Service Law – Appellants belonging to Scheduled Caste category were posted as Constables/Head Constables in the Police Department of Uttar Pradesh – They appeared in the limited departmental examination held for filling up the posts of SubInspector (Civil Police) – Conduct of examination was to be governed by 2008 Rules – Candidates were required to appear in the written examination carrying 300 marks–Written examination comprised of four subjects (2 papers of 100 marks and 2 of 50 marks each) and the candidate who failed to obtain minimum 50 marks in each subject would not be eligible for promotion – In challenge to the examination on the ground that 18 questions were set in erroneous manner, Single Judge directed the authorities to award full marks to every candidate in respect of those 18 questions– Order stayed by the Division Bench – Supreme Court issued certain directions – Select list was published thereafter – In another SLP, Supreme Court vide order dtd. 10.08.15 directed that no court shall entertain any grievance relating to this particular selection – Writ petition filed by the appellants submitting inter alia that while considering 50 per cent cut off marks, criteria must be “paper” wise and not “subject” wise– In view of the order of Supreme Court dtd. 10.08.15, the High Court dismissed the writ petition – Plea of the appellants that subject nos.3 & 4 of 50 marks each are part of the same paper and the appellants have secured 54% in the paper though may not have secured 50% in subject nos.3 & 4, thus on the strenght of the aggregate from all the subjects, they would be entitled to be promoted – Held: Fact that the appellants had not obtained
50 per cent marks in each of the subjects is accepted – Present matters concern limited Departmental examination where the idea is, regardless of seniority levels, a meritorious candidate be given chance to reach higher levels – Merit is therefore the key element and there can be no compromise and dilution of the criteria – What is required in terms of the Rules is minimum of 50 per cent marks “in each subject” – Subjects are delineated in the Rules and there are four subjects – Irrespective whether subjects 3 and 4 form part of the same paper, the express language of the Rules does not permit any such interpretation and the construction as suggested by the appellants cannot be accepted – Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008 – r.16.
Disposing of the matters, the Court
HELD : CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4837 OF 2019
1.1 The fact that the appellants had not obtained 50 per cent marks in each of the subjects is accepted. In these matters with limited Departmental examination where the idea is, regardless of seniority levels, a meritorious candidate be given chance to reach higher levels. Merit is therefore the key element and there can be no compromise and dilution of the criteria. What is required in terms of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008 is minimum of 50 per cent marks “in each subject”. The subjects are delineated in the Rules and there are four subjects. Irrespective whether subjects 3 and 4 form part of the same paper, the express language of the Rules does not permit any such interpretation and the construction suggested by the appellants cannot be accepted. The reliance placed on the order passed by Supreme Court in Writ Petition (c) No. 45 of 2016 is also completely misplaced. The order by itself did not decide any controversy and as a matter of fact it was observed that the order would not automatically operate as a precedent for other cases. Therefore, the submission is rejected. [Paras 12-15] [877-D-H; 878-A]
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.4838-4839 OF 2019; CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4840-4842 OF 2019; CIVIL APPEAL NO.4845 OF 2019
1.2 The issues involved in the matters being identical to the earlier matter where similar contentions were raised, no reason to interfere. [Para 18] [878-D]
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4844 OF 2019; CIVIL APPEAL
NO.4846 OF 2019; CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 4843 OF 2019
1.3 The criteria under the Rules is minimum of 50 per cent marks in each of the subjects. It was open to the State to have prescribed a relaxed or a different criterion for the reserved categories candidates. However, no such relaxation was granted by the State and consequently no relief can be granted by the Court. In terms of the Rules, as they stand, the criteria of minimum of 50 per cent marks has to be met. Since the appellants do not fulfil the criteria, no exception can be made. [Para 22] [879-A-B] M.A. No.732 of 2019 in TC (C) No.287 of 2017
1.4 It is now submitted that the grievance raised by the applicants in the Writ Petition was in respect of selection through limited departmental examination for promotion to the post of UP Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) Rankers Examination and was not by way of direct recruitment and that the matter was wrongly clubbed with Civil Appeal No.11370 of 2018. The Judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 is recalled to the extent it disposed of Transfer Case (Civil) No.287 of 2017. The principal prayer in the writ petition is to the effect that the respondent be directed to give reservation and relaxation to the writ petitioners as SC/ST candidates. The submission in that behalf has already been considered in the matters dealt with above. No reason to interfere in the matter. Transferred Case No.287 of 2017, therefore, dismissed. [Paras 25, 26] [879-E-G]
M.A. No.643 of 2019 in TC (C) No.297 of 2017
1.5 It is now submitted that the grievance raised by the applicants in the Writ Petition was in respect of selection through limited departmental examination for promotion to the post of UP Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) Rankers Examination and was not by way of direct recruitment and that the matter was wrongly clubbed with Civil Appeal No.11370 of 2018. We, therefore, recall the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 to the extent it disposed of Transfer Case (Civil) No.297 of 2017. [Paras 27-29] [879-E-F]
1.6 The principal prayer in the writ petition is to the effect that the respondent be directed to give reservation and relaxation to the writ petitioners as SC/ST candidates. The submission in that behalf has already been considered in the matters dealt with above. No reason to interfere in the matter. Transferred Case No.297 of 2017, therefore, stands dismissed. [Para 30][879-F-G] Qamar Hasan Khan & others v. State of U.P. & Ors. Decision of Supreme Court dated 10.08.2015 in
SLP(C) No. 25377-78 of 2014 ; Alok Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others 2018 (15) SCALE
189 – referred to.
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.