AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The batch of Appeals and writ petitions relate to selection to the post of Ranker Sub Inspector (Civil Police). Appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, by which, the learned Single Judge, taking note of the earlier order passed, took the view that the directions issued were not followed. The primary question, which is projected, relates to right of persons, who are members of the Provincial Armed Constabulary and Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB) to vie for selection for the post in question. Learned Single Judge took the view that the inclusion of personnel from these wings appears to be against the provisions of PAC Act, which is an specific Act, under which the Provincial Armed Constabulary is constituted, inter alia. However, in Paragraph 24, it is stated as follows:
"24. It is open to the Government to either fill all the posts of Sub Inspector (Ranker), or to keep some posts vacant to be filled by other wings, which are presently being kept out, as their inclusion in the promotion would depend upon a proper justification by the Government, as and when it happens."
According to the learned counsel for the appellants Sri Shobhit Saharia, who advocates the case of the persons, who are now excluded by the order of the learned Single Judge, through out these categories are permitted to participate in the selection. There is a common test, by which persons at the level of constables are recruited; depending on the performance and choice, they are allocated to Civil Police/Armed Police/Intelligence, PAC or IRB.
According to Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel and Sri Vinay Kumar, who assists him, the IRB persons were allocated on the basis of common test held only once in 2005.
As far as Writ Petition No. 2266 of 2015 (S/S) is concerned, the primary complaint is that in regard to questions, which were put. In view of what we will say subsequently in this order, we will not wish to pronounce on it at this stage.
Sri C.S. Rawat, learned counsel for the appellants in SPA No. 637 of 2015 would raise two complaints, namely, that marks have been given in regard to reward illegally and secondly, an executive order in the year 2008 regulating the manner in which the ACR is to be prepared has been violated and therefore, the selection is bad. There is also a complaint on behalf of the appellants in SPA No. 608 of 2015 that the entire selection itself was conducted in an illegal manner. In this regard, we must prima facie notice that the learned Single Judge did take note of the said submission and has dealt with the aspect in so far as he felt that the selection was vitiated and provided therefor.
Learned Chief Standing Counsel would, in fact, submit that the persons of IRB and PAC were being permitted. In 2010, which was the last selection; also they were permitted.
It is submitted by Sri Vinay Kumar that, in fact, IRB is not mentioned in the 2010 advertisement.
Learned Chief Standing Counsel would, in fact, submit that the selection commenced in February, 2014 and the persons belonging to PAC and IRB were found eligible to be selected.
Sri Vinay Kumar would, in fact, submit another complaint also in Writ Petition No. 2532 of 2015 (S/S) that marks have been given towards training beyond 10 years, even though the advertisement provides for giving marks for training only upto the period of ten years. It is sought to be met by the learned Chief Standing Counsel from the very same advertisement, which according to him, allows the candidates performance in training inter alia to be assessed up to 1st January of year of selection and therefore, the period was justified and, there was an order in 2011, and on the basis of that procedure was considered and that order was not challenged.
In regard to the contention about PAC fairly elaborate arguments were addressed based on Section 5 of the PAC Act, 1948. Also argument was addressed on the basis of Regulations made and provisions of Section 86 among other provisions of the Uttarakhand Police Act.
We had passed an order and we had directed that the members of the PAC and IRB will also be considered and the result will not be declared. From the list, which is made available, it appears that if the members of PAC and IRB are not excluded, then certain persons from them, are eligible to be included in the final select list. Persons, who are selected are required to be sent for six months'' training at the expenses of the Government.
We would think that in the nature of the contention we cannot possibly conclude the hearing today and finally adjudicate the matter. Learned Chief Standing Counsel would submit that the selection relates to February, 2014 and the matter should not be held up. Of course, Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned Senior Counsel would point out that Ardh Kumbh Mela is about to commence and actually, there is no hurry to conduct the selection as such.
We would think that prima facie, having heard, the arguments, provisionally appellants who are the members of the PAC, whose names find mention in the list, should be considered and they should be sent for training; again we repeat purely provisionally without conferring any right on them by virtue of the fact of our order, by which they will be sent for training.
As far as 10 years'' period, which is pointed out by Sri Vinay Kumar in Writ Petition No. 2532 of 2015 (S/S) is concerned, since the final result is not published, we leave it open to the Authorities to consider the aspect arising from the same and to prepare the list and publish the same as they consider in accordance with law, but any such result, which will be published will be subject to the final decision in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.
As far as Writ Petition No. 2266 of 2015 (S/S) is concerned, we stood informed that he is eligible to be in the select list. So, we would not consider the complaint at this stage any further.
As far as Sri C.S. Rawat''s complaint is concerned, we are not inclined to consider the complaint at present, but we make it clear that certainly, the result which we are permitting the Authorities to publish, will be subject to the result of the said case.
Having heard the arguments in regard to the personnel relating to IRB, who are appellants before us, we would think that we should permit them also. We need not exclude them at this stage and they should also be provisionally permitted to undergo training, should they otherwise find place in the select list to be published. Accordingly, we leave it free to the Director General of Police to proceed to publish the list of officers, who are selected for being sent for training. We, however, make it crystal clear that the publication of the decision will be provisional and subject to the final orders and decision of this Court. The persons belonging to the PAC and IRB, if they are mentioned in the final list and if they are sent for training, will go at their own risk and the mere fact that they have been deputed for training in terms of our order will not confer any right by itself and it will be tentative, provisional and subject to the final orders and decision to be rendered in the litigation before us. In regard to the question relating to the clause providing for training marks being given for training, as already indicated, it is for the authority to publish the list taking an appropriate decision as they consider fit; but, again, the decision will be subject to the final decision of this Court. In all other respects, in regard to the other cases also, we make it clear that the publication of the result and the sending for training will be subject to the orders and final decision to be rendered in the cases before us. The question whether, if the PAC and IRB members are unsuccessful at the final adjudication, the amount spent on them for training is to be recovered from them, will be subject matter of final orders in the matter and it will be open to the authorities to keep an account of the amount spent on them for training. The other contentions, which have been raised by the parties also, we are not inclined, at this stage, to entertain and the result, which we are permitting to be published, and the selection will be subject to the decision in these cases. We make it clear that this order should not be understood as a peremptory direction to the authorities to send anyone for training and it is entirely left to the Government to decide as to whether they should send anyone for training at all.