State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. vs Vindhyavasini Tiwari And 4 Ors. on 25 April, 2014

[Cites 28, Cited by 1]

Allahabad High Court

State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. vs Vindhyavasini Tiwari And 4 Ors. on 25 April, 2014

1. This intra court Special Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is directed against the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 9.12.2013 by which he has quashed the Government Order dated 3.9.2013 and the consequential order dated 24.9.2013 cancelling the entire proceeding of selection/recruitment, initiated vide advertisement dated 19.5.2011 by the UP Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow on 3698 substantive posts of Sub Inspector (Civil Police), and 312 posts of Platoon Commander in Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC). Learned Single Judge has directed the State respondents to complete recruitment commencing from the stage it was stopped, in accordance with the rules as they stood before 5th Amendment Rules, 2013 expeditiously but not later than three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order before the respondents competent authority.

2. We have heard Shri Piyush Shukla, Standing Counsel appearing for the State appellants. Shri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri K.M. Asthana and Shri Seemant Singh have appeared for the respondents, who were petitioners in the writ petitions.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this Special Appeal are that prior to enforcement of U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008, and U.P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2008, the recruitment to Civil Police and PAC was governed by the executive instructions issued from time to time. The Rules made in the year 2008 separately for the Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) and PAC were notified on 2.12.2008. The U.P. Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008 has thereafter undergone seven amendments upto 11.12.2013, whereas the U.P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2008 has undergone four amendments. In this Special Appeal we are concerned with the 1st Amendment dated 2.4.2009 and the Corrigendum dated 10.6.2009, issued to 1st Amendment dated 2.4.2009 amending Rule 15 and the 5th Amendment dated 1.3.2013 by relaxing the standard of Physical Efficiency Test in Column No.II (e) in the Rules of 2008; applicable to recruitment of Sub Inspector and Inspector in Civil Police, whereby the following amendment was carried out:-

(e) Physical Efficiency Test - The candidates who are declared successful in the preliminary written test under clause (d) shall be required to appear in a Physical Efficiency Test of qualifying nature. The male candidates shall be required to complete a run of 4.8 kilometers in 35 minutes and the female candidates a run of 2.4 kilometers in 20 minutes. The procedure for conducting the Physical Efficiency Test shall be such as prescribed in Appendix-2."

4. Similarly the 3rd Amendment dated 6.6.2013 under Rule 18 of the U.P. Pradeshik Armed Constabulary Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2008, has carried out amendments to the same effect relaxing the criteria for the distance and time of run in the physical efficiency test.

5. An advertisement was published on 19.5.2011 by the State Government through U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow for recruitment of 3698 substantive posts of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) including 1849 posts in General Category; 998 in Other Backward Classes, 777 in Scheduled Castes and 74 in Scheduled Tribes. The advertisement also included recruitment of 312 substantive posts of Platoon Commander in PAC including 156 in General Category, 84 in Other Backwar Classes, 66 in Scheduled Castes, and 6 in Scheduled Tribes.

6. In the second column of the advertisement the recruitment procedure was prescribed to be undertaken in six steps namely (1) Physical Standard Test; (2) Preliminary Written Examination; (3) Physical Efficiency Test; (4) Main Written Examination; (5) Group Discussion and (6) Medical Examination. The candidates, who meet the minimum of physical standards could appear in the preliminary written examination in which they were required to secure 50% marks to be eligible for the next step for physical efficiency test. Clause 2.6 of the advertisement provided for the standard of physical efficiency test of qualifying nature. The candidates, who are declared successful in this test, are eligible to appear in the main written examination. Clause 2.6 further provided that male candidates will be expected to complete 10 kilometres race in 60 minutes and female candidates 5 kilometres race in 35 minutes in accordance with the then prevailing Rules of 2008. Steps 1, 2 and 3 are qualifying in nature. The candidates fulfilling the prescribed minimum physical standard; securing 50% marks in the preliminary written examination and completing the physical efficiency test, were eligible to appear in the further steps in the selection.

