Civil Writ Petition No.6329 of 2009 (O&M) :1 :
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: AUGUST 24, 2009
Vinod Kumar & another
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Haryana & others
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRESENT: Mr.S.K.Redhu, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr.Yashwinder Singh, AAG, Haryana,
for the State.
****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioners have filed this petition to seek detailment
on the B-1 course on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness with effect
from the date their juniors were so detailed on this course. The
petitioners, who were recruited as Constables on 21.7.1992 and
2.1.1992 are/were serving in District Faridabad. In view of
amendment in Punjab Police Rules on 28.6.2001, 55% seats for B-1
course are reserved on the basis of test, meaning thereby on the
basis of merit. 35% seats are reserved to be filed on the basis of
seniority-cum- fitness and 10% seats are reserved for sports quota
etc.
Civil Writ Petition No.6329 of 2009 (O&M) :2 :
B-1 test was conducted in December, 2005. The
petitioners, however, were not detailed on the ground that they had
not attained the requisite merit. One Naresh Kumar, who was a
Constable and was declined detailment on the same ground, filed
Civil Writ Petition No.7952 of 2004 before this Court. This writ was
decided on 5.11.2004 and it is held that seniority-cum-fitness cannot
be equated with seniority-cum-merit and if a senior is fit enough to be
detailed, he is to be placed on B-1 list irrespective of his merit.
Special Leave Petition against this decision has also been dismissed
on 10.5.2005.
The petitioners also filed Civil Writ Petition No.21277 of
2008, when his case was not considered in the light of law laid down
in Naresh Kumar’s case (supra) Respondents were directed to
decide the legal notice served by the petitioners within 30 days. The
claim of the petitioners has been rejected on the ground that on
1.1.2005 they were below the age of 35 years and were not entitled
under 35% quota. This action of the respondents is now under
challenge.
In the reply filed, it is pointed out that the claim of the
petitioners was rejected under 35% quota as they were found to be
under 35 years of age. Reference is made to amended Rule 13.7 of
Punjab Police Rules, whereby 55% seats for B-1 course are reserved
on the basis of a written test. Similarly, 35% seats are reserved for
detailment on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness of those candidates
who are over 35 years but below 40 years of age on the first day of
January of the year in which the test is conducted. It is pointed out
that date of birth of petitioner No.1 is 15.6.1973 and as such he was
Civil Writ Petition No.6329 of 2009 (O&M) :3 :
less than 35 years of age till 2008. Similarly, date of birth of petitioner
No.2 is 15.10.1972 and he was also less than 35 years of age on
1.1.2007 and hence was not eligible under 35% quota. The case of
petitioner No.2 was duly considered in the year 2008, but he could
not be detailed being lower in seniority list being at Sr.No.126. The
case of the petitioners was also examined in the light of law laid
down in the case of Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, Civil Writ
Petition No.7952 of 2004, decided on 5.11.2004. It is specifically
pointed out that no constable junior to the petitioners was deputed for
lower school course in the year 2007 and 2008.
Copy of the amended Rule has been placed on record as
Annexure P-1. The counsel for petitioners has referred to Rule 13.7
(2) (i), (ii) and (iii). These provisions talk of detailment on B-1 course
on the basis of seniority-cum-merit, i.e., 55% quota. 35% quota
would be regulated by 13.7 (8). This part of the rule provides that for
selection of 35% candidates on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness,
separate Departmental Promotion Committee shall be constituted
and they shall select the names as per seniority-cum-fitness keeping
in view the provisions of Rule 13.1. The requirement of the age being
35 years and above and less than 40 years appears to have been
taken from Rule 13.7 (2) (i) and (ii). In terms of Rule 13.7(2)(i) all
Constables have been made eligible to appear in the test if they are
under the age of 35 years. This part of the rule obviously is meant for
55% of the seats. Similarly, as per Rule 13.7(2)(ii), Constables are
eligible to be brought on list B-1 on the basis of seniority-cum-merit if
they are under the age of 40 years. Detailment on merit is to be co-
related to 55% of the seats. Rule 13.7(2)(i) talks of eligibility to
Civil Writ Petition No.6329 of 2009 (O&M) :4 :
appear in test and Rule 13.7 (2)(ii) regulates the eligibility to be
brought on list B-1. Constable, thus, is eligible to appear in test and
compete if he is less than 35 years and he can be brought on B-1
list till the age of 40 years. 35% seats are to be filled on the basis of
merit-cum-fitness. This, thus, has to be after the Constable
completed 35 years of age. Since he can be brought on B-1 list upto
the age of 40 years, his claim for detailment on the basis of seniority-
cum-fitness has to remain till he attains 40 years of age. After 40
years of age, the Constable would not be eligible to be brought on B-
1 list as can be seen from Rule 13.7(2)(ii). The scheme appears to
be to make all constables eligible for appearing in the competitive
examination under 55% seats, if they are under the age of 35 years
and have five years of service. Those, who qualify, can be brought on
B-1 list till the age of 40 years. The person, who wants to compete on
the basis of seniority- cum-fitness, obviously would have to be above
35 years of age and below 40 years. That seems to be the only
reasonable reading of Rule 13.7 as now amended. Accordingly, I do
not find any infirmity in the impugned order, whereby the claim of the
petitioners has been rejected on the ground that they are not eligible
being less than 35 years for detailment on the basis of seniority-cum-
fitness.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
August 24, 2009 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE