Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1 of 18

3. The petitioner, pursuant to Advertisement No.2 of 2016 dated 08.09.2016, applied for the post of Intelligence Officer. He cleared all the prescribed stages of recruitment. The respondent issued provisional list of selected candidates on 26.12.2016. Few candidates preferred CWP No.365 of 2017 before this Court. On account of interim orders of this Court, the respondent could not fill vacancies, out of waiting list candidates, arising on account of non-joining of selected candidates. The petitioner preferred CWP No.19529 of 2017 before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 19.07.2019. In view of orders of this Court, the petitioner was issued appointment letter dated 22.01.2020. He joined service on 30.01.2020. The selection process of 2016 was based upon Standing Order No.10 of 2016 issued by respondent No.4. As per Clause 28(b) of Standing Order, if there are equal marks of candidates, their relative merit shall be prepared on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in graduation. The respondent has determined merit list on the basis of marks in the graduation where candidates have obtained equal marks. The petitioner is elder to candidates who figured at Serial Nos.41 to 58, however, his seniority has been determined on the basis of marks of graduation.

14. Concededly, the petitioner pursuant to advertisement of 2016 applied for the post of Intelligence Officer. The respondent issued provisional list of selected candidates on 26.12.2016. Name of petitioner figured in the waiting list. On account of writ petitions filed by different candidates, the waiting list could not be effectuated. The petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court which was disposed of vide order dated 19.07.2019. In view of orders of this Court, he was issued appointment letter dated 22.01.2020. He joined service on 30.01.2020. The respondent 8 of 18 determined merit list on the basis of marks in the graduation where candidates scored equal marks. The petitioner is elder to candidates who figured at Serial Nos.41 to 58, however, has been made junior in the merit list on the basis of marks of graduation. The respondent on the basis of Clause 28 (b) of aforesaid Standing Order has considered marks of graduation instead of age where candidates scored equal marks. For the ready reference, Clause 28 of the Standing Order is reproduced as below: 


                         (b)    In the event of the candidates having equal
                                total       marks,    equal marks   in      Written
                                Examination          (and     consequently   in     the
Interview-cum-Personality Test), then their relative merit shall be prepared on the basis of percentage of marks obtained in graduation.
(c) In the event of the candidate having equal total marks, equal marks in the Written Examination and Interview-cum-Personality Test, equal percentage of marks obtained in graduation, then the candidate senior in age shall be put higher in merit.

21. Contention of the State that 1994 Rules are inapplicable cannot be countenanced. Rule 14 of Intelligence Cadre Rules specifically provides that 1994 Rules shall be applicable in respect of matters which are not specifically provided in Intelligence Cadre Rules. 1994 Rules are applicable to members of Intelligence Cadre. PPR is applicable with respect to matters which are not provided in Intelligence Cadre Rules as well as 1994 Rules. Proviso inserted by notification dated 19.01.2016 in Rule 8 categorically provides that age would be criteria for determination of seniority where two 16 of 18 candidates have scored equal marks in the same selection process. In the Standing Order, the respondent has provided that merit would be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in graduation where two candidates have scored equal marks. Merit determined by Commission or Board forms basis of determination of seniority. Candidates shown in the merit list get seniority as per their serial number in the merit list. The impugned clause is in direct contradiction to proviso inserted by notification dated 19.01.2016. It is settled proposition of law that Government Instructions cannot be contrary to Rules. Section 45 of 2007 Act itself provides that Standing Order shall not be inconsistent with the Act as well as Rules made thereunder. The State Government has issued Intelligence Cadre Rules in terms of Section 80 of 2007 Act and further made 1994 Rules applicable to members of Intelligence Cadre. Indubitably, Intelligence Cadre Rules are silent with respect to determination of seniority of candidates who have scored equal marks in the direct selection process, thus, 1994 Rules are required to be invoked. These Rules cannot be ignored. There is no question to rely upon Rule 12.2 of PPR and ignore 1994 Rules. A conspectus of Rules 14 & 15 of Intelligence Cadre Rules reveal that 1994 Rules are applicable to members of Intelligence Cadre with respect to matters which are not covered by Intelligence Cadre Rules.