Allahabad High Court
Chandan Singh And 8 Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home ... on 10 April, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11938 of 2019
Petitioner :- Chandan Singh And 8 Ors.
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary,Nishi Chaudhary
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kr Singh Suryvanshi
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned counsel for petitioners, Shri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Sanjay Kumar, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Raj Kr. Singh Suryvanshi, learned Counsel for the respondents.
The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners challenging the selection on the post of Constable Armourer from Constable, Civil Police and P.A.C. of Uttar Pradesh Police.
The selection was to be made from the eligible constables. The recruitment process is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Police Armourer Branch Subordinate Officers Service Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2016"). Rule 5 of the Rules, 2016 provides the source of recruitment and eligibility for appointment on the post of Armourer Constable. The selection is to be made amongst constables having put in minimum three years of service on 01, July of the year of the recruitment excluding the training period. It is further provided that last five years service record of the candidate is to be considered and during last three years a candidate should not have been punished with any minor punishment etc., and there should be no adverse entry awarded to the candidate.
It is said that the petitioners who were seniors were ignored despite they having eligibility for appointment on the post of Constable Armourer and some candidates named in the writ petition were appointed.
This Court on 23.03.2023, after considering the submissions of Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioners passed the following order:-
"Heard Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
In the counter affidavit there is no specific reply in respect of two candidates, namely-Krishan Mohan Yadav and Rashid Ahmad who got selected and were placed at Serial No.17 and 23 respectively, of the select list dated 07.03.2019 despite they did not meet the eligibility criteria as provided under Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Police Armourer Branch Subordinate Officers Service Rules 2016, for appointment on the post of constable/armourer, similarly in paragraph No.17 of the writ petition, it has been specifically stated that Prince Kumar Gautam, Dushyan Singh Chauhan and Anjani Kumar Pandey whose name find place at Serial No. 38, 51 and 61 respectively in the select list dated 07.03.2019 had earlier participated in the selection process and also completed the training and they have been again shown to be selected in the select list in question, for which there is no reply given by the respondents.
Before deciding the present writ petition, it would be desirable that the respondents should file their specific reply on the abovementioned two points.
Shri Jogendra Nath Verma, learned Standing Counsel prays for and is granted one week time to file an additional affidavit of responsible officer of the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh.
List this case after one week, peremptorily. "
In compliance of the said order dated 23.03.2023, an additional counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no.4 i.e. Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as "U.P.P.R.P.B.") has been tendered today in the Court.
It is said that the U.P.P.R.P.B had prepared a select list amongst the eligible candidates as made available by the Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh against the available active post of Constables Armourer. Shri Krishan Mohan Yadav placed at serial No.17 of the select list was included in the eligibility list of Logistics Headquarter after considering his punishment as well as his reinstatement in service, the selection committee had selected him for the post of Constable Armourer on the basis of his service record by awarding marks as per Rules, 2016. It was also said that in last five years the said Constables was not punished with any punishment. In respect of Shri Rasid Ahmed, it has been said that he was not awarded any marks for the year 2007-08, as vide order dated 30.09.2007, recruitment for the year 2006 was cancelled, thereafter in compliance of the judgment and order dated 25.05.2009 he reinstated in service on 30.05.2009 and no adverse remark was recorded for the year 2009 to 2016 in the annual confidential remark.
It was further said that both the aforesaid constables were awarded 30 marks each on the basis of their service records by the selection committee, which is more than the marks of the cut-off marks of last selected candidate i.e. 27.5.
So far as, the selection of Shri Prince Kumar Gautam, Shri Dushyant Singh Chauhan and Shri Anjani Kumar Pandey is concerned, it is said that they were also selected strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 5 of the Rules, 2016. In respect of their selection as Bigular is concerned, it is said that Bigular does not disqualify them to be considered for selection on the post of Constable Armourer inasmuch as their selection/training as Bigular does not change their cadre/status from the post of constable. There is no separate cadre of the post of Bigular and there are no separate rules governing the services of a Bigular. They remained in the cadre of constable P.A.C. after the training of Bigular.
It is submitted that the petitioners were awarded marks on the basis of their service record in accordance with Rules, 2016 but they could not be selected as they lack merit, therefore, they have been placed in the merit list as per the marks obtained by them during selection process after considering five year A.C.Rs.
Shri Rakesh Kumar Chaudhary, learned Counsel for the petitioners after considering the stand of the respondents fairly submits that in view of the present stand, the petitioners do not have much case for argument before this Court.
Considering the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and the stand taken by the respondents in the additional counter affidavit, I find no substance in the present petition, which is hereby dismissed.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 10.4.2023
Piyush/-
