Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. Shri Manish Goyal further submitted that in terms of the direction issued by Hon'ble Apex Court in Manish Kumar vs. Union of India and ors2 the guideline was issued by the State Government vide letter dated 18.5.2017 providing, therein, the process of recruitment of remaining 1,01,619 vacancies of Constable in the State of Uttar Pradesh. During the ongoing process of selection of the year 2015 and in compliance of the direction of Hon'ble Apex Court dated 24.4.2017 the requisition for recruitment process of the year 2017 was sent to the Police Board on 12.1.2018. The collective left over vacancies in the Constable (Civil Police) Recruitment 2015 and Constable PAC Recruitment 2015 were carried forward in the requisition of Constable recruitment of the year 2018, which was sent to the Police Board on 30.10.2018. The same vacancies have been quantified as 2846 and a district-wise chart has also been prepared giving the vacancies occurred in each and every district. With regard to the remaining posts of Constable (PAC) similar procedure was initiated by the respondents in terms of the result dated 21.5.2018. The Additional Director General (PAC) vide his letter dated 17.10.2018 intimated that 18,580 posts of Constable (PAC) were available for recruitment and 1366 remaining posts of Constable (PAC) 2015 whose result were not declared by the Police Board till date, were included in the category of ongoing recruitment. In pursuance of the final result of police constable as provided by the Police Board on 21.5.2018, the entire process was completed and the left over vacant posts were carried forward by the Police Board in the recruitment and selection process of the subsequent recruitment year 2017.

15. Shri Manish Goyal further submitted that mere participation in different stages of selection process does not vest any indefeasible right to a candidate much less a legitimate expectation to be included in the select list. (Refer: State of M.P. And ors vs. Sanjay Kumar Pathak and ors7; Union Public Service Commission vs. S. Thiagarajan and others8 and Shankarsan Dash vs. Union of India9. He has also submitted that the petitioners have already participated in the selection process and since very beginning they were known with the conditions applicable to such selection process. Subsequently, they cannot tern around and challenge the selection process after being declared unsuccessful. (Refer: Dr. Sarojkumari vs. R. Helen Thilakom and ors)10; Ashok Kumar and another vs. State of UP and others11 and K.H. Siraj vs. High Court of Kerala and others12. Lastly, he has submitted that the difference between physical efficiency test under Rule 15 (c) and medical examination under Rule 15 (g) of the Rules, 2015 is not of nomenclature but is substantive. (Refer: State of U.P. and 5 others vs. Bhanu Pratap Rajput)13.