in selection for admission to head constables (civil police) course. They have all appeared in 'Prantiya Yogyta Pariksha' and Infantry Training/Physical Training (I.T./P.T.) and have not been able to qualify or short listed to two and half times of number of vacancies for the post of head constables for the purposes of interviews, and thus, having failed to reach the stage of interview, they have now challenged the entire selections. 6. 6. Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861, provides that the entire ; police establishment under a State Government shall, for purposes of this Act be deemed to be one police force, and subject to the provisions of the Act, the pay and all other conditions of service of members of the subordinate ranks of any police force, shall be such as they may determined by the State Government. Section 46(2) enables the State Government to make rules for giving effect to the provisions of the Act. Section 12 of the Act gives powers to the Inspector General of Police, subject to approval of the State Government, to frame such orders and rules as he shall deem expedient relating to the organisation, classification and distribution of the police-force and to make special provisions with regard to the residence, service to be performed by them, inspection, etc. The orders issued by the State Government and the Inspector General of Police under the aforesaid provisions of the Act, have been complied into and are known as 'U.P. Police Regulations'. In Moongelal v. Deputy Inspector General (Karmik), Special Appeal No. 630 of 1993, U.P., Allahabad, dated 24.9.1993, the Court had occasion to consider the statutory character of the Police Regulations and it held as follows: We have mentioned, hereinabove that the U.P. Police Regulation is mostly a combination of the Government orders issued from time to time except a few provisions which are referable statutory provisions. Chapter XXXII, which has the Heading "Departmental Punishment and Criminal Prosecution of Police Officers contains regulations which have been framed in exercise of powers conferred u/s 7 of the Police Act, 1861. The regulations contained in this chapter have therefore, statutory force as held by their Lordship of the Supreme Court in The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Babu Ram Upadhya, AIR 1961 SC 751 . The regulations contained in Chapter XXXIV have not been framed either u/s 7 of the Police Act or under any other statutory force. Regulation 520 dealing with transfers falls under this Chapter." 7. Paras 454 and 456 of Police Regulations, relevant for the purposes of this case, are quoted as below: 454. Babu Ram Upadhya, AIR 1961 SC 751 . The regulations contained in Chapter XXXIV have not been framed either u/s 7 of the Police Act or under any other statutory force. Regulation 520 dealing with transfers falls under this Chapter." 7. Paras 454 and 456 of Police Regulations, relevant for the purposes of this case, are quoted as below: 454. The following constables will be eligible for promotion to the rank of head constables (a) constables of the civil police who qualified before 1st January, 1941, in accordance with the rules then in force and who have also passed such course as the Inspector General prescribe ; (b) constables of the armed police who have already obtained regimental drill certificate, and (c) constables of the civil and armed police, who have passed the prescribed course at the Police Training School, Sitapur. 456. The promotion of constables of the civil and armed police to the rank of head constable will be made by seniority on the list of constables qualified for promotion. Seniority for the purpose shall be determined: (a) amongst those qualified at the Police Training School in different session by the session at which they qualified ; (b) amongst those qualified at the same session by the aggregate of marks obtained ; (c) amongst those qualified at the same session with the same aggregate marks by length of service. Para 455 provides for promotion to the rank of head constables of specially deserving constables of civil police with the approval of the Range Deputy Inspector General of Police. 8. A perusal of Government order dated 2nd August, 1949, shows that head constables course was started in 1941, though recommendation that such a course was necessary, was first made by Police Training School Committee of 1934. It was being run in accordance with the original Rules and Regulations that where laid down in 1941 with object to build the character and mental make up of selected constables and to give them an adequate knowledge of professional and connected subjects so that they may be able to carry out the duties of literate Head Constables Civil Police honestly, intelligently and efficiently. The selections for this course were based upon the provincial qualifying examination conducted centrally in all districts once a year. All Constables of Civil and Armed Police were eligible to appear at the examination. The selections for this course were based upon the provincial qualifying examination conducted centrally in all districts once a year. All Constables of Civil and Armed Police were eligible to appear at the examination. A preliminary examination in districts was to be held on the question papers set up by the Principal, Police Training College. The successful candidates were to be tested by Superintendent of Police in out door work and a list was prepared in order of merit. The selected candidates were eligible to appear at the State Level Examination consisting of the subjects, namely police procedure, law, general knowledge, Hindi Essay with further assessment of service record and personality. Whereas the written examination was conducted by the Principal, Police Training College, the examination in leadership and record was conducted by an examination board by interviewing and holding out door tests. No undue emphasis was placed upon drill in the allotment of marks. 