Himachal Pradesh High Court
Ct. Bhupinder Kumar And Others vs State Of H.P. And Another on 4 August, 2020
Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Jyotsna Rewal Dua
1
HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CWPOA No. 3141 of 2019
alongwith
.
CWPOA No. 6428 of 2020
Reserved on : 21.07.2020
Date of decision: 04.08. 2020
1. CWPOA No. 3141 of 2019
Ct. Bhupinder Kumar and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and another
r ...Respondents
2. CWPOA No. 6428 of 2020
Ct. Sudhir Sharma and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of H.P. and another ...Respondents
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge
The Hon'ble Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge
Whether approved for reporting1 : YES
For the Petitioners: Mr. K.D. Shreedhar, Senior Advocate,
with Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate , for
the petitioners in CWPOA No. 3141 of
2019.
1
Whether Reporters of local newspaper are permitted to see the judgment ?
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP
2
Mr. Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate,
with Mr. Rakesh Chauhan, Advocate, for
the petitioners in CWPOA No. 6428 of
2020
.
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Sharma, Advocate General, with
Mr. Ranjan Sharma, Mr. Vinod Thakur and
Mr. Desh Raj Thakur, Additional
Advocates General, for the State.
______________________________________________________
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Being inter-connected, these writ petitions are taken up together for disposal.
2. to Main prayer in both these writ petitions is for quashing of order/circular, dated 18.01.2018, whereby, on the basis of State level merit list, 234 out of 931 Constables who had qualified B-I Test (2017), were nominated by the respondents for the Lower School Course, keeping in view the availability of vacancies at that time in the rank of Head Constables.
3. CWPOA No. 3141 of 20193(i) During hearing of this petition, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, restricted his prayers, and argued, only for grant of following relief No. 4 :-
"IV. That the respondents may be further directed to send all the candidates for the Lower School Course as and when ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 3 the vacancies for promotion to the post of Head Constables are available."
3(ii) All the petitioners were appointed as Constables in the .
Police Department. After completion of requisite service and satisfying the eligibility criteria, they appeared in B-I Test held by the respondents w.e.f. 08.08.2017 to 25.08.2017 at A.P.G. University, Shimla.
3(iii) About 3500 Constables had appeared in the test. 931 Constables, including the petitioners, qualified this test. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) examined the merit list of B-I Test 2017. The Committee prepared the State level final merit of 931 B-I Test qualified Constables at Police Headquarter Level. Out of 931 qualified Constables, the D.P.C. nominated 234 Constables for undergoing Lower School Course on the basis of State Level merit list. The recommendation was made on the basis of vacancies in the rank of Head Constables. The Committee further recommended that 'rest of the B-I Test pass candidates may be deputed to Lower School Course as and when vacancies in the rank of Head Constables (Executive Police) are available'. Petitioners had also qualified the B-I Test 2017 with following merit positions:-
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 4"
Sr. No. Name of Applicants Merit
List/Ranking
1. Bhupinder Singh No. 475 285
2. Pawan Kumar No. 457 886
3. Balkar Singh No. 444 475
.
4. Rajan Thakur No. 426 344
5. Vineet Kumar No. 933 499
6. Lalit Kumar No. 1293 577
7. Amit Chauhan No. 133 240
8. Anit Kumar No. 377 527
9. Som Raj No. 516 237
10. Kuldeep Kumar No. 376 404
11. Neeraj Kumar No. 814 283
12. Sanjeev Kumar No. 491 272
13. Dinesh Kumar No. 531 341
"
3(iv) Legal Position
3(iv)(a) B-I Test selection is made from amongst Constables
for undergoing promotional course (Lower School Course) to enable their promotion to the posts of Head Constables. This test is governed by Rule 13.7 of Punjab Police Rules as made applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh as well as by Standing orders issued by the respondents. The relevant part of unamended Rule 13.7 of Punjab Police Rule is reproduced hereunder:-
"13.7. List 'B'. Selection of candidates for admission to promotion Course for Constables at the Police Training College.- (1) List 'B' in Form 13.7 shall be maintained by each Superintendent of Police/Commandant, Police Battalion of Himachal Pradesh. It shall include the names of all Constables selected for admission to the Promotion Course for Constables at the Police Training College. Selection shall be made in the month of January every year generally. However, the Director General of Police shall have discretionary powers to hold these tests once, or more than once in a year in case of exigencies, keeping in view the vacancy position. The test shall be regulated by the standing orders issued by the Director General of Police. All the ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 5 successful candidates shall be kept in a panel and shall be sent for lower school course on merit basis as per available vacancies. Names shall be entered in the said list in order of their merit as determined by the Departmental Promotion Committee constituted by Director General of Police on the basis .
of the test. x x x x x x x x x."
