Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 547 (GAU)

P. C. Lalrinmawia v. State of Mizoram

2008-07-30

H.BARUAH

body2008
JUDGMENT H. Baruah, J. 1. Prior to adoption of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 notified in the Mizoram Gazette dated 1.5.2006, the service conditions of Police Personnel in the State of Mizoram were regulated by the provisions of Assam Police Manual. In respect of promotion of the Havildars appointed by following the provisions of Assam Police Manual, Sub-Rule 1 of Rule 41 of Part III was followed. The writ petitioners were appointed as such in the police department and all the writ petitioners herein are Havildars to the Armed Branch of the department. In Sub-rule 1 of Rule 41 of the Assam Police Manual, for the purpose of promotion of Havildars to the rank of Sub-Inspector, Armed Branch (for short ABSI) and Direct Recruitment of Armed Branch Sub-Inspector, the following provisions are made:- (i) Promotion to Sub-Inspectors rank in the Armed Branch will ordinarily be made by selection from amongst the confirmed Havildars and Head-Constables subject to their passing of the prescribed cadre course(s). Proficiency in drill, a good knowledge of weapons, tear smoke tacties and interior economy of Platoons, Battalions and of the Reserve and marked ability to maintain strict discipline are essential qualifications. He must be absolutely fit physically and may be required to appear for Inspections by Medical Board before selection. 2. The procedure to be observed by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was issued by the Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms (DP&AR), Government of Mizoram vide office memorandum dated 24.1.2005 was issued as follows:- No interview should be held unless it is specifically provided in the Recruitment Rules/Service rules for the posts/service. This procedure finds place in the office Memorandum dated 24.1.2005 (Annexure-1). 3. Promotion of Havildars to the rank of ABSI of Police being regulated by Sub-rule 1 of Rule 41 of the Assam Police Manual, Part III and the said Rule having not provided the guidelines to be followed, the respondent No. 2 issued guidelines vide standing order dated 11.4.2005, for the purpose of assessing the performance of Havildars for promotion to ABSI. The marks allotted for written, examination and practical efficiency test as given in the standing order dated 11.4.2005 is as follows:– (1) Personal turn out 15 (2) Proficiency in drill 15 (3) Command and Control 15 (4) Handling and Practical Knowledge of weapon 15 (5) Field Craft 15 (6) General knowledge (Written) 25 Total 100 4. The marks allotted for written, examination and practical efficiency test as given in the standing order dated 11.4.2005 is as follows:– (1) Personal turn out 15 (2) Proficiency in drill 15 (3) Command and Control 15 (4) Handling and Practical Knowledge of weapon 15 (5) Field Craft 15 (6) General knowledge (Written) 25 Total 100 4. In addition to the above, the following service record within the last 5 years will also carry marks as indicated against each as follows:– 1. Rewards 1(one) mark for each reward. Maximum 5 marks 2. Punishment One mark to be deducted for each minor punishment. Maximum 5 marks. 3. Bonus marks will be given for the following:– (a) Police Medal : (i) PGM/PPM 5 Marks (ii) GM/PM 4 Marks (iii) Any Governor's medal 2 Marks (b) GS Marks 2 Marks each/Maximum 6 Marks (c) Specialized Course more than 3 months 2 Marks 5. The respondent No. 3 herein issued a letter to the various Commandants, Superintendents of Police and the Principal, Police Training Center vide letter dated 13.4.2005, requesting them to submit names of Havildars who were eligible and willing to appear in the departmental examination for promotion to the post of ABSI against the vacancies. But, in the meantime, vide order dated 6.5.2005, the respondent No. 2 herein by issuing an order dated 6.5.2005, modified the standing order dated 11.4.2005 to the extent that the Havildars who have completed 5 years of satisfactory service as on 30.6.2005 would be eligible for consideration for promotion to the rank of ABSI instead of 10 years of service and the present writ petitioners herein were among the group of 305 candidates who took part in the departmental examination for promotion to the post of ABSI of Police. 6. Departmental Test for promotion to ABSI of Police was held on 7.2.2006 to 11.2.2006 and the result of the said Departmental Test was published, wherein the petitioners were placed at Sl. Nos. 53, 58, 59, 60, 62, 64, 68, 72, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 83, 84, 85, 88, 90, 91, 94 and 117 respectively while respondent Nos. 4-14 are placed at Sl. Nos. 49, 38, 47, 41, 43, 34, 51, 33, 36, 44, 52, 56, 42, 40, 37, 35, 57, 32, 61, 46, 48, 50, 54, 45, 67, 92, 101, 120, 89, 106, 150, 157, 166, 200, 197, 161 and 204 respectively. 