Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Before we enter into the legal aspects of the reference, it is necessary to mention the facts briefly which are as under.

4. To fill up 530 posts of Sub-Inspector, advertisement was issued on 4.10.1991 wherein the upper age limit for candidates was mentioned as 30 years. Fixing maximum age as 30 years was challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 32156 of 1991, Indra Bahadur Singh v. State of U.P. and Ors., and the same was dismissed vide order dated 31.3.1992. The selection process could not be completed and it stood cancelled vide order dated 9.6.1994. A fresh advertisement was issued on 24.6.1994 for filling up 674 posts including the posts advertised earlier on 4.10.1991 of Sub-Inspectors of Police fixing the upper age limit as 30 years. However, the order dated 9.6.1994 by which selection process initiated in pursuance of advertisement dated 4.10.1991 stood cancelled, was challenged before this Court in Ram Darash Rat v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1995) 2 UPLBEC 985, which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 23.5.1995 and the order dated 9.6.1994 was quashed with a direction to complete the selection process which commenced by virtue of advertisement dated 4.10.1991. The said judgment was upheld by the Division Bench in Special Appeal with some modification in Jagdamha Prasad Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1996) 4 UPLBEC 2605. The selection process was completed and result was declared on 2.12.1996 for filling up all the advertised vacancies. The advertisement dated 24.6.1994 could not be carried out further. Neither examination nor interview took place, thus, stood abandoned. In order to facilitate the applicants therein, news items were published in the newspapers that they could take back the fee etc. deposited by them. To fill up further vacancies, a fresh advertisement was issued on 4.5.1999 wherein the maximum age limit was fixed as 25 years as on 1.1.1999. The said advertisement was challenged by filing a Writ Petition No. 20771 of 1999,. Jai Prakash Rai and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.. However, the petition stood dismissed vide judgment and order dated 3.3.2000 and that order was challenged by filing Special Appeal No. 232 of 2000, Subhash Chandra Sharma (supra), which also stood dismissed, Being aggrieved, a Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 12045 of 2000 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court which stood dismissed vide order dated 16.8.2000. Selection process was completed. Appointments had been made and the advertisement dated 4.5.1999 stood exhausted. Petitioner-appellants had also challenged the advertisement dated 4.5.1999, and the petition filed up by them was also dismissed along with other cases vide judgment and order dated 3.3.2000. They did not challenge the said judgment further as had been done by others. Respondents further advertised the vacancies vide advertisement dated 1.9.2001 fixing the maximum age limit of 25 years which was enhanced vide Government Order dated 20.9.2001 to 28 years and last date for submission of applications was also shifted from 15.1.2001 to 31.10.2001.The Writ Petition No. 37667 of 2001 was filed by 19 petitioners challenging the eligibility criteria, i.e. fixing the maximum age as 28 years by Government Order on the ground that it was violative of the mandatory provisions contained in Rules, 1972, which prescribed maximum age as 32 years and further relaxation upto five years in case of reserve category candidates. The said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 23'. 11,2001. When the issue was assailed before the Division Bench, the aforesaid four questions have been referred to for opinion. In the meantime, result of the main-examinations was declared on 28.7.2003. Writ Petition, i.e. No, 34757 of 2003, Durgesh Pratap Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors., challenging the said result also has been dismissed on 26.2.2004.