7. The physical standard test was held and carried out as per advertisement in September-October, 2011 after which the preliminary written test was held on 11.12.2011, in which approximately 2,70,000 candidates appeared. The result of the preliminary written test was declared on 1.1.2013 in which 39,315 candidates qualified to appear in the next qualifying level. The physical efficiency test was scheduled to be held between 5.2.2013 to 22.2.2013.

8. On 18.2.2013 one of the candidates namely Satendra Kumar Yadav, while appearing in the physical efficiency test of the run of 10 kilometres, died while running, before completing the test. The matter was widely published in media, on which on 20.2.2013 an order was issued by the Secretary, Government of UP, to the Chairman of UP Police Recruitment & Promotion Board directing that since one of the candidates had died after he had fallen on the ground, while taking part in the physical efficiency test, the physical efficiency test, which is a part of the selection, is postponed for a period of one month.

9. On a request made by the Chairman, UP Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow on 14.3.2012 the Secretary, Government of UP vide his letter dated 11.4.2013 directed him to complete the selection process according to UP Sub Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service (5th Amendment) Rules, 2013 notified on 1.3.2013, for the remaining candidates, who had not completed the test or who were declared unsuccessful or were absent in the physical efficiency test. Consequently a notice/notification was published on 27.6.2013 directing all the candidates, who had not participated in the physical efficiency test or who were declared unsuccessful and were absent to complete the physical efficiency test. The notification provided the revised standards in accordance with the 5th Amendment to the Rules of 2008, namely that the male candidates will be required to complete a run of 4.8 kilometres in 35 minutes and the female candidates a run of 2.4 kilometres in 20 minutes.

10. A Service Single No.91 of 2013 (Kendra Kunwar vs. State of UP and others) was filed at Lucknow Bench of this Court. The petitioner in the writ petition was declared unsuccessful in the physical efficiency test. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner after participating in the selection was declared unsuccessful in the preliminary written test and thus he has no right to challenge the procedures adopted in the selection.

11. In another Writ A No. 36383 of 2013 (Rajesh Kumar vs. State of UP & another) challenging the notification by which the 5th Amendment to the Rules of 2008 was carried out on 27.6.2013 with regard to the standards of physical efficiency test, learned Single Judge passed following orders:-

"Hon'ble Devendra Pratap Singh,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri C.B. Yadav, Learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents.

Sri Yadav prays for and is granted three weeks further time to file counter affidavit.

The petitioners in this petition and the petitioners of the connected writ petitions had applied for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector in accordance with the advertisement issued in 2011 under the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules,2008. They were subjected to physical standard test and preliminary written test and thereafter in the physical efficiency test and all of them cleared the three stages of recruitment. However, a notification was issued on 27.6.2013 amending the rules with regard to physical efficiency test which has been challenged.

The recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector is by direct recruitment and from rankers.

It is evident that the recruitment process had been initiated and it is settled law that once recruitment process had begun, rules cannot be amended so far as that recruitment is concerned, as rules of the game cannot be altered midway and the respondents cannot invoke the power of rule 28 so far as the direct recruits are concerned.

Accordingly, the respondents are restrained from proceeding further on the basis of altered physical efficiency criteria. However, it would be open for them to carry on that recruitment on the basis of the old rules or if they are so advised, the entire recruitment may be undertaken in accordance with the new criteria but following the law on the issue.

It is clarified that this interim order does not relate to promotion of rankers to the post of Sub-Inspector.

List after three weeks.

Order Date :- 11.7.2013"

12. On 13.7.2013 in compliance with the interim order passed by this Court on 11.7.2013 in Writ A No.36383 of 2013 (Rajesh Kumar vs. State of UP & another) a decision was taken by the Chairman of the UP Police Recruitment & Promotion Board in a meeting in which Director General of Civil Police, and the Director General of PAC participated, that in view of the incident of death in the physical efficiency test and considering the directions issued by the High Court, in public interest, the selection procedure be started afresh and that the vacancies, which have arisen upto June, 2015 on account of promotion/retirement may also be included in the new notification.