4-14 are placed at Sl. Nos. 49, 38, 47, 41, 43, 34, 51, 33, 36, 44, 52, 56, 42, 40, 37, 35, 57, 32, 61, 46, 48, 50, 54, 45, 67, 92, 101, 120, 89, 106, 150, 157, 166, 200, 197, 161 and 204 respectively. It is to be noted that the result was published on the basis of marks secured by them in the Departmental Test and it was made on the basis of merit. 7. After the departmental examination held and result published on the basis of merit, the Havildars at Sl. Nos. 1 to 31 in the merit list (Annexure-5) were promoted to the posts of ABSI vide order dated 6.3.2006 issued by respondent No. 3 and posted accordingly. 8. On 1.5.2006, the Mizoram Police Manual 2005 was notified which superseded the provisions of Assam Police Manual wherein provisions for promotion of Havildars to the rank of Sub-Inspector are incorporated in Rule 397 of the Manual. The Governor of Mizoram, vide Notification dated 3.4.2007 was pleased to order one time relaxation of Sub-rule 1 of Rule 397 of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 cutting short the period of training for promotion of Havildars to Sub-Inspector under Armed Unit to one and half months. 9. Due to establishment of 3rd IR Bn. and deployment of Constables/Havildars in Chhattisgarh for Naxalite Operation, the department felt necessity to fill up 35 numbers of vacant posts of ABSI, but the department being sensed some difficulty in filling up those posts by taking resort to Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, during the transitional period the respondent No. 3 made a proposal for approval for one time relaxation by amending Rule 397 of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 as under: (a) The result of the last Departmental Test conducted between 7 to 11 February 2006 may be revalidated by the Government notification, as the test was conducted under Assam Police Manual which seems to be already invalid after notification of Mizoram Police Manual on 1.5.2006. (b) After revalidation of the merit list as above, interview may be conducted among those who secured 50% of the marks in the Test. The interview may carry 50 marks. The personal interview is suggested because no interview was conducted in the last Departmental Test due to absence of the provision in the APM and at the same time more than one year had passed since the Departmental Test was conducted. The interview may carry 50 marks. The personal interview is suggested because no interview was conducted in the last Departmental Test due to absence of the provision in the APM and at the same time more than one year had passed since the Departmental Test was conducted. If the above proposal is approved, one time relaxation by amending Rule 397 of Mizoram Police Manual have to be made as per sample enclosed in Annexure. 10. The Governor of Mizoram in exercise of power conferred by Rule 4(3) of Chapter 1 of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, vide Notification dated 25.7.2001 was pleased to grant one time relaxation of Rule 397(1)(b) in favour of 305 serving Havildars requiring successful completion of Platoon Commander Course for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector (Annexure-10). 11. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Home Department in reply to respondent No. 3 letter dated 4.7.2007, vide letter No. A.12033/3/2004-HMP dated 25.7.2007 revalidated the merit list prepared under the last Departmental Test conducted between 7.2.2006 to 11.2.2006 which reads as under: DP & AR has further allowed revalidation of last Departmental Test conducted between 7.2.2006 to 11.2.2006 with an authorization of the DPC to conduct personal interview of the candidates who secured 50% marks in the Last Departmental Test which will carry not more than 33% of the written marks. 12. Thereafter, the respondent No. 3 issued an order dated 30.7.2007 constituting a Selection Board to conduct personal interview of Havildars who secured 50% of marks in Last Departmental Test held on and from 7.2.2006 to 11.2.2006 for promotion of Havildars to the rank of ABSI (Annexure-12). In the order dated 30.7.2007, it was subsequently stated that personal interview will be started from 20th August 2007 at 11:00 hours in Battalion wise and all Commandants/Principal/S.Ps concerned were instructed to intimate those Havildars who secured 50% marks and above for interview on the date fixed for them. 13. For such selection, the writ petitioners having been obtained 50% of marks in the test held earlier (from 7.2.2006 to 11.2.2006) were included in the list alongwith the respondents at Sl. No. 4-40 for the purpose of selection to the posts of ABSI. 14. Interview was held and result was compiled and published. The writ petitioners are placed at Sl. Nos. No. 4-40 for the purpose of selection to the posts of ABSI. 14. Interview was held and result was compiled and published. The writ petitioners are placed at Sl. Nos. 49, 38, 42, 51, 67, 42, 80, 73, 41, 60, 40, 39, 55, 74, 69, 70, 48, 75, 44, 98 and 81 while the private respondents are placed at Sl. No. 1-37. 