HARENDRA SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P
LAWS(ALL)-2005-8-203
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on August 23,2005

HARENDRA SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DR. KAILASH NATH MISHRA V. STATE OF U. P. AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
KRISHAN YADAV VS. STATE OF HARYANA [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA SC AND ST EMPLOYEES ASSN VS. A ARTHUR JEEN [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

N. K. Mehrotra, J. - (1.)ALL the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions were the candidates for selection on the post of constable in Civil Police by submitting their application-forms in pursuance of the Advertisement dated 5.1.2005 for 4,364 vacancies. Later on these vacancies were enhanced by issuing its subsequent amended Advertisement on 21.1.2005 by increasing the number of vacancies to 6,091. It was a districtwise selection and applications were invited for the vacancies in districts of Meerut, Moradabad, Budaun, Etah, Fatehgarh, Mainpuri, Etawah, Jhansi, ALLahabad, Sonbhadra, Azamgarh, Ghazipur, Deoria, Gonda and Sitapur. ALL the petitioners in the aforesaid writ petitions applied in districts of Sitapur and Gonda. In the selection process, there were three stages of physical test, written test and interview. Some of the petitioners could not be selected in the written test and some of the petitioners appeared in the interview after being declared successful in the written test but they could not score in the merit. After the declaration of the final result, the aforesaid writ petitions have been filed by different petitioners on different grounds. In various writ petitions, the selection process has been challenged on mala fide, arbitrariness and unfairness. In several writ petitions, a prayer for quashing the selection process has been made with further prayer for enquiry by C.B.I.
(2.)THE procedure for selection was prescribed by the State Government in the advertisement as contained in the earlier office-memorandum issued by the State Government. THE position of the vacancies advertised in the initial advertisement and corrigendum in all the fifteen districts is as follows : ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMITTED]...
After issuing the advertisement inviting the applications on 5.1.2005 (Annexure-1 in Writ Petition No. 3200 (S/S) of 2005, Bhupendra Singh v. State of U. P. and others) a circular was issued by the Police Head Quarters on 8.1.2005 (Annexure-2) regarding selection process and bifurcation of vacancies districtwise. The selection programme was mentioned in these letters. On submission of the application forms, the candidates were allotted chest numbers. According to the scheduled programme, the physical measurements of the candidates were to be taken first and thereafter, they were permitted to participate in the physical test. The marks sheet of physical test was prepared and signatures of the candidates were obtained on that tabulation sheet. The candidates who qualified the physical test were permitted to appear in the written examination. The allotment of the maximum marks for three types of tests was as follows : Type of Test Maximum Marks 1. Physical Test 100 2. Written Examination 50 3. Interview 20

A list of successful candidates who secured 33% marks in the written test was prepared. In the physical test, there were different items, which were already known to the candidates through advertisement. For qualifying the physical test every candidate was to secure 50% marks in each category. According to the petitioners 2-1/2 times of the advertised vacancies, the candidates were to be called for interview but according to the opposite parties, the office memorandum was issued on 8.7.2004 by the State Government by which the earlier office memorandum dated 8.6.1998 laying down the procedure for calling the selected candidates five times equal to the vacancies in the written test was modified and according to the amended procedure, all the candidates who qualify the physical test by obtaining 50% marks in each types of physical test were to be permitted to appear in the written examination and instead of calling the candidates 2-1/2 times of the vacancies for interview, it was provided in the amended procedure that all the candidates who obtain 33% marks in the written examination were to be called for interview.

(3.)IN several writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the correctness of the marks awarded to them in the written examination, which shall be taken up separately. IN most of the writ petitions, the selection process has been challenged on various common grounds.
First of all I take up four writ petitions pertaining to the selection of Constable in Civil Police in district Sitapur. These writ petitions are Writ Petition No. 2809 (S/S) of 2005, Harendra Singh v. State of U. P. and others ; Writ Petition No. 3407 (S/S) of 2005, Shambhu Saran Shukla v. State of U. P. and others ; Writ Petition No. 3195 (S/S) of 2005, Ravendra Pratap Singh v. State of U. P. and others and Writ Petition No. 3069 (S/S) of 2005, Shivam Kumar Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others. Out of these four writ petitions, in Writ Petition No. 2809 (S/S) of 2005, Harendra Singh v. State of U. P. and others and Writ Petition No. 3195 {S/S) of 2005, Ravendra Pratap Singh v. State of U. P. and others, the individual petitioners have the grievance that they had qualified but they have been declared unsuccessful. In Writ Petition No. 3407 (S/S) of 2005, Shambhu Saran Shukla v. State of U. P. and others and Writ Petition No. 3069 (S/S) of 2005, Shivam Kumar Singh and others v. State of U. P. and others, the petitioners have challenged the selection process and sought the quashing of the entire selection. It is alleged that the concerned authorities have committed serious irregularities inasmuch as so many incompetent candidates who could not get success in physical test and written test were selected and those who qualified in all the three tests, could not be selected. It is also alleged that the petitioners were approached by some persons that they would be selected only after giving some gratification. The petitioners were not informed about the cut-off merit for final selection. The final merit list was not circulated.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.