Arvind Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 July, 2021


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Arvind Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 26 July, 2021

Author: L. Nageswara Rao

Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, Aniruddha Bose

                                         Non-Reportable

       IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
          CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

      Writ Petition (Civil) No.1369 of 2018


Arvind Kumar Tiwari & Ors.          .... Petitioner(s)

                       Versus


The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.   …. Respondent (s)


                        WITH


         Writ Petition (Civil) No.1330 of 2019

         Writ Petition (Civil) No.606 of 2019

         Writ Petition (Civil) No.1488 of 2018

         Writ Petition (Civil) No.42 of 2019

         Writ Petition (Civil) No.41 of 2019

         Writ Petition (Civil) No.339 of 2019

         Writ Petition (Civil) No.267 of 2019

         Writ Petition (Civil) No.330 of 2019

         Writ Petition (Civil) No.376 of 2019

         Writ Petition (Civil) No.487 of 2019

         Writ Petition (Civil) No.754 of 2019




                                                     1 | Page
                    J U D G M E N T


L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

1. The complaint of the Writ Petitioners is that their result/

marks of “Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) Ranker’s Examination

2000-2008” have not been declared. The further grievance

of the Petitioners is that the benefit of the judgment dated

30.01.2017 of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.45 of 2016

(Raghuraj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) has

not been extended to them.

2. A Notification was issued on 12.06.2010 by U.P. Police

Recruitment and Promotion Board (for short “the Board”) for

selection to 5389 posts of Sub Inspector (Civil Police)

Rankers’ by promotion from eligible Constables and Head

Constables on the basis of a Departmental examination. The

vacancies pertained to the years 2000-2008. Constables and

Head Constables who completed a period of three years’

service on the first day of the year of recruitment and who

have not attained 40 years of age were eligible to take part

in the selection. Recruitment to posts of Sub-Inspectors is

governed by Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil

Police) Service Rules, 2008 (for short “the Rules”). Rule 5

2 | Page
thereof provides that 50% of the posts of Sub-Inspectors shall

be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% by

promotion on the basis of Departmental examination from

amongst substantially appointed Head Constables and

Constables of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Police/ Armed Police/

Armed Police Mounted Police/ P.A.C. Procedure for

recruitment by promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector is

governed by Rule 16 of the Rules according to which the

Board shall conduct a written examination. The written

examination shall carry 300 marks. The allocation of marks is

as follows:

1. Hindi Essay (based on Law and Order case study and

police functioning) – 100 marks

2. Basic Law, Construction and Police Procedure (Indian

Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Evidence Act and

Police Manual etc.) – 100 marks

3. Numerical and Mental Ability Test – 50 marks

4. Mental Aptitude Test/ I.Q. Test/ Responding – 50 marks

3. Except the subject Hindi Essay, questions of other

subjects would be of objective type. Note 2 to Rule 16(2)

stipulates that a candidate who fails to obtain minimum 50%

marks in each subject shall not be eligible for promotion.

4. The examination was conducted on 13.03.2011. The

Board issued a Notification on 20.04.2011 cancelling 08

questions which were found to be incorrect. Thereafter,

3 | Page
another Notification was issued by the Board on 26.05.2011

cancelling 18 questions which were found to be incorrect. On

11.06.2011, the result of the written examination was

declared and 3891 candidates were selected out of whom

3351 candidates qualified after going through the physical

test and group discussion.

5. A Writ Petition was filed in the High Court of Judicature

at Allahabad by some of the unsuccessful candidates to set

aside the result of the written examination. They complained

of irregularities in the conduct of written examination. The

cancellation of 18 questions was the main point taken by the

Writ Petitioners. As the cancellation of questions was not due

to any mistake of the candidates, a learned Single Judge of

the High Court directed the Board to award full marks for the

cancelled questions. Having been informed that there were

several vacancies, the Respondents-therein were permitted

to send the Writ Petitioners for training if found eligible after

revision of the list. The said judgment of the learned Single

Judge was challenged by a Special Appeal before the High

Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide interim

order dated 30.08.2012, stayed the operation of the

judgment of the learned Single Judge and directed that no

person shall be sent for training. The State of U.P.

4 | Page
approached this Court questioning the order passed by the

Division Bench on 30.08.2012. This Court set aside the order

of the Division Bench on 07.10.2013.

6. By an order dated 18.07.2014, this Court took note of

the ongoing litigation pertaining to the selection to the posts

of Sub-Inspectors by promotion in the State of Uttar Pradesh

and issued the following directions:

(a) The posts that have been filled up by

successful candidates as has been apprised

to us at the Bar are 3358 and the

candidates who have joined in the said

posts and presently working shall not be

disturbed.

(b) The U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion

Board, Lucknow shall scrutinize the papers

of all the Candidates, namely, the persons,

who had approached the Writ Court and the

Candidates who had not approached the

Writ Court and if they have attempted and

answered the 18 questions which were

wrongly set out, they will be awarded full

marks for said 18 questions.




                                                           5 | Page
       (c) If    a candidate has not answered any

             erroneous question, the same shall be

             proportionately reduced.            To clarify, the

             candidate shall only get full marks of

             questions answered.

(d) A fresh select list shall be drawn up taking

into account the aforesaid marks in respect

of 2031 posts which are available in present

pertaining to the year 2008.