15. Now, the writ petitioners being aggrieved thereby have filed this writ petition challenging the selection process/procedure adopted by the respondent authorities for promotion of the Havildars in the merit list to the post of 35 numbers of vacant posts of ABSI. 16. The respondent authorities vide their affidavit-in-opposition supported the manner of selection of the Havildars whose names appear in the merit list (Annexure-5) for the purpose of promotion to ABSI. It is contended in the affidavit-in-opposition that the Police department feeling necessity for filing up of 35 numbers of vacancies in the cadre of ABSI and the obstacle in following the provisions of Mizoram Police Manual immediately, revalidated the merit list prepared after the Departmental Test held on 7.2.2006 to 11.2.2006 and for the purpose of assessing the suitability of the candidates, it was considered necessary to hold a personal interview of the candidates. The marks allotted for the purpose was 33 marks in total which is 33% of the total marks 100. Interview was conducted for promotion of the Havildars to the rank of ABSI among those who secured 50% marks in the Departmental Test held on 7.2.2006 to 11.2.2006. For the purpose of assessment of each of the candidate, the personal interview was conducted. In regard to Paragraph 22 of the writ petitions respondent in Paragraph 10 of their affidavit-in-opposition assorted their stand and contented as under: I say that as stated earlier, 33% of the written marks mentioned in the letter dated 25.7.2007 is regarded as 33% of the total marks of the departmental test by the FEB. Therefore, no candidate is given marks beyond the maximum of 33 marks. The PEB did not accept interview marks of 8.33 which is taken only from the General Knowledge marks carrying to 25 marks only. 17. Therefore, no candidate is given marks beyond the maximum of 33 marks. The PEB did not accept interview marks of 8.33 which is taken only from the General Knowledge marks carrying to 25 marks only. 17. Respondent authorities, thus, by their affidavit-in-opposition contended that no illegality had been committed by the respondent authorities in promoting Havildars to the post of ABSI by adhering to the procedure evolved for interview and taking 33% marks of the total marks of the Departmental Test. 18. We heard Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned GA appearing for the State respondents. 19. The first leg of argument of Mr. Michael Zothankhuma is in respect of awarding interview mark to the second batch of the Havildars whose names appear in the merit list prepared after Departmental Test held on 7.2.2006 to 11.2.2006. It was argued by him that the interview mark awarded by the Selection Board cannot be taken into consideration since such provision is not available either in the Assam Police Manual or in Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 adopted in the year 2007. This particular manner of selection, according to Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, was adopted by the respondents over-riding the provisions of the Manual. Mr. Michael Zothankhuma referring to Sub-rule 1 of Rule 41, Part III of Assam Police Manual, the office Memorandum dated 24.1.2005 and the standing order dated 11.4.2005 made for the purpose of assessing the performance of Havildars for promotion to the post of ABSI submitted that, interview for such promotion is nowhere provided either in the rule or in the office memorandum or in the standing order dated 11.4.2005. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the Selection Board for holding interview for promotion of the Havildars to ABSI is a total deviation from the rule, office memorandum and the standing order. In the office memorandum issued by the department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms, (DP & AR), Government of Mizoram dated 24.1.2005, in clear term, it is states that no interview should be held unless it is specifically provided in the recruitment rules/service rules for the posts/service. While holding interview for the promotion of the second batch of Havildars, rules under Mizoram Police Manual were not followed inasmuch as there was impediment on the part of the department to follow the rules of Mizoram Police Manual during the transitional period. While holding interview for the promotion of the second batch of Havildars, rules under Mizoram Police Manual were not followed inasmuch as there was impediment on the part of the department to follow the rules of Mizoram Police Manual during the transitional period. Having regard to the utmost necessity of filing up the vacancies of ABSI, the merit list prepared under Departmental Test held on 7.2.2006 to 11.2.2006, which apparently expired, was revalidated for the purpose of appointment of ABSI from Havildars that too those Havildars who secured 50% of marks in the Departmental Test. It was also argued by Mr. Michael Zothankhuma that the first batch of Havildars at Sl. No. 1-31 of the merit list (Annexure-5) were promoted to the post of ABSI without holding any interview whatsoever. The merit list of the Havildars numbering 305 was prepared on the basis of the Departmental Test held per Sub-rule (1) of Rule 41, Part III of the Assam Police Manual and the Standing Order dated 11.4.2005 together with office Memorandum dated 24.1.2005. Therefore, when the Police Manual provides no provision for holding interview, the method of selection of the Havildars for the purpose of filing up the vacancies of ABSI numbering 35 is illegal, discriminatory and not in accordance with rules. 