(2) All Constables
(a) Who are middle pass and have put in more than four years of service ;
(b) Who are at least matriculates and have put in more than three years of service; or
(c) Who obtain first class with credit in the Recruits Course specified in rule 19.2; will be eligible to have their names entered in the aforesaid list, if they are not above thirty years on the first day of July in the year in which the selection is made;
Provided that no Constable who has been awarded a major punishment within a period of three years preceding the first day of January of the year in which such selection is made will be eligible for admission to this list and if any Constable whose name has been brought on this list is not sent to the Police Training College in the year he will be required to compete again with the new candidates, if he is still eligible for admission to the said list under the rules.
(3) Temporary Constables brought on List 'B' shall be absorbed in the regular establishment in preference to others.
(4) No Constable who has failed to qualify in the promotion course of Constables shall be readmitted to List 'B', unless the Principal, Police Training College, for the reasons to be recorded in writing by him considers him deserving of another chance and he is still eligible. The reasons for doing so shall be communicated by him to the Superintendent of Police concerned."
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 63(iv)(b) Standing order was issued by the respondents on 13.09.1993, incorporating following provision with respect to B-I Test in Clause 16 :-
.
"The Constables who duly qualify B-1 test will not have to appear again in the same test. All the successful candidates will be kept in a panel and they will be sent for Lower School Course on merit basis as per available vacancies."
3(iv)(c) Respondents-State enacted its own Act known as Himachal Pradesh Police Act, 2007. Under Section 144(4) whereof the Punjab Police Rules were to remain in force in the State of Himachal Pradesh to the extent of their being consistent with the 2007 Act. Power to frame rules, regulations and standing orders was provided in Sections 141, 142 and 143 respectively under the 2007 Act.
The provision of standing order issued on 13.09.1993 (already extracted above) was incorporated in Rule 13.7 by way of Punjab Police (Himachal Pradesh Amendment) Rules, 2008. By virtue of amendment in the Rules, a Constable after qualifying the B-I test once, was not required to compete again with new candidates even if his name was not sent for Lower School Course within one year of the preparation of State Level Merit List of B-I ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 7 test. He was to be sent for undergoing Lower School Course as and when vacancies in the rank of Head Constables become available.
3(iv)(d) On 06.04.2012, respondents issued an amended .
standing order regarding selection under B-I Test providing that "16: As per HPPR, List will be valid for one year only for which the test has been held."
3(iv)(e) Observations-It would be appropriate here to take note of somewhat similar factual and legal position arising out of B-I Test conducted by the respondents in 2013 about which a Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court had an occasion to deal with in LPA No. 158 of 2014, titled Suresh Kumar and others Vs. State of H.P. alongwith other connected matters. In the B-I test held by respondents in 2013, merit list of qualified candidates was prepared. Some candidates with higher merit in the list, were deputed to undergo Lower School Course. Remaining candidates figuring in the merit list of qualified Constables were not deputed for want of available vacancies in the rank of Head Constables.
The State took shelter behind the Standing Order of 06.04.2012 to contend that list, so prepared, was valid only for one year for which the test was held. Therefore, even those Constables, whose names ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 8 remained in the unexhausted list, were required to compete again in the next B-I test for their inclusion in List-B. After noticing the provisions of the Act, Rules and .
Standing Orders, this Court held that Standing Orders could not be issued contrary to and in violation of Rule 13.7 of the Rules.
Standing orders could be issued subject to Rules and Regulations and the H.P. Police Act, 2007. The executive instructions/Standing Orders cannot over-ride or supersede the Rules. Therefore, when Rules did not prescribe for a cap of one year's validity of B-I list, then the same could not be prescribed under the Standing Orders as the same would be in conflict with the Rules. Relevant concluding paras from the judgment, dated 08.01.2016 delivered in LPA No. 158 of 2014 and connected matters are reproduced hereunder:-
"23. Once the Constables have successfully competed B-1 test and were admittedly not sent for the Lower School Course only because of Clause 16 of the standing orders, we see no reason why they should be subjected to again undergo a test.