13. In pursuance to the resolution in the meeting of the UP Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, a decision was taken by the State Government on 3.9.2013 to cancel the entire proceedings of selection/recruitment initiated by the advertisement dated 19.5.2011, and to start the selection process afresh including vacancies upto June, 2015.

14. The Writ Petition No.17372 of 2013 connected with Writ Petition No.36383 of 2013 (Rajesh Kumar vs. State of UP & another) was dismissed as having become infructuous on the ground that the selections have been cancelled. The interim order dated 11.7.2013 merged in the final order.

15. The State Government has not yet announced the fresh selections so far. In the meantime the petitioners, who are respondents in this Special Appeal filed Writ A No.57576 of 2013 (Vindhyavasini Tiwari and 4 ors vs. State of UP & 2 ors); Writ A No.63093 of 2013 (Manjit Krishna and 16 ors vs. State of UP & 2 ors) and Writ A No.60538 of 2013 (Arvind Kumar vs. State of UP & 2 ors). Learned Single Judge considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the effect of the 5th Amendment to the Rules of 2008 by which the standard of physical efficiency test were altered and held that the amendments carried out in the Rules of 2008, do not show that the amended Rules will govern the recruitment. The State Government by Office Memorandum dated 27.6.2013 notified recommencing of the physical efficiency test on 7.7.2013, providing that besides remaining candidates who were yet to participate in the physical efficiency test in the recruitment process, even failed candidates and absentees would be permitted to complete the physical efficiency test as per amended rules i.e. reduced length of run as also altered period within which the run had to be completed. While rejecting the challenge to the vires of the amendments made by the 5th Amendment of 2013 and the 3rd Amendment Rules of 2013 for recruitment to Sub Inspector (Civil Police) and Platoon Commander in PAC, he held that in the matter of recruitment and appointment the recruitment procedure as was available on the date of occurrence of vacancy must be followed to fill in the advertised vacancies, unless and until the changed procedure or alteration or amendment in the rules has been specifically made retrospective, so as to govern the on going recruitment. When a vacancy occurs the general principle is that it must be filled in according to the procedures applicable at the time when the vacancy occurred.

16. Learned Single Judge relied on Y.V. Rangaiah and ors vs. J. Sreenivasa Rao and ors AIR 1983 SC 852; A.A. Calton vs. the Director of Education and another AIR 1983 SC 1143; P. Ganeshwar Rao and others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others AIR 1988 SC 2068; B.L. Gupta and another vs. M.C.D., 1998 (9) SCC 223; State of Rajasthan vs. R. Dayal 1997 (10) SCC 419; Arjun Singh Rathore and ors vs. B.N. Chaturvedi and ors (2007) 11 SCC 605; State of Punjab and ors vs. Arun Kumar Aggarwal and ors 2007 (5) SLR 237 and a Division Bench judgment of this Court, which has followed the aforesaid decisions, in which it was held that the vacancies existing in 2011 in respect whereof the advertisement was published on 19.5.2011, deserved to be dealt with in accordance with rules as applicable at that time. The subsequent prospective amendments would not govern the selections. The selections for the vacancies, which have arisen after 2011 may be made in accordance with the rules as amended by 5th Amendment to the rules in the year 2013 and the 3rd Amendment to the rules applicable to PAC in the same year of 2013.

17. On the second issue as to whether the competent authority can cancel a recruitment process at any stage unless the decision taken is non-arbitrary and for valid reasons, learned Single Judge held that the only reason assigned in the case is that of interim order dated 11.7.2013 passed in the Writ Petition No.36383 of 2013 (Rajesh Kumar vs. State of UP & ors). The decision, when analysed in depth would show that the respondents have completely misdirected themselves. They have misread the interim order dated 11.7.2013 in which learned Single Judge added the words "but following law on the issue". The respondents did not look into nor considered whether it was permissible in law to continue with the recruitment under the old rules, and decided to cancel the entire selections. The decision was not an informed and reasoned decision. He further held that since the interim order gets merged into final order, the decision taken in pursuance to the interim order cannot be accepted.