20. Mr. Michael Zothankhuma in support of his contention had placed much emphasis in the office Memorandum dated 24.1.2005, wherein it is stated that no interview should be held unless specifically provided in the service rules for the posts/service. Admittedly, neither the Assam Police Manual, which is, of course, repealed by Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 nor the Mizoram Police Manual 2005 contains such provisions for interview. Therefore, according to Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the introduction of new system for holding interview of the Havildars already selected for appointment to the post of ABSI is totally illegal and the promotion of those Havildars cannot be legalized in violation of rules. 21. Further Mr. Therefore, according to Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, learned Counsel for the petitioners, the introduction of new system for holding interview of the Havildars already selected for appointment to the post of ABSI is totally illegal and the promotion of those Havildars cannot be legalized in violation of rules. 21. Further Mr. Michael Zothankhuma also submitted by adhering to the letter dated 25.7.2007 issued by the Deputy Secretary to the Government of Mizoram, Home Department, revalidating the merit list prepared under last departmental test held on 7.2.2006 to 11.2.2006, that the total marks allotted for interview while adopting selection for promotion of Havildars to ABSI is against letters and spirit of the letter No. A-12033/3/04-HMP dated 25.7.2007, wherein it is said the marks allotted in the written test should not be more than 33% of the written marks while conducting personal interview of the Havildars. The stand taken by the respondent authorities in their affidavit-in-opposition, according to Mr. Michael Zothankhuma is a deviation from the letter dated 25.7.2007. Per letter dated 25.7.2007, the interview marks should not be more than 8.33 of the total marks 25 allotted for written examination. It is submitted by Mr. Michael Zothankhuma that the 33% of the written marks allotted cannot be treated as 33 marks of the total marks of the departmental test contended by the respondent authorities. The allocation of 33 marks in the personal interview of the Havildars is beyond the purview of the letter dated 25.7.2007. 22. Since the promotion to the post of ABSI from Havildar, considering the urgency, was required to be made during the transitional period, the early method adopted and directed to be adopted ought to have been followed while assessing the suitability of the Havildars for promotion to the post of ABSI. According to Mr. Michael Zothankhuma that no such procedure could have been adopted since the earlier letters guidelines were not super-ceded by any order of the Government of Mizoram. Therefore, the earlier guidelines and office Memorandum together with the standing order ought to have been persisted and followed while selecting the Havildars for the purpose of promotion. 23. Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned GA appearing for the State respondents answering the submissions of Mr. Michael Zothankhuma in respect of allotment of 33 marks in the personal interview failed to lead this Court through any provision made therefore. 23. Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned GA appearing for the State respondents answering the submissions of Mr. Michael Zothankhuma in respect of allotment of 33 marks in the personal interview failed to lead this Court through any provision made therefore. She, basing on the affidavit-in-opposition submitted by the respondent authorities submitted that PEB did not accept the interview marks of 8.33 which is taken only from the General Knowledge marks carrying 25 marks only. The submission was not supported by any order whatsoever and therefore, allocation of 33 marks in the personal interview of the Havildars is beyond the purview of letter dated 25.7.2007. 