Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3387 (ALL)

ARVIND CHIKARA v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-10-04

MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi, J.—Heard Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Pankaj Rai, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents. 2. In this bunch of cases, the petitioners are assailing the result of preliminary examination as well as final result issued by Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotional Board, Lucknow for selection on the post of Constables of Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Equivalent Posts Direct Recruitment-2013. 3. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ A No. 41418 of 2014 are being noted below : 4. Arvind Chikara and two others are before this Court with the following prayers: “(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of ceriorari quashing the impugned Notification dated 28.7.2014 issued by the respondent No. 4, the Additional Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow by which the result of preliminary written examination of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and equivalent posts Direct Recruitment-2013, has been published, without following the reservation criteria, by way of wholly illegal and arbitrary manner and in violation of the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 14.5.2013 (amended on 20.6.2013) and in violation of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules 2008, and Amendments made therein, enclosed as Annexure-1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to publish a fresh cut of merit list for the preliminary written examination by applying the reservation policy (vertical and horizontal) and publish the same according to the category-wise for the selection on the post of Constable in the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and equivalent posts Direct Recruitment-2013 in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.5.2013 (amended on 20.6.2013) and in pursuance of the abstract of the instructions book of the Recruitment-2013. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to declare the pre-examination result of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and equivalent posts direct Recruitment-2013 in terms of the advertisement dated 14.5.2013 (amended on 20.6.2013) and in pursuance of the abstract of the instructions book of the Recruitment-2013 and also after following the criteria of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Head Constable Service Rules, 2008 and amendments made therein. (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to produce the original records and entire proceedings of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and equivalent Post Direct Recruitment-2013 and also to produce the entire select list of preliminary written examination and criteria and norms of reservation by which the select list of the Preliminary Written Examination Recruitment-2013 has been finalized. (v) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to declare the petitioners’ selected in the preliminary written examination and to permit the petitioners to participate in the further selection process i.e. Physical Efficiency Test (PET) for the post of Constables of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and equivalent posts Direct Recruitment-2013. (vi) Issue any other writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioners as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case so as to secure the ends of justice or else the petitioners shall suffer irreparably. 5. Record in question reflects that in pursuance of advertisement dated 14.5.2013, the petitioners applied for selection on the post of Constables in Civil Police and PAC under the Ex-Servicemen (OBC Male) category. The preliminary examination was held on 15.12.2013 in which the petitioners also appeared. The result of the preliminary examination was published on the official website of the respondents on 28.7.2014 in which the petitioners were not shown as successful. It is alleged that all the petitioners have secured more than 35% marks which is more than qualifying percentage prescribed under the advertisement and instructions books but the petitioners have been declared unsuccessful in the preliminary written examination. 6. Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the present matter relates to selection of police constables in Civil Police, P.A.C. and Fire Services and the writ petitions had been filed initially challenging the result of preliminary examination. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the final result of the selection in question has already been declared by the respondents vide order dated 16th July, 2015. He filed an amendment application on 25.8.2015 and the same was allowed on the same day. By the amendment application, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs : “viii. During the pendency of the writ petitions, the final result of the selection in question has already been declared by the respondents vide order dated 16th July, 2015. He filed an amendment application on 25.8.2015 and the same was allowed on the same day. By the amendment application, the petitioners have prayed for following reliefs : “viii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notification dated 16.7.2015 issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotional Board, Lucknow, declaring the final result for selection on the post of Constables of Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Equivalent Posts Direct Recruitment-2013. ix. Issue a writ, order or direction of declaration directing