ALOK KUMAR SINGH & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS on 27 November 2018

328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.[2018] 14 S.C.R. 328

A

ALOK KUMAR SINGH & OTHERS

v.

STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

(Civil Appeal No. 11370 of 2018)

B

NOVEMBER 27, 2018

[KURIAN JOSEPH AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]

Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police)Service Rules, 2018 – rr.6, 14 and 15 – Selection undertaken inrespondent-State pursuant to advertisement for recruiting 4010 postsCnamely 3698 posts of Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police) and 312 postsof Platoon Commander (Provincial Armed Constabulary or PAC)of Uttar Pradesh – Final results were published seeking to fill upall the posts except 226 posts namely 205 and 21 posts reserved fordependents of freedom fighters – Challenge raised to the selectionDof certain candidates inter alia on the ground that said candidateshad used whitener/blade while answering questions in the mainexamination – Final results revised excluding names of all suchcandidates – Challenge to – Direction by Supreme Court in HanumanDutt Shukla case that such candidates whose names were excludedas a result of use of whitener or blade in the main examination,Ewould also be accommodated – List of 809 successful candidatesdeclared – Entire selection process and the revised final result againchallenged in the High Court – Writ petitions dismissed – In themeantime, another set of petitions challenged the entire selectionprocess – Direction that the result of the main written examinationFbe prepared afresh, affirmed by the Division Bench of the HighCourt in Special Appeal No.416 of 2016 – On appeal, held:Considering the facts that the present selection has seen variousinterventions including revision in final list on more than oneoccasion and considering the large number of vacancies of 607posts where certain candidates either discontinued training or didGnot qualify in medical examination/character verification, as a onetime exception it is directed that such 607 posts be made availablein the present selection itself – Decision of the High Court in SpecialAppeal No.416 of 2016 was correct – Going by the Rules, only12030 candidates could have been allowed to participate in Group H

Discussion against the number of 14256 – But at this length oftime, it would be inappropriate to re-do the exercise and eliminatethe excess number from consideration, more particularly when thenumber of 14256 represents all those who secured 50% or moremarks in the written examination and there are still 607 vacanciesto be filled up – In terms of the decisions of Supreme Court inHanuman Dutt Shukla case 809 candidates were given benefit,followed by 24 similarly situated candidates – To this number of833, 189 similarly situated candidates will have to be added asdealt with in the order passed by Supreme Court – This aspect wasrepeatedly made clear that those vacancies would be in addition –Therefore, total number of candidates who could be selected in theselection relatable to the year 2011 in any case ought not to be lessthan 4010+1022 – Directions issued.

Issuing directions, the Court

Conclusion

Issuing directions, the Court

HELD: 1.1 Considering the facts that the present selectionhas seen various interventions including revision in final list onmore than one occasion and considering the large number ofvacancies of 607 posts where certain candidates eitherdiscontinued training or did not qualify in medical examination/character verification, as a one time exception it is directed thatsuch 607 posts be made available in the present selection itself.One more reason for such direction is that large number of postsnamely more than 8000 posts are currently available forsucceeding selections. Similarly, the decision of the High Courtin Special Appeal No.416 of 2016, was correct. Going by theRules, only 12030 candidates could have been allowed toparticipate in Group Discussion against the number of14256. But at this length of time, it would be inappropriate tore-do the exercise and eliminate the excess number fromconsideration, more particularly when the number of 14256represents all those who secured 50% or more marks in thewritten examination and there are still 607 vacancies to be filledup. [Para 25][347-E-H]

1.2 In the order dated 31.10.2017, Supreme Court hademphasized the adherence to eligibility of 50% while the orderdated 30.11.2017 had directed completion of Selection process AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Ain the order of merit. Thereafter, the order dated 16.01.2018categorically stated that three factors namely, merit, reservationand preference should be taken into consideration. Therefore,the submission that the benefit, if any, of the order or directionsshould be confined to those who are/were before this Court orthe High Court alone, in the capacity of either theBpetitioners or the intervenors ignoring merit cannot be accepted.[Para 26][348-A-B]

