Manjeet Singh and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

G.S. Singhvi, J.—The Petitioners, who were candidates for recruitment as Constables in Haryana Police, have filed this petition for quashing the recommendations made by the Selection Board. They have also prayed for striking down Rule 12.16(16) of the Punjab Police Rules, as it stand after Haryana Amendment of 1998 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules''). Their further prayer is for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the official respondents to appoint them as Constables.

In reply to the notice of motion issued by the Court, the learned Deputy Advocate General has filed written statement on behalf of the respondents.

We have heard learned counsel and perused the record.

The validity of the impugned rule has already been upheld by this court while dismissing C.W.P. No. 14659 of 1998 Jagpal Singh v. State of Haryana and Ors. and in view of that decision, the petitioners prayer for striking down Rule 12.16 (16) of the Rules cannot be accepted.

The other question whether the petitioners are entitled to be selected and appointed as Constables deserves to be examined in the light of the averments made in the writ petition, a reading of which gives an impression that the petitioners are primarily aggrieved by the recommendations made by the Selection Board. Their grievance is that the Selection Board has not made proper evaluation of their academic attainments and performance in the viva voce and in this manner they have been deprived of a valuable right to be appointed on the advertised posts.

Although, there appears some substance, in the grievance made by the petitioners in this and other connected petitions, which we are disposing of by separate orders of today, keeping in view the fact that they have got an equally efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal under Rule 12.16(19) of the Rules, we do not consider it proper to exercise writ jurisdiction at this stage for the purpose of making a detailed inquiry into the merits of the recommendations made by the Selection Board. Instead, we deem it appropriate to relegate the petitioners to the remedy of appeal. Therefore, while declining the petitioners'' prayers for striking down Rule 12.16(16), we direct that if the petitioner(s) file appeal(s) within 15 days, then the Deputy Inspector General of Police of the concerned Range, who is empowered to act as the appellate authority, shall consider the points raised by the petitioner(s) in his/their appeal(s) and decide the same after making a thorough enquiry and after perusing the entire record of selection.

If the appellate authority comes to the conclusion that the selection made by the Board is not fair or the same is otherwise vitiated due to arbitrariness etc. and it decides to nullify the selection, then appropriate order shall be passed within one month after giving notice to the persons likely to be affected by such order.

If, on the other hand, the appellate authority comes to the conclusion that the appeal(s) filed by the petitioner(s) do not make out a case for interference with the recommendations made by the Board, then a reasoned order showing appropriate consideration of the points raised by the petitioner(s) shall be communicated to him/them at the end of one month period.

Copy of this order be given dasti to the learned Counsel for the parties by the Bench Secretary after due attestation under her signatures.