Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1783 (PNJ)

Balraj Singh v. State Of Haryana

2008-10-22

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, MEHTAB S.GILL

body2008
Judgment Augustine George Masih, J. 1. This Order will dispose of C.W.P.Nos. 19965, 20649of2006, 19155of2007, 11937, 11908,11494, 11492, 11481, 14084, 14111, 11872,14317, 15159,15160,15164, 15170, 15191,15223, 15235, 8757, 15385of 2008 as common questions of facts and law are involved therein. 2. The Claim of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that they are working as Constables in the Police Department, Haryana. In the year 2001, Punjab Police Rules have been amended and as per the amended Rules, 55% seats are reserved for B-l on the basis of the test, 35% seats are reserved on the basis of seniority- cum-fitness while 10% seats are reserved for the Sports quota and outstanding Performance. As per the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 , as applicable to the State of Haryana, and as amended in 2001, Rule 13.7 deals with selection of candidates for adrnission to course at the Police Training College. List B is maintained by the each Superintendent of Police which shall include all names of Constables selected for adrnission to the Lower School Course to be held at the Police Training College. The selection to the list B is to be made in the month of January each year and is limited to the number of seats allotted to the district for the said year. The number of seats in the Lower School Course in a year is to be on the basis of existing vacancies and the vacancies likely to the created within that year in the respective unit. 55% of the seats allotted to a unit in the lower school course are to be filled on the basis of a competitive examination, 35% on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness and 10% on the basis of consistent outstanding Performance in job/obtaining Gold or Silver medal in All India Police Games/Duty Meet/National Games orexceptional display of bravery during the course of Performance of official duty. A criteria has also been spelt out for selection of persons against the different quota. The norms are thus fixed and accordingly, the candidates are selected under the three different categories. The present writ petitions are with regard to the 35% quota wherein the Claim of the petitioners is on the basis of seniority cum fitness. 3. A criteria has also been spelt out for selection of persons against the different quota. The norms are thus fixed and accordingly, the candidates are selected under the three different categories. The present writ petitions are with regard to the 35% quota wherein the Claim of the petitioners is on the basis of seniority cum fitness. 3. It is the claim of the petitioners that despite their fulfilling the minimum Bench mark fixed by the Department for selection in this category, juniors to them have been selected and deputed to the Lower School Course which is in total violation of the statutory Rules. It is further their contention that this Court has, vide its judgment dated 5.11.2004 in C W.P. No. 7952 of 2004, Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others held as follows: "Since Rule 13.7 of the 1934 Rules, extracted hereinabove, clearly envisages the applicability of the principle of seniority-cum-fitness for determining the entitlement of a constable to be placed on List B-1 i.e. for being deputed to the Lower School Course, we have no doubt whatsoever, that given the minimum requisite merit/fitness required, the senior has to be placed on list B-1 as a matter of preference. The only justification depicted in the written Statement for considering the claim of respondent No. 4 as superior to that of the petitioner is, that respondent No. 4 was placed at a higher level vis-a- vis the petitioner while adjudicating the relevant merit of the candidates. As noticed by the Apex Court in Lt.Gen. Rajender Singh Kadyans case (supra), the comparison of candidates on the basis of merit is irrelevant under the aforesaid principle of promotion. As noticed by the Apex Court in Lt.Gen. Rajender Singh Kadyans case (supra), the comparison of candidates on the basis of merit is irrelevant under the aforesaid principle of promotion. In the aforesaid view of the matter, since it is not the case of the respondents, that the petitioner did not fulfill the minimum requisite, merit for being placed on List B-1, we are satisfied, that the instant writ petition must succeed and the petitioner, on account of seniority, must be preferred over respondent No. 4 for being placed on list B-1 and accordingly for being deputed to the Lower School Course." The petitioners, therefore, contend that they are entitled to the same relief as this Court has clearly held that a person who fulfills the minimum requisite merits/fitness as required, the senior is to be placed in List B-1 as a matter of preference and, therefore, they should have been deputed to the Lower School Course prior to deputing their juniors. The petitioners have, further contended that in some cases, they have been deputed to the Lower School Course subsequent to the juniors and therefore, have been put as juniors to such persons who have passed the Lower School Course earlier. They cannot be deprived of their seniority merely on the basis of having been deputed to the lower school course at a later stage due to wrong Interpretation of the Rules or due to inaction on the part of the respondents. They, therefore contend that they are entitled to be treated as having qualified the Lower School Course as if they have been deputed to the Lower School Course along with the juniors and have accordingly passed the same in that very batcn. It is further pleaded that the State of Haryana preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 10409/2005 from the judgment and order dated 5.11.2004 passed in CWP No 7952 of 2005 (Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others) which has been dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court vide its order dated 10.5.2005. 4. The petitioners have contended that large number of writ petitions have been deeided by this Court following the judgment passed by this Court in Naresh Kumars case (supra). 4. The petitioners have contended that large number of writ petitions have been deeided by this Court following the judgment passed by this Court in Naresh Kumars case (supra). The petitioners have further contended that on 14.5.2008, a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P.No. 1194 of 2005 (Hawa Singh vs. State of Haryana and others) has again considered a similar claim as that of the petitioners and allowed a bunch of 42 writ petitions. There also, the contention of the respondents with regard to the merit inter se between the 35% quota has been considered and this Court has again reiterated the law as laid down in Naresh Kumars case (supra) and granted the same relief as has been prayed for by the petitioners in the present writ petitions. 