24. It would be noticed that the only reason which persuaded and prevailed upon the learned writ Court to dismiss the writ petitions was that it treated the list B-1 as a select panel and concluded that the same was valid for one year. This was not the correct legal position as the select list is the list which is normally prepared by the Selection Committee out of the candidates, who are considered fit for appointment in order of their merit. Whereas, B-1 enlisted candidates are those successful candidates, who have qualified the B-1 test and would be required to be sent to Lower School Course. It is only after successful passing of this Course that they would be entitled to be considered for promotion as Head constables. The mere passing ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 9 of the B-1 test in itself does not result in promotion and, therefore, by any stretch of imagination can be considered to be a select panel."
The above judgment has admittedly attained finality.
.
Stand of the respondents to the restricted relief now prayed in this petition is, that petitioners having qualified B-I test (2017) shall also be sent for Lower School Course as per their order of merit, prepared in the B-I test (2017) as and when vacancies become available in the rank of Head Constables. This stand is in consonance with the observations and findings given in the judgment referred to above. However, grant of the relief prayed by the petitioners and fairly conceded by the respondents in view of the judgment dated 08.01.2016, passed in LPA No. 158 of 2014 alongwith connected matters, is dependent upon the outcome of the companion matter i.e. CWPOA No. 6428 of 2020.
Therefore, it will now be appropriate to take up CWPOA No. 6428 of 2020.
4. CWPOA 6428/20204(i) Two differently placed categories of petitioners have filed this common petition. Petitioner nos 13-14 did not participate in the selection process for B-I test 2017 whereas petitioner nos 1-12 after remaining unsuccessful in this very test have instituted instant petition seeking ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 10 quashing of entire B-I test 2017 held by the respondents as well as of circular dated 18.1.2018 whereby on the basis of their State Level Merit, 234 out of 931 constables who qualified the B-I test 2017, were sent to undergo Lower .
School Course. Promotions of Constables to the post of Head Constables, if any, effected on the basis of results of B-I test 2017 have also been sought to be quashed and set aside. Petitioners have prayed for re-holding of B-I test 2017 on the following grounds;-
a) B-I test 2017 was not held in all the districts on the same date and time thereby contravening the provisions of standing order(SO) dated 2.1.2017.
b) Amendment of SO dated 2.1.2017 by SO dated 1.8.2017 enabling holding of B-I test on different dates was a deliberate, irrational exercise against the spirit of the standing order.
c) Holding of B-I test 2017 on various dates gave leverage to constables, who appeared in the test on later dates.
4(ii). Facts in continuation of those described while discussing CWPOA 3141/2019 may be noticed for determining the points raised in this petition:-
4(ii)(a) While deciding LPA 158/2014 & companion matters pertaining to issues relating to B-I test 2013, a coordinate bench of this court had interpreted various provisions of HP Police Rules and Standing Orders (which have already been discussed in para 3 above). Post this verdict, the respondents issued SO no. 11/2016 on 2.1.2017 under para 13-20 of HP Police Rules. Relevant extract from the SO is as under ;-::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 11 " Standing Order No. 11/2016
Standing order under para 13-20 of the Police Rules regarding selection of constables for admission to List-B (1) to (5)......
(6) Written Test
(a) to (b)....
.
(c ) written test will be held either in the distt. or at venue(s) to be notified by HP Police HQ as per requirements and feasibility.
(d) written test will be conducted either on computers through the online tests, software designed for the purpose or through printed question papers and answer sheets.
(e) The questions for written test will be either multiple choice/objective or descriptive or a combination of both.
(f) The duration of each test will be at least 2 hours (Two hours only) and together shall carry 150 marks i.e. 75 marks for each paper.
(g) The minimum qualifying marks percentage for the written test will be 60% for both General and SC/ST category candidates i.e. 90 marks out of 150 marks.......
(7) to (11).....
(12) General
(a)...........The test shall be initiated on the same date and time in all the districts/venue. The date will be fixed by the Director General of Police and the same would be widely advertised through HP Police website so that maximum of constable become aware of B-I test...."
In terms of above SO, B-1 test was to be held on the same date and time in all the districts/venues. Accordingly on 12.5.2017, respondents issued an advertisement for holding the test online on 16.7.2017. Test, however, was not held on 16.07.2017 and was postponed.