9. The aforesaid method of selection continued with modifications from time to time. By the Government order dated 31st May, 1995, issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh to the Inspector General of Police, U.P. Lucknow, communicated the decision of the State Government to select head constables in a manner that 50% of total available vacancies in the department are to be filled up from constables on the basis of seniority subject to unfit by promotion ; and the remaining 50% posts were to be filled by existing procedure of departmental examination. The orders were required to be implemented with immediate effect. 10. Order dated 18.4.2001, which is subject-matter of challenge, has been issued providing eligibility and method of selection to the remaining 50% posts to be filled up by departmental examination. It provides that those constables, who have completed three years of service on 1.1.2001, excluding the recruits training, and are not more than forty years of age on 1.1.2001, are eligible except those who have passed the course of armed head constables. The central examination of head constables (civil police) consists of question papers (1) General knowledge and Hindi, (2) Police Procedure, and (3) Law ; having 100 marks each. Candidates ten times of number of vacancies shall be declared to be successful and if some other candidates having secured equal marks that of the last candidate, would be available, they will also be declared successful in the examination. Candidates ten times of number of vacancies shall be declared to be successful and if some other candidates having secured equal marks that of the last candidate, would be available, they will also be declared successful in the examination. These candidates will thereafter, be subjected to the physical ability tests in which marks for infantry training and physical training will be 60 and 40 respectively and in each 50% marks have to be secured as qualifying marks. The details of I.T. and P.T. tests are provided in schedule A. After calculating the marks of written examination and physical ability tests, two and half times number of candidates in order of merits shall be called for interview. The candidates found suitable for interview, as above, will be given marks by the head of committee nominated by the head of department on the basis of service records, the method of which has been provided in schedule B of the order. These candidates will thereafter have to appear for interview to be taken by a Interview Committee nominated by the head of department for which a maximum of 50 marks are provided. Sub-clause 5 thereafter provides that select list shall be prepared as against the number of vacancies declared in accordance with merit after adding the marks obtained in written examination, physical ability test, service record and interview subject to reservation rules. 11. All the Petitioners, being eligible filled and submitted their forms. Written examination was held on 4.11.2001, after which successful candidates were called for I.T./P.T. tests to be held from 21.11.2001 to 30.11.2001 in respect of which a committee of officers was constituted. Petitioners qualified for interview but could not succeed to be selected. A select list, after interview, has been prepared, in accordance with merit. The selectees have not been sent for the training course of head constables, so far. 12. Petitioners qualified for interview but could not succeed to be selected. A select list, after interview, has been prepared, in accordance with merit. The selectees have not been sent for the training course of head constables, so far. 12. Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Counsel appearing for Petitioners, has challenged the selection on the following grounds: (1) The Deputy Inspector General of Police Headquarter U.P., Allahabad is not authorised to provide the method of selection inasmuch as the criteria for promotion, eligibility and method of selection can only be laid down by the State Government u/s 2 of the Police Act, 1861, by issuing Government orders ; (2) the elimination of candidates in selection process, after written examination and consideration of their service records, discriminate seniors in service, inasmuch as they have been deprived the benefits of their long period of service, which is relevant criteria for promotion to the post of head constables, and (3) the Selection Board of I.T./P.T. was required to act as a body whereas each member of the Board acted individually and allocated marks to the group assigned to each member whereby chances of favouritism were increased. 13. Sri Rashtrapati Khare, learned Counsel appearing for some of the Petitioners, advanced and additional argument that vacancies of head constables were required to be filled-up each year and that by clubbing vacancies of several years for holding selections, the constables, having put in long years of service, have been discriminated to compete with their juniors, who were not eligible in the years, when seniors should have been considered for promotion. 14. Learned standing counsel appearing for the Respondents, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of petitions on behalf of Petitioners, who did not raise any objection before appearing in the selections. He submits that method of selection in vogue since 1949 and has not been challenged. All the vacancies for promotion to head constables were filled by selections in accordance with the procedures, detailed above. The State Government, by Government order dated 31.5.1995, decided to fill up 50% posts by promotion on the criteria of seniority subject to rejection of unfit, and the rest of 50% posts on the existing criteria of selections through departmental examination. The State Government as such approved existing method of departmental examination. The State Government, by Government order dated 31.5.1995, decided to fill up 50% posts by promotion on the criteria of seniority subject to rejection of unfit, and the rest of 50% posts on the existing criteria of selections through departmental examination. The State Government as such approved existing method of departmental examination. He has relied upon a recent decision of Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Prakash Tiwari and Others Vs. Shakuntala Shukla and Others, (2002) 6 SCC 127 , in submitting that the U.P. Government Servants (Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion) Rules, 1994, in so far as police personnel were concerned, are not applicable inasmuch as the Police Act, 1861, with reference to Sections 2, 7, 12 and 16, is a complete code and the services conditions, which are referable to the Act, cannot be replaced by general service conditions for similar employees in the State under Article 309 of Constitution of India. 