24. Mr. Michael Zothankhuma supporting his contention relied in the law laid down in the case between Ashok Kumar Yadav and other vs. State of Haryana and other, (1985) 4 SCC 417 . Wherein in Para 26 of the judgment, the hon'ble Apex Court laid down as under: 26. We may now, in the background of this discussion, proceed to consider whether the allocation of as high, a percentage of marks as 33.3% in case of ex-service officers and 22.2% in case of other candidates, for the viva voce test renders the selection process arbitrary. So far as ex-service officers are concerned, there can be no doubt that the percentage of marks allocated for the viva voce test in their case is unduly high and it docs suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. It has been pointed out by the Division Bench in a fairly elaborate discussion that so far as the present selections in the category of ex-service officers are concerned, the spread of marks in the viva voce test was inordinately high compared to the spread of marks in the written examination. The mini mum marks required to be obtained in the written examination for eligibility for the viva voce test are 180 and as against these minimum 180 marks, the highest marks obtained in the written examination in the category of ex-service officers were 270, the spread of marks in the written examination, thus, being only 90 marks which works out to a ration of 22.2%. But when we turn to the marks obtained in the viva voce test, we find that in case of ex-service officers the lowest marks obtained were 20 while the highest marks secured were 171 and the spread of marks in the viva voce test was, thus, as wide as 151 in a total of 200 marks, which worked out to an inordinately high percentage of 76. The spread of marks in the viva voce test being enormously large compared to the spread of arks in the written examination, the viva voce test tended to become a determining factor in the selection process, because even if a candidate secured the highest marks in the written examination, he could be easily knocked out of the race by awarding him the lowest marks in the viva voce test and correspondingly, a candidate who obtained the lowest marks in the written examination could be raised to the top most position in the merit list by an inordinately high marking in the viva voce test. It is, therefore, obvious that the allocation of such a high percentage of marks as 33.3% opens the door wide for arbitrariness and in order to diminish, if not eliminate, the risk of arbitrariness, the percentage needs to be reduced. But while considering what percentage of marks may legitimately be allocated for the viva voce test without incurring the reproach of arbitrariness, if must be remembered that ex-service officers would ordinarily be middle-aged persons of mature personality and it would be hard on them at that age to go through a long written examination involving 8 subjects and, hence, it would not be unfair to require them to go through a shorter written examination in only 5 subjects and submit to a viva voce test carrying a higher percentage of marks than what might be prescribed in case of younger candidates. The personalities of these ex-service officers being fully mature and developed, it would not be difficult to arrive at a fair assessment of their merits on the basis of searching and incisive viva voce test and, therefore, in their case, the viva voce test may be accorded relatively greater weight. But in any event the marks allocated for the viva voce test cannot be as high as 33.3%. But in any event the marks allocated for the viva voce test cannot be as high as 33.3%. In this judgment, the Apex Court held that the allocation of high percentage of marks for viva voce test for selection to Haryana Civil (Executive Branch) and Allied Services is unreasonable and the selection process becomes arbitrary. In that case 33.3% was allocated for ex-service officers while 22.2% in case of other candidates for viva voce test. 25. In our present case also vide letter dated 25.7.2007, the manner of allocation of marks in the personal interview is indicated. It is clearly-stated that the marks to be allocated for personal interview should not be more than 33% of the written marks. Written examination was held in respect of General Knowledge only wherein 25 marks was allotted and therefore, 33% of 25 marks usually stands at 8.33 but surpassing the letter dated 25.7.2007, the Selection Board allocated 33 marks for personal interview. Therefore, allocation of high percentage of marks in the personal interview by the Selection Board while selecting the Havildars for promotion to the post of ABSI is found unreasonable which renders the process of selection arbitrary. This Court does not see any force in the argument advanced by Mrs. Helen Dawngliani, learned GA for the State respondents. 