4(ii)(b) An amendment was carried out in SO no. 11/2016 on 1.8.2017 incorporating following provision in para 12 of SO no. 11/2016;-
"...Para 12: The test shall ordinarily be initiated on the same date and time in all districts/venues. However if required the test may also be held over a period of time by assigning slots district wise....."::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 12
On the strength of above extracted amendment, B-I test was held by the respondents w.e.f. 8.8.2017 to 25.8.2017 at APG University Shimla. 931 candidates/constables who qualified the test were placed in the .
State Level merit list, out of which, 234 constables on the basis of their merit and availability of vacancies in the cadre of Head Constables were recommended by the Departmental Promotion Committee for undergoing Lower School Course.
4(iii) Contentions
4(iii)(a) Main thrust of ld. Senior counsel for the petitioners is that
conducting B-I test for a number of days was contrary to SO no. 11/2016.
His contention is that inter-se merit of candidates cannot be determined on the basis of a test wherein they appeared on different dates. Those who appeared on later dates were in advantageous position as many overlapping questions had appeared on different dates. Though mobile phones were not allowed inside the examination hall however many candidates were seen with snapshots of some of the questions which appeared in the test. Another allegation is that for candidates of Kangra District, 2nd paper was held on 23.8.2017 but some of these candidates were allowed re-test of this paper on 24.8.2017. Most of the candidates belonging to District Kangra scored maximum marks in the 2nd paper held on 24.8.2017 since they were already aware of the questions.
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 134(iii)(b) On factual aspects, above contentions have been refuted by the Ld. Advocate General in the following manner;-
a) SO no. 11/2016 issued on 2.1.2017 laid the procedure for holding B-I .
test. The test was to be held online at the same time and date for all the avenues/districts. Accordingly a server was developed by the respondents. The User Acceptance Testing of this software was conducted for checking its feasibility and functionality. The Department of Information and Technology audited it. Thereafter the B-I test was scheduled to be held in all the districts on 16.7.2017. However the server developed technical snags resultantly the test could not be held on 16.7.2017 and had to be postponed.
b) Considering that complications in the server could re-occur, more so if all the 3500 appearing candidates were to log in for their online test at the same time on the same date, therefore, the technical aspects of the matter were re-examined by the respondents with software developer and the technical staff of the department. It was not found practicable at that time to hold the online test for all 3500 candidates at different venues on the same date and time as there could be repetitions of server complications.
Accordingly, it was decided to hold B-I test online at limited number of centres with required internet and institutional facilities. For this purpose, question bank of 10,000/- questions was prepared. Logic was applied in ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 14 the software so that no two candidates get the same question. With this aim, the SO 11/2016 dated 2.1.2017 was amended on 1.8.2017 providing for holding the written test either on same date and time in all the .
districts/venues or over a period of time by assigning district wise slots to be notified by the respondents as per requirement and feasibility.
c) 2017 was the first time that the respondents were holding B-I test online. The data was to be released directly from IT Department's server.
No offline services were created to ensure integrity of the selection process. After going through the requirements and noticing the technical snags due to which the test could not be held on 16.7.2017, the B-I test was rescheduled for the candidates of all the districts at APG Goyal University Shimla w.e.f. 8.8.2017 to 25.8.2017. The centre had necessary facilities and required infrastructure for holding the test.
d) No two candidates could get same question as the software randomly picked up questions from the question bank for each candidate. No objection in this regard was received by the respondents from any candidate. Therefore the contention of overlapping of the questions raised by the petitioners were not correct.
e) The statistics available with the respondents and the district wise positions of the candidates do not support the contentions of the petitioners about the candidates appearing later in the exams scoring ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 15 higher marks in comparison to those who appeared on earlier dates of the test.
f) Only those candidates whose tests could not be conducted successfully .
due to technical errors in the allotted systems were allowed a retest in the next shift either on the same day or the next day considering the remaining time of the shift in which errors occurred. All such errors faced by the candidates with details of their names, type of problems, follow up actions taken by the staff committees, shift etc. have also been mentioned in the proceedings. Complete transparency was maintained in the process.
