Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 692 (UTT)

Vipin Chandra Pandey v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-10-03

SUDHANSHU DHULIA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. The petitioners before this Court are Sub Inspectors in Civil Police and have challenged the present ongoing exercise which is being conducted by the State Government and the Police Department for promotion from the post of Sub Inspector to the post of Inspector. 2. Admittedly, in the State of Uttarakhand the posts of Inspectors in Civil Police have to be filled by way of promotion from the feeding cadre, which is that of Sub Inspector. The petitioners have challenged the procedure being adopted by the Police Department for these promotions, where the primary objection of the petitioners is on 10 marks being given for interview. The promotions are being made as per Government Orders dated 23.09.2004 and 15.12.2006 (Annexure Nos. 1 & 2 to the writ petitions) by which out of 100 marks, 10 marks are to be given for interview. The breakup of the 100 marks are as follows: - (a) Length of service 15 marks (b) Educational qualification 5 marks (c) Annual Confidential Report 35 marks (d) Awards good and above entries medals 20 marks (e) Courses and games 15 marks (f) Interview 10 marks Total 100 marks 3. Admittedly, the procedure has been laid down by the Government and there is no challenge that the same is without authority. The only challenge as stated above is regarding 10 marks for interview, which according to the petitioners, cannot be done as the post of Inspector is a Group C post. The petitioners have relied upon the Government Order dated 25.04.2007, where it has been provided that for Group C posts, as far as possible, there should be no interview and if interview is held, permission from the appropriate authority is liable to be taken. 4. In reply to this objection, the State Government as well as the interveners have stated that the Government Order dated 25.04.2007 cannot be applicable in the case of the Police Department, as the said order is general order for Group C service, whereas the Police Department is governed by special rules. Furthermore, it has been stated that it has been given in the said order dated 25.04.2007 that the selection is to be made on the basis of objective type questions with multiple choices answers. Furthermore, it has been stated that it has been given in the said order dated 25.04.2007 that the selection is to be made on the basis of objective type questions with multiple choices answers. So, where the main criteria for selection is objective type questions with multiple choices answers, in that contingency there is no relevance of an interview and the Government Order dated 25.04.2007 is for a different purpose. 5. In the present case while promotion exercise is to be made from the post of Sub Inspector to the post of Inspector in Civil Police, admittedly, there is no written examination of objective type questions with multiple choices answers. The entire selection on the post of Inspector is based on past performance, service record, awards, etc. The only criteria where the actual assessment at the time of granting such a promotion is interview for which only 10 marks have to be given out of 100 marks. Therefore, principally this Court is not in agreement with the contention raised by the petitioners that there is some kind of illegality on the part of the Government as they have to give 10 marks out of 100 marks for the interview. 6. This is, however, subject to one caveat, which is also for the purpose of abundant precaution. The contention has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. K.P. Upadhyaya and Mr. Vinay Kumar, that although interview is of only 10 out of 100 marks but since these marks are to be awarded at the end of the selection process and since the Members of the Board, who take this interview are already aware of the marks so far achieved by each of the candidates the award of the marks in the interview has a very crucial bearing on the entire selections process. In the interview even a difference of one or two marks would be a difference between selection or rejection of a candidate. In the interview even a difference of one or two marks would be a difference between selection or rejection of a candidate. This court is totally in agreement as far as this anxiety of the petitioners are concerned and therefore for bringing out of a transparency and objectivity in matter and also considering the fact that the Police Department in the State of Uttarakhand remains the only Department, which is so far not governed by any statutory Rules but is governed by the Government Orders or executive orders, it becomes necessary that the awarding of these marks must be made as far as possible with total transparency and fairness. 7. Hence though no interference is required in the selection process, however, in order to make the procedure fair and transparent, it is provided that marks already achieved by the candidates shall not be placed before the Members of the Board constituted for conducting the interview. It is further provided that the Members of the Board, in case they award three or less marks to a candidate must assign reasons for doing so. Similarly if they award seven marks or more to a candidate, they must assign special reasons for doing that as well. 8. Let the entire exercise of interview shall be conducted afresh in the light of the observations made above and the result be declared forthwith. 9. Subject to the observations and directions as aforesaid, writ petition stands disposed.