1.3 Though the number of candidates called for groupdiscussion ought to have been thrice the notified vacancies i.e.12030, the Board had called 14256 candidates. The first list viz.Cthe result notified on 25.06.2015 had named 3784 candidatesleaving out 226 unfilled posts as a result of non-availability ofcandidates in the category of dependents of freedom fighters asstated above. In terms of the decisions of this Court in HanumanDutt Shukla 809 candidates were given benefit, followed by 24Dsimilarly situated candidates. To this number of 833, 189 similarlysituated candidates as dealt with in the order passed by this Courton 14.08.2018 will have to be added. The decision of this Courtin Hanuman Dutt Shukla was very clear that the revised final listdated 25.06.2015 ought not to be disturbed but benefit must begiven to those candidates who were excluded for use of whitener/Eblade etc. while answering the main examination. This aspectwas repeatedly made clear that those vacancies would be inaddition and therefore, the number of 1022 (809 in terms ofHanuman Dutt Shukla, 24 in terms of case of Deepak Kumar and189 in terms of the order dated 14.08.2018) have to be reckonedFin addition to the figure of 4010. Therefore, total number ofcandidates who could be selected in the selection relatable tothe year 2011 in any case ought not to be less than 4010+1022.Status and identity of the candidates who form the group of 1022candidates is very clear. In this context it is to be noted that the vacancies notified are only approximate and there isGnothing wrong if the number increases in the exigencies ofservice. [Para 28][349-C-H]

1.4 In the peculiar fact situation of the present case, as aone time exception, following directions are issued :- H

A) 607 posts lying vacant as a result of certain candidateshaving discontinued training or having failed to qualify in medicalexamination/character verification, shall be offered and madeavailable in the present selection itself, strictly in order of meritand subject to fulfilment of having obtained 50% or more marks.

B) There are 226 unfilled posts as a result of non-availabilityof candidates in the cadre of dependents of freedom fighters.Normally, “freedom fighters” is not a category which, over a periodof time, would keep increasing. In any case, there are selectionswhich are round the corner in which more than 8000 posts areavailable for the candidates. The interest of those candidateswho answer the description “dependents of freedom fighters”would therefore be taken care of in the succeeding selections.These 226 posts should also be made available for the presentselection.

C) The State Government and its authorities are thereforedirected to make available 833 posts (607+226) for the presentselection strictly in order of merit subject to the fulfillment of thecriteria that the candidates had obtained 50% or more in themain written examination, in keeping with principles ofreservation and preference.

D) Direction to fill-up the above 833 posts in terms of thisJudgment is in addition to any other directions already issued.

E) A group of matters namely SLP (Civil) Nos.10674 of 2018,10675 of 2018, 12891-12893 of 2018 and 15699 of 2018 are filedby individuals who are either Head Constables or Constables inthe police service and are seeking promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police). Since the nature of controversy andthe questions raised therein are completely unconnected withthe present selection, said matters are segregated and it isdirected that they be listed immediately before the appropriateBench for consideration. [Para 29][349-C-H; 350-A-B]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11370of 2018.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2016 of the High Courtof Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 67748 of 2015.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

AWith

C. A. Nos. 11372, 11373, 11374, 11375, 11371, 11377, 11378, 11379,11380, 11381-82, 11383, 11384, 11385, 11402, 11388-90, 11386-87, 11391,11392, 11393, 11394, 11406, 11407, 11396, 11398 and 11399 of 2018.

W. P. (C) Nos. 735, 736 and 1053 of 2017.B

T. C. (C) Nos. 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 74, 75, 80, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 97, 98,99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118,120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136,140, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,C159, 161, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 176, 178, 180, 181,183, 184, 107, 141, 219, 226, 227, 220, 192, 216, 200, 185, 186, 187, 188,189, 190, 191, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 206,213, 215, 214, 217, 218, 222, 221, 224, 225, 228, 229, 230, 232, 234, 241,252, 231, 250, 233, 247, 246, 235, 242, 236, 237, 244, 238, 239, 254, 255,D245, 277, 278, 279, 281, 282, 283, 289, 284, 285, 287, 286, 288, 292, 297,299 and 307 of 2017.