18. Learned Single Judge also considered the public interest involved, and held that since admittedly more than 39,000 candidates had participated in physical efficiency test, which is the third stage of recruitment; and in which number of candidates proved their physical efficiency by completing rigorous running test of 10 kilometres for male candidates and 5 kilometres for female candidates successfully as per the old rules, the candidates who have failed had no justification to request for appearing in the re-test; and similarly there was no justification for the candidates, who had failed or had absented in the test to participate in the process.

19. Learned Single Judge thereafter held that those candidates, who have been selected through more rigorous test would be more useful for police force than those who would be selected after reduced standards. In para 57 of the judgement learned Single Judge held as follows:-

"57. Be that as it may, the candidates selected through more rigorous test would be more useful for police force than those who would be selected after reduced standard. It goes beyond comprehension of any person of ordinary prudence how recruitment made with rigorous test, particularly, when the matter relates to uniform force like police, directly responsible besides other for maintenance of public law and order etc., would be less in public interest than having persons recruited with relaxed or reduced standard."

20. Learned Single Judge for the aforesaid reasons held that the decision taken by the State Government to cancel the selection process and to re-start the process afresh was entirely arbitrary and against public interest. The argument, that the rigours of the physical efficiency test, were relaxed to save the life of young candidates, was not accepted. He held that the recruitment in question pertains to police force which must answer the best standards of physical strength, endurance, stress, efficiency etc which must be quite higher than the average common man otherwise the members of police force may not be able to perform the kind of job they are supposed to. The job of a police officer requires courage, valiant, persistent onerous physical stressed duties etc., and therefore, harder standards are needed. These standards have continued for decades together and have stood the test of time. A large number of candidates have successfully achieved the requisite physical test and when such standards were actually met by large number of candidates, a single unfortunate incident could not be a ground to cancel the selections.

21. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State appellants submits that the State Government is competent to frame rules or to make any amendments in the rules. The 5th Amendment to the rules made in the year 2013 revising the standard of physical efficiency test was not challenged. The State Government did not act arbitrarily in cancelling the selections and to re-advertise the recruitment under the amended Rules. The arbitrariness or unreasonableness by itself was not a ground to challenge the decision of the State Government to cancel the selections. He submits that where the State Government was satisfied that the operation of any rule regulating the conditions of service of persons appointed to service will cause undue hardship in any particular case, it may, notwithstanding anything contained in the rules applicable to the case, by order, dispense with or relax the requirements of that rule to such extent and subject to such conditions as it may consider necessary for dealing with the cases in just and equitable manner.

22. Learned Standing Counsel further submits that the decision of the State Government to cancel the selection process is based on the subjective satisfaction, that it will cause undue hardship in selection process, where a candidate had died. The relaxation was made in public interest without wasting any time.

23. It is submitted on behalf of State appellants that in the selection process no candidate has acquired any vested right against the State Government, even if his name is included in the select list. No right had accrued to the petitioners in the selection process to be enforced by the Court. The State Government had a right to withdraw the notification and to start the process of recruitment afresh under the amended rules. Learned Single Judge has not considered the facts and circumstances in its correct perspective and that in the selection process the human approach should not be lost. There has been considerable delay in selections and that considering the shortage of police officers at the entry level it is necessary to hold selections afresh. He has relied on State of M.P. And others vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav and others (1994) 6 SCC 151 (paras 5 and 6), in which it was held:-

"5.It is not in dispute that Statutory Rules have been made introducing Degree in Science or Engineering or Diploma in Technology as qualifications for recruitment to the posts of Inspector of Weights and Measures. It is settled law that the State has got power to prescribe qualifications for recruitment. Here is a case that pursuant to amended Rules, the Government has withdrawn the earlier notification and wants to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It is not a case of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for the examination and passed the written examination had only legitimate expectation to be considered of their claims according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules have only prospective operation. The Government is entitled to conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final recruitment. Obviously no candidate acquired any vested right against the State. Therefore, the State is entitled to withdraw the notification by which it had previously notified recruitment and to issue fresh notification in that regard on the basis of the amended Rules.

