Punjab-Haryana High Court
Chanchal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 November, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144623
CWP-24850-2023 1 2023:PHHC:144623
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CWP-24850-2023
Date of decision : 15.11.2023
Chanchal
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Rajat Mor, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.A.G. Haryana.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
1. This is a civil writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari
quashing the impugned order dated 13.10.2023 (Annexure P-16) passed by
respondent no.3.
2. The case of the petitioner briefly stated is that vide
advertisement no.3 dated 16.04.2018, the respondent-Commission had
advertised 5000 posts of male Constable and in pursuance of the same, the
petitioner had applied for the post of male constable, but was not shown in
the list of successful candidates. It is the case of the petitioner that in the
meanwhile the petitioner was appointed to the post of Constable IRB and
joined on 06.03.2019 and completed his training as Male Constable IRB
from 11.03.2019 to 09.01.2020. It is further the case of the petitioner that
cut off marks of the last candidate in the Male Constable (GD) under BCB
category were 56.20 and the petitioner was shown to have been given 51.20
1 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144623
CWP-24850-2023 2 2023:PHHC:144623
marks and was not awarded 5 marks under the socio-economic criteria and
thereafter, the petitioner had filed CWP-17349-2020 which was disposed of
by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.10.2020 directing
the respondent authorities to pass a speaking order after considering the
claim of the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that the
respondent Commission did not comply with the said direction and thus, a
contempt petition was filed and during the pendency of the contempt
petition that the claim of the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner was
recommended for appointment as Male Constable (GD) vide letter dated
25.07.2021 and has been selected at 3074-A in BCB category and in
furtherance of the said recommendation, he applied for technical resignation
from IRB and subsequently the resignation was accepted vide order dated
17.01.2022 and he was relieved from the post of Constable IRB. It is
further the case of the petitioner that he joined as male Constable (GD) and
started undergoing the recruit basic training course for the same and has
completed almost two months of the said course out of a total of 9 months.
The petitioner had requested the authorities to exempt him from undergoing
the recruit basic training course after his appointment as Male Constable
(GD) as he had already undergone the same while discharging the duties of
male Constable IRB. It is the case of the petitioner that the said prayer of
the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 17.02.2022 (Annexure P-14) in
which it was observed that the petitioner may be deputed afresh to undergo
9 months recruit basic course along with recruit Constables GD in the next
batch for the said course. The petitioner against the said order approached
this Court by filing CWP-15413-2023 and this Court vide order dated
21.07.2023 directed the respondent authorities to reconsider the matter. In
the said writ petition, the petitioner had relied upon a judgment of a
2 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144623
CWP-24850-2023 3 2023:PHHC:144623
Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 23.08.2022 passed in CWP-16315-
2022 in support of his case. This Court while disposing of CWP-15413-
2023 had recorded the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as the State with respect to the said judgment including the arguments
of the State to the effect that the judgment dated 23.08.2022 of the
Coordinate Bench specifically states that the said judgment is not to be
treated as a precedent. This Court while giving the direction to reconsider
the request of the petitioner, had made it clear that the Court had not opined
on the merits of the case and the respondent-authority was directed to
consider the same, in accordance with law. The respondent-authority vide
order dated 13.10.2023 has considered the said request / representation
independently and after giving detailed reasons, rejected the prayer of the
petitioner. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced
hereasunder:-
"5. Whereas, it is submitted that the nature of duties of Haryana
Armed Police and India Reserve Battalions are different in nature. Duty of
Armed Police is to assist the civil police in enforcement of law and
maintenance of order in situations of likely breach of peace, disaster
management functions, in escort of prisoners and to discharge such other
duties which may require special weapons and tactical teams or presence
of armed police. Further, the General Duty Constables are also allocated
to various districts, wherein, they are posted in Police Stations, Police
Posts, DPO/Range offices and have to be deputed for Surveillance duties,
for conducting searches and raids, providing assistance in investigation of
cases, for performing Summon/Warrant duty, Gunman/PSOs duty and
static guards duty at residences, treasuries and other places etc. After
their promotion in the higher ranks, they are assigned investigation work
of criminal cases etc.
India Reserve Battalions on the other hand, are deputed in the
entire country for election duty, emergent Law and Order duty and such
like duties as and when required by the Government of India. India
Reserve Battalions are deputed in the State also to perform above duties in
order to address emergent situation. In case IRB personnel are deployed
in the district, they have to be deployed only on centralized day/night
3 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144623
CWP-24850-2023 4 2023:PHHC:144623
patrolling, Naka duties, Prisoner escort and General Bandobast duties.
