JUDGMENT P.S. Rana, J. 1. All these writ petitions are clubbed together and disposed of by a common order as prayers made in these writ petitions are identical in nature and issues involved in present writ petitions are also similar in nature. Brief facts of the petitions 2. It is pleaded that on dated 9.3.2012 a notification for the test of B-1 from police constables was issued and indoor test was conducted on dated 21.4.2012 and outdoor test was also conducted and on 1.6.2012 State level consolidated merit list of police constables who have qualified B-1 test was prepared. It is further pleaded that 686 constables candidates qualified B-1 test and only 273 candidates were sent for Lower School Training Course and petitioners were not sent for Lower School Training Course as they were lower in the merit list. It is further pleaded that again in the year 2014 fresh constables B-1 test was notified by the respondents. It is also pleaded that as of today 412 constables candidates are still with the department who have already qualified B-1 test but they have not been sent for Lower School Training Course. It is also pleaded that in some districts marks were awarded for all commendation certificate and in some district marks were not awarded for all commendation certificate and also pleaded that department had adopted two criteria for the same B-1 test while awarding marks for commendation certificate which is contrary to law and contrary to Constitution of India while preparing merit list of B-1 test. It is further pleaded that merit list of B-1 test may kindly be kept operative till all the candidates who have passed B-1 test are not send for Lower School Training Course. It is further pleaded that merit list of B-1 test 2012 will remain operative in perpetuity till available vacancies of Head Constables are not filled. 3. Per contra reply filed on behalf of the respondents pleaded therein that B-1 test was held in the year 2012 and 273 Constables were deputed for Lower School Training Course on the basis of vacancies in the year 2012. It is further pleaded that although 687 candidates qualified B-1 test but names of petitioners did not figure in the merit list and now they are under legal obligation to appear again for fresh B-1 test which will be held in the year 2014. It is further pleaded that although 687 candidates qualified B-1 test but names of petitioners did not figure in the merit list and now they are under legal obligation to appear again for fresh B-1 test which will be held in the year 2014. It is further pleaded that B-1 test of Constables for the post of Head Constables will be governed under Rule 13.7(2) of Police Act. It is admitted that in some of the districts marks were awarded for all the commendations certificates and it is further pleaded that marks for all commendation certificates were not awarded to the candidates in some districts. 4. Learned Advocate General, Mr. Shrawan Dogra, appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that out of 273 persons sent for Lower School Training Course 210 persons were successful in the training out of which 209 persons have been given promotion and posting. 5. Court has heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and also perused the entire record of case files carefully. 6. It is also proved on record that earlier CWP No. 7277 of 2012 titled Shagun Sharma and others vs. State of H.P along with CWP No. 7335 of 2012 titled Karan Singh and others vs. State of H.P. and others were filed which were disposed of on 22nd November 2012 by Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh wherein Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh has directed the respondents to send the petitioners of CWP No. 7277 of 2012 and petitioners of CWP No. 7335 of 2012-D for undergoing Lower School Course in accordance with their merit drawn in B-1 test forthwith without any further delay latest by 30th November 2012 with further direction to draw joint merit list of candidates already undergoing Lower School Course w.e.f. 27.8.2012 and those of eligible petitioners who successfully complete such course. It is also proved on record that thereafter LPA No. 540 of 2012 titled Shagun Sharma and others vs. State of H.P. and other along with LPA Nos. 537 of 2012 titled Karan Singh and other vs. State of H.P. and others and LPA Nos. 592 & 593 of 2012 titled Narender Raj and others vs. State of H.P. and another were also filed before Hon’ble High Court of H.P. but these LP As were withdrawn on dated 04-12-2013 with liberty to seek appropriate remedy. 7. 537 of 2012 titled Karan Singh and other vs. State of H.P. and others and LPA Nos. 592 & 593 of 2012 titled Narender Raj and others vs. State of H.P. and another were also filed before Hon’ble High Court of H.P. but these LP As were withdrawn on dated 04-12-2013 with liberty to seek appropriate remedy. 7. Following points arise for determination in these writ petitions:- (1) Whether penal of process of promotional post will remain operative in perpetuity or will lapse after one year automatically? (2) Whether uniform pattern of classification of marks should be adopted by the department in the entire State for all Constables appearing in B-1 test? 8. Submission of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that merit list of B-1 test prepared in the year 2012 will remain operative in perpetuity till available vacancies of Head Constables are not filled is rejected being devoid of any force for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that earlier Punjab Police Act along with Rules was applicable in State of Himachal Pradesh. It is also proved on record that the Himachal Pradesh Police Act 2007 came into operation on dated 16.07.2007. Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Act 1934 is quoted:- “13.7 (1) List B (In form 13.7) shall be maintained by each superintendent of Police. It shall include the names of all constables selected for admission to the Lower School Course to be held at the Police Training College. Selection to the list shall be made in the month of January each year and shall be limited to the number of seats allotted to the district for the year. For reasons to be recorded, the number of seats can be increased by 20 percent. Allotment of seats to each district shall be done on the basis of existing vacancies and the number of vacancies which are likely to occur during the next one year. Names shall be entered in the list in the order of merit, determined by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of tests in (i) Parade, (ii) written test in general law (IPC, Cr. Names shall be entered in the list in the order of merit, determined by the Departmental Promotion Committee on the basis of tests in (i) Parade, (ii) written test in general law (IPC, Cr. P.C. Indian Evidence Act and such other Local and Special Laws as may be specified), (iii) Interview (iv) Examination of Service Record.” There is provision in Rule 13.7 of Punjab Police Act that selection for admission to Lower School Course will be held in the month of January each year. It is also proved on record vide Annexure R-1 that Rule 13.7 of Punjab Police Rules 1934 which was applicable to State of Himachal Pradesh was substituted on dated 13.6.2008 vide notification No. Home (A)B(2)-4/90-II-Part. Operative part of substitution of Rule 13.7 is quoted as under:- “(Authoritative English text of this Department notification No. Home (A) B (2)-4/90-II-Part dated 13.6.2008 as required under clause (3) of article 348 of the Constitution of India). GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH HOME DEPARMENT NOTIFICATION No. Home (A)B(2)-4/90-II-Part, Dt Shimla-171002 June, 2008 In exercise of powers conferred by sub section (3) of section 46 of the Police Act 1861 and sub section (2) of section 144 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act 2007 (Act No. 17 of 2007) read with section 20 of Himachal Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1968 (Act No. 24 of 1968) the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleaded to make the following rules further to amend the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 in their application to the State of Himachal Pradesh, namely:-Short titled and commencement:1.(1) These rules may be called the Punjab Police (Himachal Pradesh Amendment), Rules 2008 (2) These rules shall come into force with immediate effect, Substitution of rule 13.7 2. In the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 in their application to the State of Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as the said rules) – for rule 13.7, the following rules shall be substituted, namely:- “13.7 – List B – Selection of candidates for admission to promotion course for constables at the police Training College. “(1) List B – (in Form 13.7) shall be maintained by each Superintendent of Police/Commandant Police Battalions of Himachal Pradesh. It shall include the names of all constables selected for admission to the Promotion Course for constables at the Police Training College. Selection shall be made in the month of August every year generally. “(1) List B – (in Form 13.7) shall be maintained by each Superintendent of Police/Commandant Police Battalions of Himachal Pradesh. It shall include the names of all constables selected for admission to the Promotion Course for constables at the Police Training College. Selection shall be made in the month of August every year generally. However, the Director General of Police shall have discretionary powers to hold these tests once or more than once in a year in case of exigencies keeping in view the vacancy position. The test shall be regulated by a standing order issued by the Director General of Police. All the successful candidates shall be kept in a panel and shall be sent for lower school course on merit basis as per available vacancies. Names shall be entered in the said list in order of their merit as determined by the departmental promotion committee constituted by the Director General of Police on the basis of tests given in Parade, General Law (Indian Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Indian Evidence Act, Local and Special Laws and Police Rules as per details given below) to test the intelligence of candidates in applying their theoretical knowledge to practical conditions, interview and examination of service records. There shall be two written papers for the test viz. Paper-I comprising of Punjab Police Rules and Practical Police Work and Paper-II comprising of Laws (including Local and Special Laws). The syllabus shall be parade, squad drill, rifle exercises, and traffic and sentry duties, dispersal of crowd. The candidates shall be tested not only in personal performance but also to see their power of command and control over a squad particularly their ability to point out mistakes committed by members of the squad and get those corrected.” As per Rule 13.7 of the Himachal Pradesh Police Act 2007 the selection shall be made in the month of August every year generally. There is proviso that the Director General of Police shall have discretionary powers to hold these tests once in a year in case of exigencies keeping in view the vacancy position. There is further recital in the Rule that test shall be regulated by a standing order issued by the Director General of Police. There is proviso that the Director General of Police shall have discretionary powers to hold these tests once in a year in case of exigencies keeping in view the vacancy position. There is further recital in the Rule that test shall be regulated