Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3110 (PNJ)

Sukhwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2010-11-19

AJAI LAMBA

body2010
Judgment Ajai Lamba, J. 1. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing Annexure P-6 dated 25.08.2009 passed by Inspector General of Police, Patiala Zone-I, Patiala-respondent No. 3. Further prayer made is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to send the petitioner to lower school course for the additional seat which has been created. 2. It has been pleaded on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner passed B-I test in the year 2007 and, therefore, became eligible to undertake lower school course at Punjab Police Academy, Phillaur. The petitioner, however, could not undertake the couse because of medical problems and under such circumstances, an affidavit was furnished dated 30.10.2007 that the petitioner would not be able to undertake the couse. Subsequently, when the petitioner wanted to join lower school course, he has not been allowed to do so. The petitioner got served a justice demand notice through his counsel asking the respondents to send the petitioner for joining lower school course, which prayer has been rejected. 3. Stand of the respondents in the written statement is that 30 seats were allotted to male candidates for district Patiala for undertaking lower school course for the year 2007-08. B-I test was held in Police lines, Patiala on 21.03.2007. 109 candidates qualified the B-I test. The merit list was prepared. 30 male candidates, as per the merit list and 6 other male candidates, who were in the waiting list in order of merit were forwarded to DIG, Patiala Range, Patiala by SSP Patiala. 30 male candidates, as per the availability of seats for both the sessions, were cleared to take lower school course commencing w.e.f. 05.04.2007 and 15.10.2007. Six additional seats were allotted for male constables who qualified B-I test. The petitioner was a candidate in the waiting list for B-I test, 2007 for District Patiala The petitioner did not go in the said course intentionally. The petitioner submitted an affidavit that he has a disc problem and because of his domestic affairs, he cannot undertake the lower school course. 4. The petitioner was a candidate in the waiting list for B-I test, 2007 for District Patiala The petitioner did not go in the said course intentionally. The petitioner submitted an affidavit that he has a disc problem and because of his domestic affairs, he cannot undertake the lower school course. 4. On the first count, it has been pleaded on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner had not taken a single days leave to indicate that the petitioner suffered any medical problem and, therefore, the ground given by the petitioner in the affidavit is not borne out from facts. 5. On the second count, it has been pleaded that once an offer was given to the petitioner but the petitioner did not accept the same. The petitioner has lost his right to be considered for undertaking the lower school course. The petitioner can compete again in B-I test and thereafter undertake the lower school course.; The petitioner would have no lien with the merit list earlier prepared. 6. It has also been pointed out that possibly the petitioner did not undertake the course because in the year 2007-08, the petitioner remained on deputation with Excise & Taxation Department, Punjab, Patiala which appears to be lucrative post. During the entire period the petitioner was serving in the said department on deputation, the petitioner did not make his claim to undergo lower school course. 7. Having considered the stand of the respondents brought on record by way of affidavit, I find that the petitioner has no ground to succeed in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. It is not in dispute that an offer was given to the petitioner to undertake the course. The petitioner, however, refused to accept the offer. Reasons assigned by the petitioner that he had a disc problem/medical condition is not borne out from the documents placed on record, rather the fact has been disputed. 8. As per order Annexure R-2 dated 08.11.2007, it has been pointed out that as per provisions of proviso to Rule-Ill of Standing Order for selection of constables for list B-I to undergo lower school course, constable whose name has been brought on this list is not sent to the Police Training College in that year, he will be required to compete again with new candidates, if he is still eligible for admission to the said list under the Rules. In such circumstances also, no seat could be reserved for the petitioner. 9. Stand of the respondents appears to be reasonable. The petitioner passed B-I test in the year 2007 and was placed in the waiting list. An offer was given to the petitioner to undertake lower school course for the succeeding session. The petitioner, however, did not accept the offer. The fact that the petitioner had medical problems has been disputed by the respondents. This Court has no reason not to accept the stand of the petitioner in this regard, particularly when it has been shown that the petitioner was serving with Excise & Taxation Department, Punjab during the given period. It appears to the Court that after the period of deputation concluded, the petitioner being desirous of pursuing his career in police, wants to utilize his earlier merit determined for the lower school course for the year 2007-08. Under the provisions to which reference has been made, the petitioner has to compete again with new candidates who might have become eligible and can only thereafter seek entry in lower school course. The provision also appears to be with relevant basis in so much as a merit list prepared cannot be kept in abeyance/pending for the convenience of persons placed in the merit list for indefinite period. 10. In view of the above, no ground for interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction is made out.