Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

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.

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."

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/