15. Coming to the first submission, I find that the selection for head constables' training course was all along regulated by the procedures of selection provided by Government order dated 2nd August, 1949. The eligibility, manner and method of holding selection were all along the same, with slight modifications to suit the needs of service. The Government order dated 31st May, 1995, is referable to Section 2 of the Police Act, 1861 and was issued providing 50% vacancies be filled up by promotion from amongst working constables on the basis of seniority subject to rejection of unfit, and for remaining 50% of the posts, the Government order provides for some selection procedure which was in vogue. The State Government has as such, only reiterated the manner and method of selection, as provided in the Government order right from 2.8.1949. Para 3 of the Government order required necessary mention of the decision of the State Government in Police Regulations. The Respondents could not place on record the required insertion in the Police Regulation. However, that is only a ministerial act. The Government order dated 31st May, 1995, as such, operate to amend/modify paras 454 and 456 of U.P. Police Regulations and thus, it cannot be said that the criteria for promotion has not been provided by State Government, but by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Police Headquarters). 16. However, that is only a ministerial act. The Government order dated 31st May, 1995, as such, operate to amend/modify paras 454 and 456 of U.P. Police Regulations and thus, it cannot be said that the criteria for promotion has not been provided by State Government, but by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Police Headquarters). 16. The written examination and I.T./P.T. tests have been provided to select meritorious constables laying greater emphasis on merit and ability. Seniority in this quota of 50% of the posts plays a less significant role. It is to be given weight only when merit and ability are approximately equal. In the subject selections, however, seniority has not been completely ignored. After having examined the relative merit by written examination and I.T./P.T. and having found equals, irrespective of their length of service, service record is considered for which a method of calculation has been provided in schedule B of order dated 18.4.2001. In Union of India (UOI) Vs. Mohan Lal Capoor and Others, (1973) 2 SCC 836 , followed in Sarat Kumar Dash and Others Vs. Biswajit Patnaik and Others, (1995) 1 SCC 434 Supp, considering the selection based on merit and suitability with due regard to seniority in the context of Rule 5 (2) of the Indian Administrative Service/Indian Police Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955, it was said at page 856 para 37 as below: (F) or inclusion in the list, merit and suitability in all respects should be the governing consideration and that seniority should play only a secondary role. It is only when merit and suitability are roughly equal that seniority will be a determining factor, or if it is not fairly possible to make an assessment inter se of the merit and suitability of two eligible candidates and come to a firm conclusion, seniority would tilt the scale. Similarly, Beg, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then was) has said: (SCC P 851 para 22): 22. Thus, we think that the correct view, in conformity with the plain meaning of words used in the relevant rules, is that the 'entrance' or 'inclusion' test for a place on the select list, is competitive and comparative applied to all eligible candidates and not minimal like pass marks at an examination. Thus, we think that the correct view, in conformity with the plain meaning of words used in the relevant rules, is that the 'entrance' or 'inclusion' test for a place on the select list, is competitive and comparative applied to all eligible candidates and not minimal like pass marks at an examination. The selection committee has an unrestricted choice of the best available talent, from amongst eligible candidates, determined by reference to reasonable criteria applied in assessing the facts revealed service records of all eligible candidates so that merit and not mere seniority is the governing factor. 17. The third submission relates to the procedure being adopted by the Selection Board in awarding marks in I.T./P.T. It was contended that the Selection Board was required to act as a body whereas each member was allotted groups, to which marks were given by individual member of the Board, thereby increasing the chances of arbitrariness and favouritism, and that the entire purpose of constituting the Board was lost. In paragraphs 7 and 8 of the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, it has been stated that the Board was constituted for conducting the I.T./P.T. test by the Police Headquarter for the entire State of U.P. after obtaining approval of the Director General of Police, U.P. and as at that time, the recruitment of Constables in P.A.C. was going on in some districts, some of the members were not available and as such the direction was issued from the Police Headquarter, that in the event of non-availability of any Member of the Board, Gazetted Officer of the same category can be nominated after obtaining the approval from the Director General of Police, U.P. Accordingly the Members were nominated by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Range, Moradabad, after obtaining the said approval. During the period 21.11.2001 to 30.11.2001, I.T./P.T. test of all the candidates, belonging to all the districts and local units of the range was conducted in the presence and close supervision of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Moradabad Range, Moradabad. To adopt impartiality and transparency, the D.I.G., Moradabad Range, himself constituted the groups of the candidates and the members of the Board were allotted different items for consideration of the particular group. The groups were allotted to the members of Board for