(e) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed

within a period of three months, hence the

successful candidates shall be duly

intimated and subsequent action shall be

taken by the State.

7. From the 3358 candidates who were declared

successful by a Notification dated 11.06.2011, 3248

candidates actually joined. 110 candidates who were not

permitted to join due to their crossing the age of 40 years,

were given the benefit of relaxation of age pursuant to an

order passed by this Court. In Writ Petition (Civil) No.45/

2016 Raghuraj Singh (supra), this Court directed the

Petitioners to be accommodated in the existing vacancies of

Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police) Ranker if they have obtained

6 | Page
marks between 190.16667 and 223.33333. It is clear from a

perusal of the order that the Petitioners therein were

qualified for being selected and promoted as Sub-Inspectors

(Civil Police) Ranker.

8. These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking a direction

that the order passed in Raghuraj Singh (supra) should be

extended to them after declaring the marks obtained by

them. The contention of the Petitioners is that there are

several unfilled vacancies. It was submitted on behalf of the

Petitioners that there is no reason for which their marks are

not declared. It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioners

that there can be no objection for declaring their marks and

their promotion if they are found eligible. Finally, it was

argued on behalf of the Petitioners that they are entitled for

the same order that was passed in Raghuraj Singh (supra)

in Writ Petition (Civil) No.45/ 2016. On behalf of the State of

Uttar Pradesh, it was contended that the Petitioners are not

entitled for the relief sought as they did not qualify in the

selection of the test. According to the Respondents, the

selection test is conducted in four stages. In the first stage

of written examination, the candidates failing to obtain 50%

marks in each of the four subjects prescribed for written

examination shall be filtered out and the candidates

7 | Page
obtaining minimum 50% marks in every subject shall be

included in the list of candidates for physical ability test. The

learned counsel appearing for the State referred to a decision

of the Board dated 22.02.2011 according to which the papers

of objective type answer sheets will be evaluated initially.

The Hindi Essay answer sheet will be taken up for evaluation

thereafter only of those candidates who have obtained

minimum 50% in each of the subjects which are of objective

type. In other words, the candidates who do not secure

minimum 50% marks in the three objective type subjects

shall be disqualified and the examination paper for Hindi

Essay shall not be evaluated. Initially, the marks of the

candidates who were declared unsuccessful in the

examination was not declared. By a Notification dated

17.05.2019, the Board uploaded the marks of all

unsuccessful candidates. Several applications were filed

seeking information relating to the marks obtained by them

in the written examination. In response to the applications

filed by 1815 candidates, marks have been given to 1637

candidates.

9. The scheme of the examination conducted for selection

by promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police is in

accordance with Rule 16 of the said Rules. There are three

8 | Page
subjects which are categorized as objective type. Note 2 of

Rule 16 provides that a candidate who fails to obtain

minimum of 50% marks in each subject shall not be eligible

for promotion. The decision of the Board dated 22.02.2011

makes it clear that unless a candidate obtains minimum 50%

marks in the objective type subjects, they shall not be

entitled to seek evaluation of the Hindi Essay Subject. Such

of those candidates who failed to secure 50% marks in the

objective type subjects stood disqualified. The Writ

Petitioners are in such category. Therefore, their Hindi Essay

paper was not evaluated and the marks were not declared.

The decision of the Board was taken prior to the date of the

examination and no fault can be found with the same. More

than 50,000 candidates appeared for the examination and

the short-listing of the candidates in stages is within the

domain of the Board and cannot said to be arbitrary and

discriminatory.

10. The Petitioners are not entitled for extension of the

order passed in Raghuraj Singh (supra). There is no

dispute about the fact that the Petitioners-therein were

qualified. Whereas, in these writ petitions the Petitioners

could not secure 50% marks in the objective type subjects

and therefore are not entitled to seek evaluation of the Hindi

9 | Page
Essay paper. Yet another point pertaining to the ambiguity in

the process of conducting written examination was raised on

behalf of some of the Petitioners. It was argued that subjects

C and D were clubbed as one paper. However, they were

treated as separate subjects for assessment whether the

candidate has secured minimum 50% marks. It is clear from

Rule 16 that there are four different subjects and the note to

the Rule provides that the candidates should secure 50%

marks in each of the subjects to be qualified. Therefore,

subjects C and D cannot be clubbed together. It is clear from

the sample papers circulated to the candidates much in

advance that subjects C and D would be treated separately

though both the subjects were clubbed for the purpose of

holding examination. Certain errors that were made in the

preparation of the list were pointed out by the Petitioners.

These Writ Petitions relate to the selection conducted for

promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors pursuant to an

advertisement issued in 2010. We are informed by the State

Government that the scheme of the examination has also

undergone a change. By an order dated 02.12.2020 in SLP

(C) No. 28838/2019, this Court refused to entertain any

challenge to the same selection process on the ground that

several years have gone by. Selections conducted more than

10 | P a g e
a decade earlier cannot be the subject matter of interference

by this Court.

11. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petitions are

dismissed.

……………………………….J.

[ L. NAGESWARA RAO ]

……………………………….J.

[ ANIRUDDHA BOSE]

New Delhi,
July 26, 2021.

11 | P a g e



Source link