the respondent authorities to declare the petitioners’ selected and send them for necessary training for the post of Constables of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Equivalent Posts Direct Recruitment-2013. x. Issue a writ, order or direction in the suitable in nature directing to some independent agency to conduct a high level enquiry in respect of the selection processes for the post of Constables of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Equivalent Posts Direct Recruitment-2013 made in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.5.2013 (amended on 20.6.2013), xi) Issue a writ, order or direction or declaration directing the respondent authorities to fill up the 2312 unfilled vacancies for the post of Constable of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable and Equivalent Posts Direct Recruitment-2013 made in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.5.2013 (amended on 20.6.2013).” 7. Shri Vijay Gautam has further stated that a Division Bench of this Court had passed an order on 29.3.2016 in Writ C No. 3417 of 2016 (Upendra and 29 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others) as under : “The learned Standing Counsel has placed on the record his instructions dated 22 March 2016, indicating that the provisions of Section 3 (5) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-servicemen) Act, 1993 have been amended by the State legislature and the Bill as passed is now awaiting the sanction of the Governor.” 8. It has been submitted by Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners that the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 (in short, the Act) has been enacted to provide the reservation to the physically handicapped, dependents of freedom fighters and ex-servicemen. Sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act provides that where due to non-availability of suitable candidates, any of the vacancies reserved under sub-section (1) remains unfilled, it shall be carried forward for further two selection years where after it may be treated to be lapsed. The said provision has been challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 49778/2015 (Alok Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others) and keeping in view of the relief prayed in the said writ petition, the State Government has taken a policy decision to amend the aforesaid Act to omit sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act and published a gazette notification dated April 7, 2016 omitting sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Act. For ready reference, the gazette notification dated 7.4.2016 is reproduced hereinafter : “UTTAR PRADESH SHASAN VIDHAYI ANUBHAG-I ****** No. 584(2)/79-V-1-16-1 (ka)9-2016 Dated Lucknow, April 7, 2016 NOTIFICATION MISCELLANEOUS In pursuance of the provisions of clause (3) of Article 348 of the Constitution of India, the Governor is pleased to order the publication of the following English translation of the Uttar Pradesh Lok Seva (Sharirik Roop Se Viklang, Swatantrata Sangram Senaniyon Ke Ashrit Aur Bhootpoorva Sainiko Ke Liya Arakshan) (Sanshodhan) Adhiniyam, 2016 (Uttar Pradesh Adhiniyam Sankhya 12 of 2016) as passed by the Uttar Pradesh Legislature and assented to by the Governor on April 6, 2016. THE UTTAR PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICES (RESERVATION FOR PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED, DEPENDENTS OF FREEDOM FIGHTERS AND EX-SERVICEMEN) (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2016 (U.P. Act No. 12 of 2016) (As passed by the Uttar Pradesh legislature) AN ACT Further to amend the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993. IT IS HEREBY enacted to the Sixty-seventh Year of the Republic of India as follows : 1. This Act may be called the Uttar Pradesh Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fights and Ex-Servicemen) (Amendment) Act, 2016. 2. IT IS HEREBY enacted to the Sixty-seventh Year of the Republic of India as follows : 1. This Act may be called the Uttar Pradesh Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fights and Ex-Servicemen) (Amendment) Act, 2016. 2. In Section 3 of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fights and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993, sub-section (5) shall be omitted.” 9. Shri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly states that the petitioners are not pressing prayer Nos. (I) to (X) of the writ petition but at the same time he submits that with regard to prayer No. XI, the respondents may be asked to fill up 2312 unfilled vacancies for the post of Constable of U.P. Police Constable and equivalent posts Direct Recruitment-2013, which was made in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.5.2013 and a directive may be issued to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to consider the claim of the petitioners in the light of the aforesaid amendment made in the Act vide notification dated 7.4.2016. 10. The aforesaid fact has not been disputed by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. 11. In view of above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, all the writ petitions are disposed of with directions to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to look into the grievance of the petitioners for filling up 2312 unfilled vacancies for the post of Constable in U.P. Police Constable and Equivalent Post Direct Recruitment-2013 made in pursuance of the advertisement dated 14.5.2013 (amended on 20.6.2013) and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law and in the light of gazette notification dated 7.4.2016, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.