They are not to be deployed at Police Stations, Police Posts, DPO/Range
offices, Surveillance duties, for conducting searches and raids
independently, assisting in investigation of cases, for performing
Summon/Warrant duties, Gunman/PSOS and static guards at residences,
treasuries and other places.
6. Whereas, the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court while
passing order dated 21.07.2023 in CWP No. 15413 of 2023 had also
directed to take into consideration the judgment dated 23.08.2022 passed
in CWP No. 16315 of 2022 while considering the representation to be filed
by the petitioner. The Hon'ble High Court while passing order dated
23.08.2022 in CWP No. 16315 of 2022 considered the facts and relevant
provisions mentioned in above para 4 and 5 and allowed the Civil Writ
Petition. Simultaneously, the Hon'ble High Court itself in said judgment
also held that the order shall not be treated as a precedent.
7. Whereas, after considering all above aspects, the undersigned is of
the considered view that the representationist/petitioner should undergo
and qualify the basic training course as General Duty Constable for the
reasons mentioned below:-
(i) There is no provision to exempt General Duty Constable from
passing basic training course in Haryana Police Act-2007 and
Punjab Police Rules-1934 as applicable to the State of Haryana
and undersigned is not competent to take any decision contrary to
the applicable statutory provisions/rules.
(ii) Duties to be performed by IRB constables and General Duty
Constables in Haryana Police are altogether different except Law
and Order duty and Security deployment duty. The
representationist/petitioner had undergone basic training Courses
IRB constable in Recruit Basic Course (RBC) conducted w.e.f.
11.03.2019 to 09.01.2020 at RTC/Bhondsi, Gurugram i.e. more
than three years and nine months ago. After completion of Basic
Training Course, he remained confined to forewalls of IRB. Three
years and nine months is a long period and considering the nature
of duties to be performed by General Duty Constables, it would be
in the interest of the institution as well as
representationist/petitioner to pass Basic Training again in order
to refresh and enhance his skills.
(iii) Any training course including basic training course is not
merely an exercise of taking examinations and going through
physical training. The trainees live with their counterparts and
form group which is helpful to them throughout the service Hence,
the representationist/petitioner while undergoing basic training
4 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144623
CWP-24850-2023 5 2023:PHHC:144623
course as General Duty Constable would be able to develop
camaraderie and bond with batchmates of General Duty
Constables.
(iv) Moreover, undergoing and passing basic training course as
General Duty Constable would not only help the
representationist/petitioner in enhancing his skills, but may also be
beneficial for increasing his tally during selection process of
promotion List B for admission in Lower School Course for
promotion in rank of Head Constable in view of provisions laid
down in Rule 13.7 (4)(iii) of PPR amended vide notification dated
07.08.2017. Relevant provision of said rule 13.7 (4) (iii) meant for
enlistment in promotion List B is as under. -
PPR 13.7 (4)(iii) Training Courses Passed:
"Maximum marks awarded for training courses passed by a
candidate shall be thirty. Only the training courses passed
by the candidates upto 31st December of the year preceding
the year in which selection is made shall be taken into
account while awarding marks. Constables who obtain all
around 1st, 2nd and 3rd positions in the basic recruit
training course shall be awarded 15, 10 and 05 marks
respectively."
(v) India Reserve Battalions and Haryana Police are different
cadre. If any exemption is granted to General Duty
Constable/Petitioner from Basic Training Course considering the
fact that he had already undergone and completed 09 months Basic
Training Course while he was enrolled as constable in IRB, it
would open door towards a decision that training course
completed in a different cadre would make the recruits eligible for
exemption from training course(s), if they are enrolled in some
other cadre and would result in unnecessary complications leading
to new issues and litigations.
Hence, request made by Recruit Constable Chanchal No. 5/951
HAP (petitioner) in his representation dated 25.08.2023, is not tenable in
view of aforementioned grounds. Accordingly, representation submitted by
the representationist is hereby rejected being devoid of merit."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case
of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this
Court in CWP-16315-2022 and has submitted that the petitioner belongs to
Batch No.86 as were the petitioners in the above said writ petition and even
5 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144623
CWP-24850-2023 6 2023:PHHC:144623
in the above said case, the petitioners therein had completed the recruit
basic training course while being in service as Constable IRB and were on
the said ground exempted from undertaking the said course after
appointment as male Constable (GD). It is submitted that the observations
made in the said judgment fully support the case of the petitioner and on the
basis of the observations made in the same, the relief which has been
granted to the petitioners therein should also be granted to the present
petitioner. It is submitted that the impugned order is in the teeth of the said
judgment and thus, deserves to be set aside.
