Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2018 – rr.6, 14 and 15 – Selection undertaken in respondent-State pursuant to advertisement for recruiting 4010 posts namely 3698 posts of Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police) and 312 posts of Platoon Commander (Provincial Armed Constabulary or PAC) of Uttar Pradesh – Final results were published seeking to fill up all the posts except 226 posts namely 205 and 21 posts reserved for dependents of freedom fighters – Challenge raised to the selection of certain candidates inter alia on the ground that said candidates had used whitener/blade while answering questions in the main examination – Final results revised excluding names of all such candidates – Challenge to – Direction by Supreme Court in Hanuman Dutt Shukla case that such candidates whose names were excluded as a result of use of whitener or blade in the main examination, would also be accommodated – List of 809 successful candidates declared – Entire selection process and the revised final result again challenged in the High Court – Writ petitions dismissed – In the meantime, another set of petitions challenged the entire selection process – Direction that the result of the main written examination be prepared afresh, affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No.416 of 2016 – On appeal, held: Considering the facts that the present selection has seen various interventions including revision in final list on more than one occasion and considering the large number of vacancies of 607 posts where certain candidates either discontinued training or did not qualify in medical examination/character verification, as a one time exception it is directed that such 607 posts be made available in the present selection itself – Decision of the High Court in Special Appeal No.416 of 2016 was correct – Going by the Rules, only 12030 candidates could have been allowed to participate in Group Discussion against the number of 14256 – But at this length of time, it would be inappropriate to re-do the exercise and eliminate the excess number from consideration, more particularly when the number of 14256 represents all those who secured 50% or more marks in the written examination and there are still 607 vacancies to be filled up – In terms of the decisions of Supreme Court in Hanuman Dutt Shukla case 809 candidates were given benefit, followed by 24 similarly situated candidates – To this number of 833, 189 similarly situated candidates will have to be added as dealt with in the order passed by Supreme Court – This aspect was repeatedly made clear that those vacancies would be in addition – Therefore, total number of candidates who could be selected in the selection relatable to the year 2011 in any case ought not to be less than 4010+1022 – Directions issued.
Issuing directions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Considering the facts that the present selection has seen various interventions including revision in final list on more than one occasion and considering the large number of vacancies of 607 posts where certain candidates either discontinued training or did not qualify in medical examination/character verification, as a one time exception it is directed that such 607 posts be made available in the present selection itself. One more reason for such direction is that large number of posts namely more than 8000 posts are currently available for succeeding selections. Similarly, the decision of the High Court in Special Appeal No.416 of 2016, was correct. Going by the Rules, only 12030 candidates could have been allowed to participate in Group Discussion against the number of 14256. But at this length of time, it would be inappropriate to re-do the exercise and eliminate the excess number from consideration, more particularly when the number of 14256 represents all those who secured 50% or more marks in the written examination and there are still 607 vacancies to be filled up. [Para 25][347-E-H]
1.2 In the order dated 31.10.2017, Supreme Court had emphasized the adherence to eligibility of 50% while the order dated 30.11.2017 had directed completion of Selection process in the order of merit. Thereafter, the order dated 16.01.2018 categorically stated that three factors namely, merit, reservation and preference should be taken into consideration. Therefore, the submission that the benefit, if any, of the order or directions should be confined to those who are/were before this Court or the High Court alone, in the capacity of either the petitioners or the intervenors ignoring merit cannot be accepted. [Para 26][348-A-B]
1.3 Though the number of candidates called for group discussion ought to have been thrice the notified vacancies i.e. 12030, the Board had called 14256 candidates. The first list viz. the result notified on 25.06.2015 had named 3784 candidates leaving out 226 unfilled posts as a result of non-availability of candidates in the category of dependents of freedom fighters as stated above. In terms of the decisions of this Court in Hanuman Dutt Shukla 809 candidates were given benefit, followed by 24 similarly situated candidates. To this number of 833, 189 similarly situated candidates as dealt with in the order passed by this Court on 14.08.2018 will have to be added. The decision of this Court in Hanuman Dutt Shukla was very clear that the revised final list dated 25.06.2015 ought not to be disturbed but benefit must be given to those candidates who were excluded for use of whitener/blade etc. while answering the main examination. This aspect was repeatedly made clear that those vacancies would be in addition and therefore, the number of 1022 (809 in terms of Hanuman Dutt Shukla, 24 in terms of case of Deepak Kumar and
189 in terms of the order dated 14.08.2018) have to be reckoned in addition to the figure of 4010. Therefore, total number of candidates who could be selected in the selection relatable to the year 2011 in any case ought not to be less than 4010+1022. Status and identity of the candidates who form the group of 1022 candidates is very clear. In this context it is to be noted that the vacancies notified are only approximate and there is nothing wrong if the number increases in the exigencies of service. [Para 28][349-C-H]
1.4 In the peculiar fact situation of the present case, as a one time exception, following directions are issued :-A) 607 posts lying vacant as a result of certain candidates having discontinued training or having failed to qualify in medical examination/character verification, shall be offered and made available in the present selection itself, strictly in order of merit and subject to fulfilment of having obtained 50% or more marks.
B) There are 226 unfilled posts as a result of non-availability of candidates in the cadre of dependents of freedom fighters. Normally, “freedom fighters” is not a category which, over a period of time, would keep increasing. In any case, there are selections which are round the corner in which more than 8000 posts are available for the candidates. The interest of those candidates who answer the description “dependents of freedom fighters” would therefore be taken care of in the succeeding selections. These 226 posts should also be made available for the present selection.
C) The State Government and its authorities are therefore directed to make available 833 posts (607+226) for the present selection strictly in order of merit subject to the fulfillment of the criteria that the candidates had obtained 50% or more in the main written examination, in keeping with principles of reservation and preference.
D) Direction to fill-up the above 833 posts in terms of this Judgment is in addition to any other directions already issued. E) A group of matters namely SLP (Civil) Nos.10674 of 2018, 10675 of 2018, 12891-12893 of 2018 and 15699 of 2018 are filed by individuals who are either Head Constables or Constables in the police service and are seeking promotion to the post of SubInspectors (Civil Police). Since the nature of controversy and the questions raised therein are completely unconnected with the present selection, said matters are segregated and it is directed that they be listed immediately before the appropriate Bench for consideration. [Para 29][349-C-H; 350-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.