6.The ratio in P Mahendran v. State of Karnataka1 has no application to the facts in this case. In that case, for the posts of Motor Vehicles Inspector, apart from the qualifications prescribed, they issued additional qualifications and selection was sought to be made on the basis of additional qualifications. It was held that since recruitment was sought to be made on the basis of the qualifications prescribed, the additional qualifications prescribed thereafter have no retrospective effect to the recruitment already set in motion. Under those circumstances, additional qualifications were directed not to be taken into account for considering the claims of the candidates on the basis of the original advertisement. The ratio therein is clearly inapplicable to the facts in this case."

24. Shri Ashok Khare has, on the other hand, supported the reasons given in the judgement. He submits that the legal position has been fairly explained by learned Single Judge namely that the selection process must be concluded in accordance with the service rules as are prevailing on the date of the advertisement. There were no such circumstances which could have validly persuaded the State Government to cancel the selections. The unfortunate death of one of the candidate was on account of lack of medical facilities, that there was nothing in the interim order passed by learned Single Judge to have cancelled the selections. He submits that the decision was political in nature inasmuch as in the middle of selection process a new Government had taken over which did not want selection process initiated at the time of old Government to continue. The decision was neither informed with relevant material nor reasonable.

25. Shri Ashok Khare submits that under the executive instructions prevailing prior to the enforcement of the Rules of 2008, the run in the physical efficiency test had to be completed almost within the same time. The death of one of the candidates out of more than 30,000, who had participated could not be a ground to cancel the entire selections as the death could have taken place in circumstances other than the stress of the test. The State Government did not take into consideration nor held any enquiries into the medical condition of the person, who had died participating in the exercise. He may have been ill or suffering with any disease or in a condition in which he should have been advised not to take the test. He submits that it is difficult to comprehend that the standard of physical efficiency test would be lowered in case of selection in Civil Police and PAC where a higher level of physical efficiency is required for the training and in the job, than in any other service.

26. The legal position that the recruitment in public service has to be completed in accordance with the rules laying down eligibility including qualification and standard during the test in accordance with the rules prevailing at the time of advertisement is not in any doubt. Any amendment in the rules mid way changing the rules of game is not permissible. The amendments in eligibility and selection process have to be applied for selections to be held in future. The change in the rules altering the conditions of recruitment by prescribing qualification and standards, which are higher or lower, affects the entire selection process and the right of persons who participate in the selection process, in violation of guarantee of equality before law, under Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India.

27. It is not necessary to add to the precedent of cases referred on by learned Single Judge. It is sufficient to state that the legal position has been further explained and followed by the Supreme Court in K. Shekar Vs. Indiramma (2002) 3 SCC 586 (para 23); B. Ramakichennin Vs. Union of India (2008 (1) SCC 362); K. Manjushree v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2008) 3 SCC 512 and Hemani Mehrotra Vs. High Court of Delhi 2008 (7) SCC 11. An argument in Himani Mehrotra (supra), that the decision in K. Manjushree (supra), did not notice the decision of Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana (1985) 4 SCC 417 and K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala and others, (2006) 6 SCC 395, was met with the following observations:-

"15. There is no manner of doubt that the authority making rules regulating the selection can prescribe by rules the minimum marks both the written examination and viva voce, but if minimum marks are not prescribed for viva voce before the commencement of selection process, the authority concerned, cannot either during the selection process or after the selection process add an additional requirement/qualification that the candidate should also secure minimum marks in the interview. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that prescription of minimum marks by the respondent at viva voce test was illegal.

16. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondent that the decision rendered in K. Manjusree did not notice the decisions in Ashok Kumar Yadav v. State of Haryana as well as in K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerela and, therefore, should be regarded either as decision per incuriam or should be referred to a larger Bench for reconsideration, cannot be accepted. What is laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent is that it is always open to the authority making the rules regulating the selection to prescribe the minimum marks both for written examination and interview. The question whether introduction of the requirement of minimum marks for interview after the entire selection process was completed was valid or not, never fell for consideration of this Court in the decisions referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent. While deciding the case of K. Manjusree the Court noticed the decisions in (1) P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India; (2) Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India; and (3) Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa, and has thereafter laid down the proposition of law which is quoted above. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case this Court is of the opinion that the decision rendered by this Court in K. Manjusree can neither be regarded as judgment per incuriam nor good case is made out by the respondent for referring the matter to the larger Bench for reconsidering the said decision."

28. In Tej Prakash Pathak and ors vs. Rajasthan High Court and others (2013) 4 SCC 540 a three-Judge Bench of Supreme Court reiterated the principles, which have been ingrained in service law since State of Haryana vs. Subash Chandra Marwa (1974) 3 SCC 220. After considering the entire case law on the subject the Supreme Court held as follows:-

"9. In the context of the employment covered by the regime of Article 309, the ''law' - the recruitment rules in theory could be either prospective or retrospective subject of course to the rule of non- arbitrariness. However, in the context of employment under the instrumentalities of the State which is normally regulated by subordinate legislation, such rules cannot be made retrospectively unless specifically authorised by some constitutionally valid statute.

10. Under the Scheme of our Constitution an absolute and non-negotiable prohibition against retrospective law making is made only with reference to the creation of crimes. Any other legal right or obligation could be created, altered, extinguished retrospectively by the sovereign law making bodies. However such drastic power is required to be exercised in a manner that it does not conflict with any other constitutionally guaranteed rights, such as, Articles 14 and 16 etc. Changing the ''rules of game' either midstream or after the game is played is an aspect of retrospective law making power.

11. Those various cases deal with situations where the State sought to alter (1) the eligibility criteria of the candidates seeking employment or (2) the method and manner of making the selection of the suitable candidates. The latter could be termed as the procedure adopted for the selection, such as, prescribing minimum cut-off marks to be secured by the candidates either in the written examination or viva-voce as was done in the case of Manjusree (supra) or the present case or calling upon the candidates to undergo some test relevant to the nature of the employment [such as driving test as was the case in Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation (supra).

12. If the principle of Manjusree's case (supra) is applied strictly to the present case, the respondent High Court is bound to recruit 13 of the "best" candidates out of the 21 who applied irrespective of their performance in the examination held. In such cases, theoretically it is possible that candidates securing very low marks but higher than some other competing candidates may have to be appointed. In our opinion, application of the principle as laid down in Manjusree case (supra) without any further scrutiny would not be in the larger public interest or the goal of establishing an efficient administrative machinery.

13. This Court in the case of the State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha and Others [(1974) 3 SCC 220] while dealing with the recruitment of subordinate judges of the Punjab Civil Services (Judicial Branch) had to deal with the situation where the relevant Rule prescribed a minimum qualifying marks. The recruitment was for filling up of 15 vacancies. 40 candidates secured the minimum qualifying marks (45%). Only 7 candidates who secured 55% and above marks were appointed and the remaining vacancies were kept unfilled. The decision of the State Government not to fill up the remaining vacancies in spite of the availability of candidates who secured the minimum qualifying marks was challenged. The State Government defended its decision not to fill up posts on the ground that the decision was taken to maintain the high standards of competence in judicial service. The High Court upheld the challenge and issued a mandamus. In appeal, this Court reversed and opined that the candidates securing minimum qualifying marks at an examination held for the purpose of recruitment into the service of the State have no legal right to be appointed. In the context, it was held:-

12. ......In a case where appointments are made by selection from a number of eligible candidates it is open to the Government with a view to maintain high-standards of competence to fix a score which is much higher than the one required for more (sic mere) eligibility.......

