AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, C.J.
The issue which has been raised in the present proceedings relates to the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008 Rules For direct recruitment on the post of sub-inspector and platoon commander, a five phase programme of examinations was fixed by the recruitment Board namely, (i) Physical Standard Test; (ii) Preliminary Written Examination; (iii) Physical Efficiency Test; (iv) Main Written Examination; and (v) Group Discussion.
Part-V of the Rules deals with the procedure for recruitment. Rule 14 requires the appointing authority to determine and intimate the number of vacancies to be filled during the course of the year of recruitment, including those which are reserved for the reserved categories. Under Rule 6, reservation for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Categories, is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993 as amended and the orders of the Government issued from time to time.
The procedure for direct recruitment after vacancies are advertised is provided in Rule 15. Under Rule 15(h), the marks obtained by each candidate in the main examination are added with the marks obtained in the group discussion. On the basis of the total marks obtained, the Board prepares a tentative select list for each category of candidates in respect of the vacancies which are then sent to the head of the department with a recommendation subject to the conduct of a medical test and the verification of testimonials/character. Rule 15(h) provides that no waiting list shall be prepared by the Board.
Rule 15(h) is in the following terms:
"Tentative Select List
Marks obtained by each candidate in the Main Examination under clause (b) of rule 15 shall be added to the marks obtained by him in the Group discussion under clause (g). The board, shall on the basis of total marks obtained by each candidate, in the Main Written Examination and Group Discussion, in view of reservation policy prepare tentative select list of each category of candidates in respect of vacancies and send the same to head of the department with recommendation subject to Medical Test and verification of Testimonials/Character. It shall be sent by Head of the Department to police Head Quarters for further action. No waiting list shall be prepared by the Board. In case of equal marks obtained by two or more candidates in the main examination, candidate obtaining higher marks in the main written examination shall be placed higher in merit list. The board shall up load the list of all candidates alongwith the marks obtained by each candidate in the board website."
Under Rule 15(i), a medical test is required to be conducted whereas under Rule 15(j), a character verification is envisaged prior to the issuance of a letter of appointment.
Rule 15(j), insofar as is material, provides as follows:
"Character verification
Prior to issuance of appointment letter completion of character verification shall be necessary. Verification of character/testimonials shall ordinarily be completed within a month. Candidates if found unfit in medical Test or on adverse facts being brought to light in their testimonials/character verification they shall be declared unfit by the Appointing Authority and such vacancies shall be carried forward for further selection..."
In the present case, each of the four petitioners belongs to the general category. The petitioners were not selected due to the fact that they secured less than the cut off marks. The cut off marks for the posts of sub-inspector were 328.5 and for platoon commander 326.1667. Admittedly, each of the petitioners was below the cut off marks: their respective marks as disclosed in the counter affidavit being 323.4167, 323.6667, 323.6667 and 323.05. The petitioners contend that the expression "such vacancies shall be carried forward for further selection" in Rule 15(j) must be construed to mean a carry forward for selection under the same advertisement. In other words, the submission is that where candidates have been found to be unfit in the medical examination or on the ground of character in the process of verification, the expression "such vacancies shall be carried forward for further selection" must mean that these vacancies will be offered to the next available candidates in the order of merit. In the alternative, it is submitted that if the words are interpreted to mean that they will be carried forward to the next round of selection, the rule must be treated to that extent to be ultra vires of Article 14.
Now, at the outset, it must be noted that in the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated that in the recruitment process through a notification dated 16 March 2015, 3698 candidates have been selected on the post of sub-inspector (civil police) and 312 candidates have been selected for the post of platoon commander in the PAC. The counter affidavit further states that due to non availability of suitable candidates in different categories, 205 posts under the quota of dependents of freedom fighters (against 3698 posts of sub-inspector) and 21 posts (against a total of 312 posts of platoon commander) remained unfilled which were carried forward for further selection.
The chart which has been submitted before the Court on behalf of the State also indicates that 104 candidates (comprising of a hundred candidates for the post of sub-inspector and four for platoon commander) were found to be medically unfit. The contention of the petitioner is that these posts should be offered to the petitioners. The petitioners also submit that in addition 46 vacancies were in respect of those candidates who were absent during the course of medical examination and these must also be allotted in the same process of selection.
In Manoj Manu vs. Union of India Civil Appeal No. 6707 of 2013, decided on 12 August 2013, the Supreme Court held as follows:
"17. This Court in Sandeep Singh vs. State of Haryana & Anr. (2002) 10 SCC 549 commended that the vacancies available should be filled up unless there is any statutory embargo for the same. In Virender S. Hooda & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Anr. , AIR 1999 SC 1701, 12 posts for direct recruitment were available when the advertisement for recruitment was made which was held in the year 1991. Some of the selected candidates did not join in this batch almost similar to the present case, the Court held that the appellants case ought to have been considered when some of the candidates for reasons of the non-appointment of some of the candidates and they ought to have been appointed if they come within the range of selection."
Significantly, the judgment in Sandeep Singh which has been cited with approval in the above extract holds that vacancies available should be filled up unless there is a statutory embargo on the same.
In the present case, there is a clear statutory embargo which provides that such vacancies shall be carried forward for further selection which is specifically in the context of candidates being found unfit in the medical test or being invalidated as a result of the character verification. Rule 15(h) clearly contemplates drawing up of a tentative select list on the basis of marks obtained in the main written examination and group discussion for each category of candidates which is then sent to the head of the department with a recommendation, subject to medical test and verification of testimonials/character. Rule 15(h) specifically contemplates that no waiting list is to be prepared by the Board. It is in this background that Rule 15(j) provided that prior to the issuance of letters of appointment, completion of the character verification is necessary and if any candidate has been found unfit in the medical test or as a result of the character verification, these vacancies shall be carried forward for further selection. The principle that the vacancies which are available should be filled up is subject to statutory rules laying down the method and process of selection. Each of the petitioners admittedly has received marks which are lower than the cut off which was prescribed for the general category of candidates and had been unable to be selected on the basis of the cut off.
Hence, we find no merit in the submission which has been urged on behalf of the petitioners that Rule 15(h) should be so construed as to require that the vacancies which remain unfilled as a result of unfitness of 104 candidates and the absence of 46 should be offered to the petitioners or to other persons in order of merit. This would be plainly contrary to the provisions contained in the Rules.
During the course of hearing, the issue of interpretation alone has been pressed for the consideration by the Court and the issue of vires was not pressed.
For these reasons, we are unable to accept the submissions which have been urged on behalf of the petitioners.
The writ petition shall, accordingly, stand dismissed.