one day only. To adopt impartiality and transparency, the D.I.G., Moradabad Range, himself constituted the groups of the candidates and the members of the Board were allotted different items for consideration of the particular group. The groups were allotted to the members of Board for one day only. The members of Board were not made to know as to which group would be allotted to him on a particular date and which group would be presented before a particular member of that date. Every day, the groups and the items were allotted by the D.I.G. Range, Moradabad, himself. After conducting the examination, the mark-sheets of every item/groups is taken by the D.I.G. Range, Moradabad, from every member of the Board and the said mark-sheets were kept in the custody of D.I.G., Moradabad Range, himself after getting laminated, at once. In this view of the matter, there did not remain any chance of manipulation in the marks of candidates and this procedure adopted after conducting the I.T./P.T. test is thus clearly time bound, without any flaw and transparent as well as there was no chance of any illegality or mistake in preparing the results of the candidates. 18. Learned standing counsel has also relied upon the standard fixed by the Inspector General of Police (Establishment) for I.T./P.T. test by his letter dated 20.11.2001. In respect of the standard laid down and marks to be allotted to the candidates, it is provided that 5 kms. race (Men) 10 marks ; skipping (women) 05 Marks ; 100 meter race (women) 05 marks, and 1 km. race and movement 10 marks. It is also submitted that in view of large number of candidates, it was not physically possible for all the members of the Board to sit altogether for assessing the performance of each candidate. In such a case, they would have taken months together to examine thousands of candidates appearing in I.T./P.T. test. 19. From the aforesaid averments in the counter-affidavit, the submissions made and in the absence of any particular candidate alleging mala fide or impartiality, I find that in view of the standards laid down and the random basis of which the Deputy Inspector General of Police allocated groups to the members of Board on each day, the chances of favouritism and discrimination were ruled out. 20. 20. The last submission, with regard to clubbing the vacancies of several years, has been answered in Chandra Prakash Tiwari and Ors. v. Shakuntala Shukla and Ors. (supra) in respect of selections from Sub-Inspectors to the post of Inspectors. Relying upon Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Vipinchandra Hiralal Shah, (1996) 6 SCC 721 , and Syed Khalid Rizvi and Others and Ramesh Prasad Singh and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, (1993) 3 SCC 575 Supp, it was held that while in normal circumstances, the selection can be held every year but in the event of they being clubbed, it will not render the subsequent selection void. It was held in para 41 of the decision as below: 41. It cannot thus be treated to be void but an irregularity which is of curable nature and can be cured. Dr. Dhevan made some comments as regards the situation in Uttar Pradesh in support of not having annual selections and thus, clubbing. We are not, however, inclined to dilate thereon, neither any credence can be put thereto by reason of our views expressed above. Clubbing in a later year may not be treated as fatal but as noticed earlier, curable, more so having regard to the fact that initiation of a selection process throughout the State would further take a considerable period of time and the Court's attitude presently being pragmatic and justice-oriented should do away with technicalities as technicalities ought not to outweigh the course of justice. 21. Apart from merits, as discussed above, all the writ petitions are liable to be dismissed by up-holding the objection of learned standing counsel, that having appeared in the selection, without raising any objection, the Petitioners cannot be permitted to challenge the procedure. In Union of India and Another Vs. N. Chandrasekharan and Another, (1998) 3 SCC 694 , it was held in para 13 that all the candidates were made aware of the procedure for promotion before they sat for the written test and before they appeared before the Departmental Promotion Committee. Therefore, they cannot turn around and contend later when they found they were not selected by challenging that procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for interview and confidential reports are disproportionately high and the authorities cannot fix a minimum to be secured either at interview or in the assessment on confidential report. Therefore, they cannot turn around and contend later when they found they were not selected by challenging that procedure and contending that the marks prescribed for interview and confidential reports are disproportionately high and the authorities cannot fix a minimum to be secured either at interview or in the assessment on confidential report. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari (supra), the Supreme Court noticed and did record finding that principle of estoppel by conduct can only be said to be applicable in the event of there being a precise and unambiguous objection or any unequivocal assurance, prompting the assured to alter his position or status. However, relying upon a three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Others, (1986) 1 SCC 285 Supp, it was held that when a candidate appears at the examination without protest and is subsequently found to be not successful in the examination, question of entertaining a petition challenging the said examination would not arise. In Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, (1995) 3 SCC 486 , the same principle was followed. In this case, the Supreme Court held that the result of interview itself on merit, cannot be successfully challenged by a candidate who get a chance to be selected in the interview. It is thus held that these writ petitions, challenging the criterion for promotion, are not maintainable at the instance of candidates who have participated in the selection without raising any objection. 22. For the aforesaid reasons, all the writ petitions fail and are consequently dismissed, without any order as to cost.