5. Upon notice having been issued, the respondents have put in appearance and have filed their written statement. The State has accepted the finality of the order passed by this Court in C.W.P.No. 7952 of 2005 Naresh Kumars case (supra) and has further stated that the said judgment has been given effect to by the State vide Office Memo No. 1600-37/T-2 dated 13.2.2007 of the Director General of Police, Haryana. It has been further stated that these Instructions have been considered and upheld by this Court in Hawa Singhs case (supra) wherein the minimum bench mark as prescribed has been accepted to be in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Naresh Kumars case (supra). It has further been stated in the written statement that the Claim of the petitioners is time barred as the petitioners have challenged List B prepared in the year 2002 onwards for selection to admission to courses at the Police Training College. 6. Counsel for the petitioners have argued on the lines of the pleadings made in the writ petitions as referred to above. 7. Counsel for the respondents has pressed the objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that the present petitioners have approached this Court at a much belated stage. 6. Counsel for the petitioners have argued on the lines of the pleadings made in the writ petitions as referred to above. 7. Counsel for the respondents has pressed the objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petitions on the ground that the present petitioners have approached this Court at a much belated stage. He has relied upon the judgments of the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of P.S.Sadasivaswamy vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1976(1) SLR 53 and B.S. Bajwa and another vs. State of Punjab and others, 1998(2) SCC 523 to submit that the petitioners cannot be granted the relief claimed by them on this basis. As regards the merits of the case, counsel for the respondents has been unable to distinguish the case of the petitioners from that of Naresh Kumar and Hawa Singhs cases (supra). 8. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the counsel for the parties. As far as the objeetions of the respondents with regard to the delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court is concerned, the same deserves to be rejected as the respondents are required to implement the judgments on an issue which has been finally adjudicated upon by this Court and has attained finality. For implementing the judgment, the respondents should not wait qua the similarly placed employees to approach the Court and then get orders from this Court on similar grounds. This is against the public policy and adds to the burden of the Courts as well. The State is required to act in a responsible manner and should enhance and assist the justice delivery System rather than adding to the burden of the already over burdened System. On various occasions, this Court and the Honble Supreme Court have held that similarly placed employees should not be forced to approach the Courts time and again for the same relief which the Court has adjudicated upon and which has attained finality. In the present case, initially the judgment was passed by this Court, which was challenged by the respondents in the Honble Supreme Court but the appeal preferred by the respondents was dismissed. Thus, the said judgment has attained finality. The Government realizing that the judgment affected a large number of similarly situated employees, issued Office Memo. In the present case, initially the judgment was passed by this Court, which was challenged by the respondents in the Honble Supreme Court but the appeal preferred by the respondents was dismissed. Thus, the said judgment has attained finality. The Government realizing that the judgment affected a large number of similarly situated employees, issued Office Memo. No. 1600-37/T2 dated 13.2.2007 which was required to be followed by the State in letter and spirit. Instead of doing so, the State forced them time and again to approach this Court for the similar relief which they are legally entitled to. Instead of following and granting the same relief to the similarly placed employees, the respondents cannot be now allowed to take a hyper technical objection of limitation to defeat the claim of the petitioners. It would not be out of place to mention here that this Court has recently vide its order dated 14.5.2008, allowed a bunch of 42 writ petitions claiming the same relief as the petitioners are claiming in these writ petitions,and now it does not lie in the mouth of the respondents to take an objection of limitation in this present set of writ petitions. This objection of the respondents is, thus, rejected. We are of the considered view that the claim of the petitioners deserves to be considered in the light of the Division Bench judgment in Naresh Kumars case (supra) which has attained finality upto the Honble Supreme Court. 9. Accordingly, the present writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners and all similarly placed persons who have been deputed to the Lower School Course subsequent to the deputing of their juniors and have passed the said Course after their juniors for deciding their claim of seniority over and above them and also to consider the claim of the petitioners and all similarly placed persons, for including their names in List B of selected Constables for admission to the Lower School Course, in accordance with the judgment passed by this Court in Naresh Kumars case (supra) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The respondents are further directed to depute all similarly placed persons, including the petitioners, to the Lower School Course in accordance with the seniority in their prescribed quota of 35% seats provided they fulfill the requirements of the Rules as interpreted by this Court in Naresh Kumars case (supra). These persons shall be deemed to have qualified the Lower School Course from the date the other Constables junior to them have qualified the same. It is, however, made clear that if by getting retrospective date of passing the Lower School Course the persons, including the petitioners, become eligible for promotion, they will get only deemed benefits without getting any actual financial benefits, in view of the principle of no work no pay as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India and another vs. Tarsem Lal and others, 2006(10) SCC 145.