4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has
gone through the paper book.
5. A perusal of the impugned order, the relevant portion of which
has been reproduced hereinabove, would show that various reasons have
been given in the impugned order for rejecting the prayer of the petitioner
for being exempted from undergoing recruit basic training course after
enrollment as General Duty Constable. It has been specifically noticed in
the impugned order that there is no provision to exempt a General Duty
Constable from undergoing basic training course in Haryana Police Act
2007 and Punjab Police Rules 1934 as applicable to the State of Haryana. It
has further been noticed that the nature of duties of the Haryana Armed
Police and India Reserve Battalions are different inasmuch as the duty of
the Armed Police is to assist the civil police in enforcement of law and
maintenance of order in situations of likely breach of peace, disaster
management functions, to escort prisoners and to discharge such other
duties which require special weapons and tactical teams and further that the
General Duty Constables are allocated to various districts, wherein they are
posted in Police Stations, Police Posts, DPO / Range offices and have to be
6 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144623
CWP-24850-2023 7 2023:PHHC:144623
deputed for Surveillance duties, for conducting searches and raids,
providing assistance in investigation of cases, for performing summon/
warrant duty, Gunman/PSOs duty and static guards duty at residences,
treasuries and other places and after their promotion in the higher ranks,
they are assigned investigation work of criminal cases. On the other hand,
India Reserve Battalions are deputed in the entire country for election duty,
emergent Law and Order duty and they are not deployed at Police Stations,
Police Posts, DPO/Range Offices, Surveillance duties and for conducting
searches and raids independently, assisting in investigation of cases or as
Gunman/PSOs and static guards at residences, treasuries and other places. It
is further observed in the impugned order that the India Reserve Battalions
and Haryana Police are different cadres and in case any exemption is
granted to a General Duty Constable from undergoing the basic training
course, then it would open a pandora's box inasmuch as a person who has
done training course in one cadre would claim exemption from undergoing
the said training course in other cadres inspite of there being no such
exemption provided in the relevant rules, which would lead to several
complications, issues and litigations. The impugned order also takes into
consideration the fact that the petitioner had undergone basic training
course as IRB Constable from 11.03.2019 to 09.01.2020 which was 3 years
and 9 months ago and sufficient time has elapsed and for the petitioner to
perform his duties as a General Duty Constable, it would be in the interest
of the institution as well as the petitioner to do the present basic training
course which would also enhance his skills. The impugned order also takes
note of the fact that training with counterparts by forming groups helps the
employee throughout his service as it would help developing camaraderie
and bond with other General Duty Constables and is also beneficial for
7 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144623
CWP-24850-2023 8 2023:PHHC:144623
increasing the tally of the petitioner for being promoted to List B. The
impugned order has also taken into consideration the relevant rules and
regulations including Section 18(3) of the Haryana Police Act 2007 which
specifically provides that no police officer shall be deployed on duty
without undergoing and passing the basic training as may be prescribed and
as per Rules 19.2.(1) of Punjab Police Rules 1934 as applicable to the
Haryana, the recruits shall not be passed into the ranks until they have
undergone the 9 months training. The said observations in the impugned
order have not been shown to be either perverse or against rules /
regulations. The reasons given in impugned order are valid and do not call
for any interference. Considering from any angle, the basic training which is
prescribed for Male Constable (GD) is mandatory and cannot be exempted.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has already undergone almost 2
months of training after having been appointed as Constable (GD) and thus,
is well aware of the importance of the same. There is nothing on record to
show that the petitioner by undergoing the said training would in any way
be disadvantaged in his service career. In fact the said training would make
the petitioner more skillful and physically fit.
6. The reliance placed upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, on the judgment of the coordinate Bench dated 23.08.2022
passed in CWP-16315-2022 would also not further the case of the
petitioner, on the following grounds:-
i) A perusal of the said judgment would show that it has been
specifically noted that the same shall not be treated as a precedent and
thus relying upon the said judgment to grant relief to the petitioner
would result in making the said judgment a precedent.
ii) The reasons as stated in para 7 (ii) and (iii) of the impugned
8 of 9
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144623
CWP-24850-2023 9 2023:PHHC:144623
order have neither been raised nor considered by the coordinate
Bench.
iii) Although an argument was raised before the coordinate Bench
on behalf of the State with respect to there being difference in the
nature of duties of the two cadres but the same was not raised as
elaborately as has been stated in paragraph 5 of the impugned order.
7. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the
impugned order dated 13.10.2023 being well reasoned and having been
passed in accordance with law, is upheld and the present petition being
meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
November 15, 2023.
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:144623
9 of 9