W. P. (C) No. 22, 441, 913 and 1059 of 2018

Contempt Petitions (C) No. 815/2018 in SLP (C) No. 16669/2017MA No. 1297/2018 in T.C. (C) No. 92/2017EMA No. 1993/2018 in T.C. (C) No. 210/2017

MA No. 1960/2018 in T.C. (C) No. 293/2017

Contempt Petition (C) No. 1200/2018 in T.C. (C) No. 58/2017

FContempt Petition (C) No. 1257/2018 in T.P. (C) No. 283/2017T. C. (C) No. 53 of 2018

Contempt Petition (C) No. 972/2018 in SLP (C) No. 10468/2018SLP (C) No. 10674, 10675, 12891-12893 and 15699 of 2018

GT. C. (C) No. 62/2018 in T. P. (C) No. 1053/2018

Aishwarya Bhati, AAG, R. Venkataramani, V. Shekhar,Parag Tripathi, Manoj Prasad, Anoop G. Chaudhari, Ms. June Chaudhari,Rakesh Khanna, Dushyant Dave, Pallav Sishodia, Ms. Mahalakshmi,Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advs., Nagamuthu, Piyush Sharma,HAvijit Mishra, Yashraj Bundela, Praveen Vignesh, Anand Nandan, Rohit Ranjan, Sumit Mishra, Amit Pawan, Rajeev Kumar Dubey,Vaidruti Mishra, Kamlendra K. Mishra, Amit Bose, Hitesh KumarSharma, S. K. Rajora, M. A. Chinnasamy, Dr. Lokendra Malik, DanishZubair Khan, Prashant Shukla, Madhumay Misra, Ms. Shreya Mishra,Dr. Satyendra Kumar Mishra, Satyajeet Kumar, Pradeep Kr. Dwivedi,Vivek Tiwari, Umesh Dubey, Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Ms. KausarRaza Faridi, Prashant Kumar Singh, Jugal Kishore Gupta, Sanjay Rastogi,Vivek Vishnoi, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Pawan Kumar Shukla, MarkandPratap Singh, Raj Singh Rana, Yashpal Dhingra, Ms. Anuradha Mishra,Vandit Mishra, Ms. Jahnvi Sharma, Raghwendra Tiwari, Ms. MamtaTiwari, Abhishek Verma, Navank Shekhar Mishra, Pankaj Kr. Mishra,Alok Kumar Misra, Ashutosh Lal, Manoj Kumar Shukla, Shekhar Kumar,Ms. Ritu Rastogi, R. C. Kaushik, Rakesh Mishra, Sandeep KumarDwivedi, Ms. Leelawati, Ms. Madhubala, Saurabh Ahuja, Dr. VinodTewari, Pradip Kumar Dwivedi, Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, SatyamPandey, Arun Kumar, Vivek Tewari, C. B. Gururaj, K. P. Singh, PrakashRanjan Nayak, Susheel Tomar, Ms. Mishika Mishra, Rajesh Srivastav,Ms. Pooja, Ms. Rani S. Jha, Prabhat Kumar Rai, Christopher D’souza,Anurag Dubey, Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Ms. Meenakshi Parihar,Rajesh Pathak, Abhishek Chakraborty, Shirish Kumar, Bhupender KumarBhardwaj, Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Sumit Kumar, Devvrat, Praveen KumarRai, Hemal Kiritkumar Sheth, Ms. Priyanka Kakkar, Mukesh Sinha,Amit Kumar, Saurabh Kumar, Devesh Kumar Tripathi, V. Rana,S. R. Setia, Krishna M. Singh, Rajiv Kumar, Ms. Rohina Nath,Vivekanand Rana, Ms. Anu Gupta, Ms. Gouri Karuna Das Mohanti,Arvind Gupta, Saurabh Mishra, Shiva Kumar, Neelkanth Dhyneshwar,Mohit Kumar Kaushik, Gurudatta Ankolekar, S. K. Tyagi, Ms. PoonamTyagi, Praveen Jain, Pramod Kumar Anurag Kasana, Rupinder Walia,Arvind Yadav, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Kislay Komal, RakeshChaurasiya, Sanjeev Kumar, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Suryodaya PrakashTiwari, Ms. Shuchi Singh, Krishna Kant Dubey, Dharmendra KumarSinha, Raju Sonkar, Sanveer S. Mehlwar, Arun Adlakha, Mata PrasadSingh, Sanjaya Kumar Singh, Keshav Rai, S. Premchandra, Ms. RanjanaR. Singh, Debasis Mishra, R. C. Sharma, Amol Chitale, Nirnimesh Dube,Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Anuj Bhandari, Mrinmay Bhattmewara, HemantParmar, Vivek Gupta, Gopal Jha, G. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Manjeet Jha,G. R. Pandey, Avinash Sharma, F. A. Khan, Adesh Kumar, L. Sarweswar,M. K. Aswathi, Bijender Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Saroj Tripathi,Pradeep Mishra, Pranay Kumar Mohapatra, Ranjit Kumar Sharma, Shiv A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ASagar Tiwari, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Anirudh Sanganeria, Siddharth Dave,Balraj Dewan, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Dhananjai Jain, Sanjeev Malhotra,Sanjay Jain, Ms. K. Sarada Devi, Gyan Prakash Srivastava, Vinay Garg,Abhijat P. Medh, Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Ms.Susmita Lal, Rabin Majumder, Lakshmi Raman Singh, G. RamakrishnaPrasad, Rajesh Goyal, Yashraj Singh Deora, Shyam Agarwal, GorkelaBLaw Office, Satpal Singh, Advs. with them for the appearing parties.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.