by a standing order issued by the Director General of Police. There is also recital in the amended Rule that all successful candidates shall be kept in Penal and shall be sent for Lower School Training Course as per available vacancy. It is also proved on record that thereafter standing orders were issued by Director General of Police Himachal Pradesh on 04.04.2012 that as per Himachal Pradesh Police Act merit list of B-1 test will remain valid for one year only for which the test has been held. It was held by Hon’ble Apex Court of India in case reported in AIR 2007 SC 210 titled Union of India vs. B. Vauvanand others that life of a panel ordinary is one year. It was held that same could be extended only by State and that too if the statutory rule permits to do so. It is held that the High Court ordinarily would not extend the life of panel and once panel stands exhausted the question of enforcing a panel in future would not arise. It was held in case reported in (1997) 8 SCC 488 titled Surinder Singh & others vs. State of Punjab and another that candidate in panel list has no vested right for appointment and it was held that candidate in panel has only limited right for appointment up to one year i.e. when selected candidate does not join during the operation of panel list i.e. one year. It was held in case reported in (1996) 9 SCC 309 titled State of U.P. & others vs. Harish Chandra and others panel list did not survive after one year. It is well settled law that law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court of India is binding upon all Courts throughout the country. Hon’ble Apex Court of India had held that life of a panel shall be ordinarily one year only. There are no statutory rules which permit the State to extend the panel beyond one year. It is well settled law that law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court of India is binding upon all Courts throughout the country. Hon’ble Apex Court of India had held that life of a panel shall be ordinarily one year only. There are no statutory rules which permit the State to extend the panel beyond one year. It is held that panel of B-1 test will remain operative only for one year after the preparation of merit list of the candidates who have qualified B-1 test in present case. Even as per Article 73 of the Constitution of India in case of civil service under Union of India and as per Article 162 of the Constitution of India in case of civil service under the State Government if there is conflict between the Act and Rule then Act prevails and if there is conflict between Rule and standing instruction then Rule prevails. It is held that standing order issued by the Director General of Police on dated 4.4.2012 are supplement in nature and are not conflict with Himachal Pradesh Police Act 2007 and are also not conflict with Rules framed under H.P. Police Act and even on the concept of “justice equity and good conscience” the merit list of panel in civil service should not allow to remain operative in perpetuity keeping in view the interest of general public and keeping in view the appointment of meritorious candidates in public service. There is no mention in Punjab Police Act or Punjab Police Rules and there is no mention in Himachal Pradesh Police Act and Himachal Pradesh Police Rules that merit list of test of B-1 will remain operative in perpetuity. It is well settled law that when Act and Rule are silent then general law of panel would apply. As per General law panel is always operative only for one year. In view of above stated facts, it is held that prepared merit list of B1 test which is in dispute would not remain operative in perpetuity but would remain in operative for one year after the preparation of merit list of B-1 test. 9. As per General law panel is always operative only for one year. In view of above stated facts, it is held that prepared merit list of B1 test which is in dispute would not remain operative in perpetuity but would remain in operative for one year after the preparation of merit list of B-1 test. 9. Submission of learned Advocate appearing for the petitioners that two criteria while awarding marks for commendation certificates have been adopted by the respondents in different districts and it should not be allowed to prevail keeping in view the concept of equality mentioned in the Constitution of India is accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners submitted that in some districts marks have been awarded for all commendation certificates while preparing merit list and in some districts marks for all commendation certificates have not been awarded while prepared merit list. Respondents in reply have admitted that in some of the districts marks were awarded for all commendation certificates and in some districts marks were not awarded for all commendation certificates. It is held that two criteria for awarding marks for commendation certificates cannot be allowed to sustain. It is held that uniform pattern of marking will be adopted in the entire State for tests. It was held in case reported in AIR 2014 SC 2140 (Fu Bench) titled Subramanian Swamy vs. Director Central Bureau of Investigation that Court must be sensitive relating to Article 14 of Constitution of India i.e. concept of right of equality. 10. In view of above stated facts it is held that (1) Panel of merit list of B-1 test will remain operative for one year only from date of preparation and will not remain operative in perpetuity. (2) It is held that respondents will adopt uniform pattern of marking in entire State for B-1 test. (3) All other reliefs decline in the ends of justice as all other relief merged in points decided. All civil writ petitions are disposed of with above stated orders. All pending miscellaneous application(s) are also disposed of.