14. Unfortunately, the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) does not appear to have been brought to the notice of their Lordships in the case of Manjusree (supra). This Court in the case of Manjusree (supra) relied upon P.K. Ramachandra Iyer and Others v. Union of India and Others [(1984) 2 SCC 141], Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India and Others [(1985) 3 SCC 721] and Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and Others [(1987) 4 SCC 646]. In none of the cases, the decision in Subash Chander Marwaha (supra) was considered.

15.No doubt it is a salutary principle not to permit the State or its instrumentalities to tinker with the ''rules of the game' insofar as the prescription of eligibility criteria is concerned as was done in the case of C. Channabasavaiah v. State of Mysore [AIR 1965 SC 1293] etc. in order to avoid manipulation of the recruitment process and its results. Whether such a principle should be applied in the context of the ''rules of the game' stipulating the procedure for selection more particularly when the change sought is to impose a more rigorous scrutiny for selection requires an authoritative pronouncement of a larger Bench of this Court. We, therefore, order that the matter be placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice of India for appropriate orders in this regard."

29. In the present case more than 3 lacs persons participated in the selections from which about 30,000 was shortlisted upto the 3rd step which was given up and fresh selections were announced only on the death of one of the candidates. The unfortunate incident by no stretch of imagination could be a ground to cancel the entire selections. In the police force and para military services a candidate participates in the selection and thereafter in training at his own risk. The standards of physical efficiency test, which have stood the test of time and were uniformly applied to all the candidates in which more than 30,000 candidates participated, could not be treated to be rigorous on the death of one candidate. His medical condition was not subjected to any enquiry. The incident, however, was singular and should not have been taken into consideration except for sympathies to his family of the deceased. The incident, without any proper enquiry could not have been taken into account for relaxing the rule by an amendment during the process of selections and for taking a decision to cancel the entire selections in which about 3 lacs candidates had participated.

30. We are informed that on account of delay in the selections and the pendency of the writ petitions, the State Government has not yet started the exercise of making fresh selections causing serious shortage of police officers at entry level, resulting into deteriorating law and order situation in the State of UP and delay in pending investigations in the criminal cases.

31. In the past the succeeding Governments in the State of UP, have not favoured the recruitment in the police force at the entry level of Constables or Sub Inspectors initiated by the previous Governments. The administration and management of the police force by the Government to their advantage, has been a subject matter of perpetual litigation in courts in the State of UP. The selections of Constables was cancelled twice by succeeding governments in the past resulting into severe shortage of the trained Constables in the State of UP.

32. Every discretionary power in public law has to be structured on objective principles to be exercised with scrupulous care. The powers in public sphere vested in the authorities, for taking administrative decisions is given in order to deal with a case in a just, fair and equitable manner keeping in view the principles of law. The discretion must not be exercised to swallow the objectives for the purposes of which it is vested and to render the basic purpose and object of use of power nugatory.

33. In the case in hand an exercise with more serious consideration and with expert legal advice should have preceded the decision taken by the senior police officers sitting together, to cancel the entire selection. There is nothing to show that they had taken any legal opinion from State Law Officers, on the interim order passed by the Court giving them option to either pursue with the selections under the old rules or to cancel the entire selections. The State appellant has not placed any material before us that it had taken into consideration the expenditure incurred in the selections advertised in the year 2011, and the public interest to be served in notifying the selections afresh. The expenditure incurred in the selections, the requirement of the police officers at entry level, the aspirations and legitimate expectation of more than 30,000 young men and women of the State, who had crossed the 3rd level in the selections, and the absence of any scientific data which was required to be collected from National Sports Colleges or experts in the Sports Medicine has vitiated the decision to cancel the entire selections. The entire exercise is thus held to be wholly arbitrary and unreasonable.

34. We do not find any good ground to interfere with the judgment of learned Single Judge in setting aside the Government Order dated 3.9.2013, and the consequential orders dated 24.9.2013 by which the selections were cancelled.

35. The Special Appeal is dismissed. The respondents will complete the selection process initiated by advertisement dated 19.5.2011 as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no orders as to cost.

Dt.25.4.2014 RKP/

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court