1. Leave to appeal granted in all special leave petitions exceptCthose petitions dealt with in para 29(E) hereinafter.

2. These appeals and connected matters arise out of selectionundertaken pursuant to advertisement dated 19.05.2011 for recruiting4010 posts namely 3698 posts of Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police) and 312posts of Platoon Commander (Provincial Armed Constabulary or PAC)Din State of Uttar Pradesh. Since the issues raised in these matters arisefrom the same selection, they are dealt with together.

3. The provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector andInspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2018 (‘the Rules’, for short)contemplate a five phase programme of examinations for directErecruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspector and Platoon Commander. Thefive phases are: (i) Physical Standard Test (ii) Preliminary WrittenExamination (iii) Physical Efficiency Test (iv) Main Written Examinationand (v) Group Discussion.

4. Part V of the Rules deals with the procedure for recruitment.FIn terms of Rule 14, the appointing authority is to determine and intimatethe number of vacancies to be filled during the course of the year ofrecruitment, including those which are earmarked for reserved categories.Rule 6 contemplates reservation for candidates belonging to the ScheduledCastes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories. The reservation forother categories is governed by Uttar Pradesh Public ServicesG(Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of FreedomFighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993, (1993 Act, for short)

5. The procedure for direct recruitment after the vacancies areadvertised is dealt with in detail in Rule 15. According to Rule 15(h) inorder to succeed in the Preliminary Written Examination, the candidatesH

must secure a minimum of fifty per cent marks. Rule 15 (h) contemplatesdrawing up of a “Tentative Select List” on the basis of marks obtained inthe Main Written Examination and Group Discussion. Such TentativeSelect List is to be prepared in respect of each category of candidates inthe light of reservation policy and is thereafter sent to Police HeadQuarters for further action. Character Verification is thereafterundertaken and in terms of Rule 15(j) if candidates are found unfit inMedical Test or Character Verification, the vacancies are to be carriedforward for further selection.

6. After the publication of advertisement on 19.05.2011 forselection of 4010 posts i.e. 3698 posts for Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police)and 312 posts for Platoon Commander (PAC), the selection processwas undertaken. After the physical test, the preliminary examinationwas held on 11.12.2011. The main examination was thereafter held on14.09.2014 which was followed by Group Discussion. Final results werepublished on 16.03.2015 seeking to fill up all the posts which wereadvertised except 226 posts namely 205 and 21 posts reserved fordependents of freedom fighters in the categories of Sub-Inspectors (CivilPolice) and Platoon Commander (PAC) respectively, which could notbe filled because of non-availability of candidates. According to theauthorities, these posts were therefore required to be carried forwardfor subsequent selection.