26. The second leg of argument advanced by Mr. Michael Zothankhuma is in respect of adoption of selection procedure for the second batch of Havildars whose name appear in the merit list. According to Mr. Michael Zothankhuma when the provisions of Assam Police Manual have been repealed by introduction of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005, the vacancies arose during the continuance of the Mizoram Police Manual ought to have been filled up by adopting the procedure incorporated in the Mizoram Police Manual. The vacancies arose while the Mizoram Police Manual was in force, and therefore, the promotion so made by the Selection Board by revalidating the merit list, prepared after holding a departmental test on and from 7.2.2006 to 11.2.2006, ought not to have been resorted to. While doing so, the respondent authorities deprived some eligible candidates (Havildars) from being promoted to the post of ABSI. In this context, Mr. While doing so, the respondent authorities deprived some eligible candidates (Havildars) from being promoted to the post of ABSI. In this context, Mr. Michael Zothankhuma relied on a decision in the case between Y.V. Rangaiah and other vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and other, (1983) 3 SCC 284 , in para 9 of the said judgment, the hon'ble Apex Court held as under: 9. Having heard the counsel for the parties, we find no force in either of the two contentions. Under the old rules a panel had to be prepared every year in September. Accordingly, a panel should have been prepared in the year 1976 and transfer or promotion to the post of Sun-Registrar Grade II should have been made out of that panel. In that event the petitioners in the two representation have been deprived of their right of being considered for promotion. The vacancies which occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the amended rules. It is admitted by counsel for both the parties that henceforth promotion to the post of Sub-Registrar Grade II will be according to the new rules on the zonal basis and not on the State-wide basis and, therefore; there was no question of challenging the new rules. But the question is of filling the vacancies that occurred prior to the amended rules. We have not the slightest doubt that the posts which fell vacant prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the new rules. Admittedly, the vacancies arose after repeal of the Assam Police Manual and after introduction of Mizoram Police Manual. In the judgment (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the vacancies arose/occurred prior to the amended rules would be governed by the old rules and not by the now rules. The same situation also arose in this case because the vacancies arose after adoption of Mizoram Police Manual 2005. So those vacancies ought to have been filled up per procedure laid down in Mizoram Police Manual, 2005 and by revalidating the merit list, some eligible candidates have been deprived. 27. It is apparent from the record and statement of facts that the Havildars at Sl. Nos. 1-31 of the merit list were promoted and this merit list was prepared on the basis of the departmental test. 27. It is apparent from the record and statement of facts that the Havildars at Sl. Nos. 1-31 of the merit list were promoted and this merit list was prepared on the basis of the departmental test. Therefore, to the humble view of this Court after revalidation of merit list, the respondent authorities without going for adopting a new procedure ought to have promoted the Havildars from Sl. No. 32 since 305 numbers of Havildars were selected for promotion after a departmental test. Of course a person in the merit list cannot stake his claim for promotion simply because his name appears in the merit list. Leaving aside this matter, the selection procedure adopted by the respondent authorities by allocating 33 marks for personal interview is beyond the purview of the letter dated 25.7.2007, further holding of personal interview is also against the rules. 28. The third leg of argument of Mr. Michael Zothankhuma is in regard to allocation of 33 marks in the personal interview. In this context it-was argued by him, that such high percentage of marks was allotted with an interior motive. According to Mr. Michael Zothankhuma, 33 marks was allocated for the purpose of pick and choose of their (Member of the Selection Board) candidates. Allocation of 33 marks in the personal interview, thus, afforded a platform to the members of the Selection Board of biasness. 29. Having considered all the matters in its entirety and for ends of justice, the promotion order dated 21.9.2007 issued by the respondent No. 3 vide Memo No. E/PHQ/A/67/273-A dated 21.9.2007 is hereby set aside and quashed. The selection process adopted by the Selection Board for the purpose of promotion of the earlier selected Havildars to the post of ABSI is wholly illegal and not in accordance with Rules, office Memorandum and standing order. The respondent authorities are directed to fill up those vacancies as per the provisions of Mizoram Police Manual, 2005. While doing so, the respondent authorities shall afford opportunity to the Havildars whose names appear at Sl. No. 32-305 (including the respondents) together with any other eligible Havildar(s). This exercise shall be completed within 2(two) months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. 30. Writ petition is allowed, however, with no cost. Petition allowed.