Provision for retest in such cases of technical snags was brought to the notice of candidates during briefings held just prior to the test. No objection against this provision, which was otherwise fair, was raised by anyone at anytime during the test at APG University. Regarding a specific instance of candidates of Kangra District quoted by the petitioners, it was submitted that on 23.8.2017, a total of 113 candidates of Kangra District appeared in 2nd paper of online B-I test. Network problems occurred in the system of 66 candidates. Despite efforts made by the technical committee, the technical glitches could not be resolved within the given time. Therefore the technical committee decided to take 2nd paper of these 66 candidates on 24.8.2017 when 64 candidates appeared and 28 qualified the 2nd paper.
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 16Thus on the basis of above factual submissions it was urged by the respondents that amendment in SO no. 11/2016 was carried out in accordance with law, due to bonafide and genuine reasons and that B-1 test 2017 was .
conducted in a transparent and fair manner.
4(iv) Observations 4(iv)(a) It is admitted position that 2017 was the first time that B-I test was being held online by the respondents. Effort made by the respondent department for holding B-I test 2017 at same time and date on all venues/districts is visible from the record of the case. Scheduling of the test on 16.7.2017 at same time and date for all the districts is not in dispute. There is no reason to disbelieve the respondents that despite their best efforts, the server developed technical snags forcing them to postpone the test. It is understandable that fearing repetition of technical glitches in a test being held online for the first time where around 3500 candidates were to log in at the same time and date, the respondents would tread in cautiously and would re-examine the technical aspects of the matter in consultation with its software developer, Information and Technology Department and other technical experts. In such circumstances, decision to hold the online test over a period of days at one centre equipped with requisite facilities and for facilitating this decision carrying out required amendment in the standing order no. 11/2016, cannot be faulted. Power to issue standing ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 17 orders is contained in section 143 of HP Police Act 2007, which reads as under:-
"...143. Power to issue standing orders.
.
(1) The Director-General of Police may, subject to the rules and the regulations made under this Act, issue standing orders to carry out the purposes of this Act. (2) Subject to sub-section (1), the Inspector-General, the Deputy Inspector-General, the District Superintendent of Police and Commandant of a Battalion may, with the previous approval of the authority to whom they are directly subordinate and subject to the rules and regulations made under this Act, issue standing instructions within their respective jurisdiction to carry out the purposes of this Act."
It is the standing order issued by the respondents which governs the procedure for holding the B-I test. It is open for the respondents to amend the same in accordance with law. Petitioners have not pointed out any illegality in amendment of the standing order No. 11/2016. The amendment was not in conflict with the Statute or the Rules.
4(iv)(b) It has also not been demonstrated as to how the holding of B-I test w.e.f. 8.8.2017 to 25.8.2017 caused prejudice to the petitioners. All factual assertions of the petitioners viz. advantageous position of candidates who appeared in the test on later dates, overlapping of questions, a specific instance of some candidates of Kangra district allegedly allowed to re-take the 2 nd paper, have all been convincingly, effectively refuted by the respondents with justifiable reasons and explanations. There is no apparent reason to doubt the stand of the respondents that the data was released directly from the server of Department of Information and Technology. No offline services were created in ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 18 the interest of maintaining integrity. Question bank of 10,000 questions was created. Logic was applied in the system to ensure that no two candidates got the same question. Only those candidates were allowed to take the re-test whose .
tests could not be conducted due to technical errors which could not be removed within given time by the technical committee. Provision for holding of re-test in such circumstances was brought to the notice of all the candidates during briefing held before the test. Allegation regarding some candidates from Kangra District securing more marks in 2nd paper only on account of having appeared in the re-test was denied giving statistics.
4(iv)(c) Though the petitioners have tried to find fault with holding of B-I test at APG University over a period of days w.e.f. 8.8.2017 to 25.8.2017 as well as in respect of modalities thereof, which have been noticed and deliberated above, however the fact also remains that the petitioner no. 1-12 appeared in this very B-I test under the terms and conditions of the Standing Order dated 2.1.2017 as amended on 1.8.2017 without raising any demur or protest. Having participated in the test, these petitioners cannot be heard to complain that the test should have been held on same time and date in different avenues/districts instead of holding at one centre over a period of days and further that the terms and conditions for holding the test were not proper.
In this regard, it would be profitable to refer to (2019) 15 SCC 633, titled Union of India and others Vs. C. Girija and others and connected ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 19 matters, wherein following previous judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue were noticed viz. Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Bihar (2017) 4 SCC 357;
Chandra Prakash Tiwari Vs. Shakuntala Shukla (2002) 6 SCC 127; Union .
of India Vs. S. Vinodh Kumar (2007) 8 SCC 100; Munindra Kumar Vs. Rajiv Govil (1991) 3 SCC 368; Rashmi Mishra Vs. M.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 12 SCC 724; Amlan Jyoti Borooah Vs. State of Assam (2009) 3 SCC 227; Manish Kumar Shahi Vs. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576 ; Madan Lal Vs. State of J&K (1995) 3 SCC 486 ; Marripatti Nagaraja Vs. State of A.P. (2007) 11 SCC 522 ; Dhananjay Malik Vs. State of Uttaranchal (2008) 4 SCC 171; K.A. Nagamani Vs. Indian Airlines (2009) 5 SCC 515 ; Vijendra Kumar Verma Vs. Public Service Commission (2011) 1 SCC 150 ; Ramesh Chandra Shah Vs. Anil Joshi (2013) 11 SCC 309 ; State (UT of Chandigarh) Vs. Jasmine Kaur (2014) 10 SCC 521 ;
Pradeep Kumar Rai Vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey (2015) 11 SCC 493 and Madras Institute of Development Studies Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan (2016) 1 SCC 454. The broader principles which can be extracted from the above judgments, are :- (i) when a candidate appears in the examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, his challenge to the selection process is precluded; (ii) question of entertaining a petition challenging an examination would not arise where a candidate had appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 20 process was unfair or that there was lacuna therein merely because his or hers result was not palatable; (iii) those who consciously take part in the selection process cannot thereafter turn around and question the method of selection and .
its outcome; conduct of such persons disentitle them from questioning the selection process; (iv) after participating in the selection process, challenge to the same after declaration of result cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time.
In view of the above well settled legal position, petitioner Nos.
1 to 12 having participated in B-I test (2017) held at one Centre over a period of days and after remaining unsuccessful in the test cannot challenge the selection process on the ground that the test was required to be held at the same time and date in different venues/districts. Respondents have even otherwise explained the reasons and justifications for amending SO No. 11/2016 enabling them to hold the test at one venue over a period of days. Amendment has not been shown to be suffering from any illegality. The allegations of some unfair methods in the selection process have been effectively and convincingly refuted by the respondents. Petitioners No. 13 and 14 were admittedly neither eligible nor participated in the B-I test (2017), therefore, they otherwise have no locus-standi to join the issues raised by petitioners No. 1 to 12. The net result of the above discussion is that all the contentions raised by the petitioners are without any force and are accordingly rejected.
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 21Conclusion :-
5. The sum total of above discussion is that :-
5(i) CWPOA No. 3141 of 2019 is allowed in terms of relief No. 4 of its .
prayer clause. Respondents are directed to send qualified Constables as per their order of merit in the State Level Merit List of B-I test (2017) for undergoing Lower School Course as and when vacancies arise in the rank of Head Constables.
5(ii) CWPOA No. 6428 of 2020 is dismissed. However, considering a grievance common to all the petitioners with respect to non holding of B-I test by the respondents for years together thereby denying the eligible Constables right of consideration for promotion to the post of Head Constables (raised by way of CMP No. 1660 of 2020 instituted by the petitioners under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking amendment of the petition during ongoing hearing of the case), we direct the respondents to examine in accordance with applicable Act, Rules and Regulations, the possibility and feasibility of holding B-I test every year and sending qualified candidates therein on the basis of their State level merit in the B-I List for Lower School Course by giving preference to the qualified candidates of previous years B-I Lists and after exhausting the B-I lists of previous years in succession i.e. without tinkering with or violating in any manner the findings and observations of this Court in the judgment, dated 08.01.2016, passed in LPA No. 158 of 2014 and connected matters. This ::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP 22 exercise be completed and appropriate decision, in accordance with law and in view of foregoing observations, be taken within a period of eight weeks from today.
.
Both the writ petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms so also the pending applications, if any, including CMP No. 1660 of 2020 instituted in CWPOA No. 6428 of 2020.
( Tarlok Singh Chauhan ),
Judge
August 04, 2020 (K)r to ( Jyotsna Rewal Dua),
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 04/08/2020 20:23:35 :::HCHP