7. A challenge was raised to the selection of certain candidatesinter alia on the ground that said candidates had used whitener/bladewhile answering questions in the main examination. It was submittedthat such candidates ought to have been disqualified and excluded fromthe final result. The challenge was accepted by the High Court ofAllahabad in its decision dated 29.05.2015 in Writ Petition No.67782 of2014, (Saket Kumar vs. State of U.P.) which directed the authorities toexclude the names of all those candidates who had used whitener/bladein the main examination. In the light of this decision, the authorities thenrevised the final result on 25.06.2015 and excluded names of all suchcandidates. As a result, some candidates who were not part of the finalresult on 16.03.2015 were included in the revised final result. This revisedfinal result thus became the basis and the candidates who figured thereinwere sent for training, pursuant to subsequent orders passed by thisCourt.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A8. The aforesaid decision of the High Court was subject matter ofchallenge before this Court and by its Judgment and Order dated19.01.2016 in SLP (Civil) No.21843-44 titled as Hanuman Dutt Shuklavs. State of UP, this Court accepted the contention of those whose namesstood excluded as a result of the High Court decision. However, sincethe revised final result was published by that time, this Court directedBthat those candidates whose names were included in the revised resultof 25.06.2015, ought not to be disturbed. It was directed that suchcandidates whose names were excluded as a result of use of whiteneror blade in the main examination, would also be accommodated overand above those who were selected as per revised final result. It isCcommon ground that in compliance of said order dated 19.01.2016 ofthis Court, a list of 809 successful candidates was declared on 05.12.2016by the Recruitment Board and appropriate relief in terms of order dated19.01.2016 passed by this Court was given.

9. In the meantime, fresh challenge was raised to the entireDselection process and the revised final result by filing Writ Petitionno.49802 of 2015 and other connected matters in the High Court ofAllahabad. It was submitted that the expression “such vacancies shallbe carried forward for further selection” in Rule 15(j) ought to beconstrued to mean that the vacancies must be offered to the nextavailable candidates in order of merit regardless whether they had failedEto make the cut off level. This challenge was negated by the High Courtby its Judgment and order dated 29.01.2016 and the writ petitions weredismissed. It was observed by the High Court as under:

“In the present case, there is a clear statutory embargo whichprovides that such vacancies shall be carried forward for furtherFselection which is specifically in the context of candidates beingfound unfit in the medical test or being invalidated as a result ofthe character verification. Rule 15 (h) clearly contemplates drawingup of a tentative select list on the basis of marks obtained in themain written examination and group discussion for each categoryGof candidates which is then sent to the Head of the Departmentwith a recommendation, subject to medical test and verificationof testimonials/character. Rule 15(h) specifically contemplates thatno waiting list is to be prepared by the Board. It is in thisbackground that Rule 15 (j) provided that prior to the issuance ofletters of appointment, completion of the character verification is H

H

necessary and if any candidate has been found unfit in the medicaltest or as a result of the character verification, these vacanciesshall be carried forward for further selection. The principle thatthe vacancies which are available should be filled up is subject tostatutory rules laying down the method and process of selection.Each of the petitioners admittedly has received marks which arelower than the cut off which was prescribed for the generalcategory of candidates and had been unable to be selected on thebasis of the cut off.

Hence, we find no merit in the submission which has been urgedon behalf of the petitioners that Rule 15(h) should be so construedas to require that the vacancies which remain unfilled as a resultof unfitness of 104 candidates and the absence of 46 should beoffered to the petitioners or to other persons in order of merit.This would be plainly contrary to the provisions contained in theRules.”

Consequently, Writ Petition No.67748 of 2015 was also dismissedon the same date, which decision is subject matter of challenge in CivilAppeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No.12538 of 2016. Theaforesaid Special Leave Petition came up along with connected matterson 25.04.2016 before this Court on which date notice was issued.

10. It may be mentioned here that in terms of the decision of aSingle Judge of the High Court of Allahabad rendered on 16.03.2016which was confirmed by the Division Bench by its Judgment and Orderdated 29.07.2016, in connection with horizontal reservation to be adoptedwhile finalizing the result, another revised final result was published on29.11.2016. Since no grievance is made on this count, we have refrainedfrom going into the details in respect of such challenge and theconsequences as a result of such directions.

11. In the meantime, another set of petitions challenging the entireselection process and consequential result inter alia, on the ground thatthe “rounding of percentage” adopted by the authorities had violated theprinciple laid down in Rule 15(d) of the Rules as a result of which ineligiblecandidates were declared successful, was filed in the High Court ofAllahabad. The challenge was accepted by a Single Judge of the HighCourt by its Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2016 in Writ Petition AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

ANo.5158 of 2015 and it was directed that the result of the main writtenexamination be prepared afresh in the light of the observations madetherein. This decision of the Single Judge was affirmed by the DivisionBench of the High Court in Special Appeal No.416 of 2016. (DharmendraKumar and others vs. State of U.P. & Others) and other connectedmatters by its Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2017. While upholdingBthe decision of the Single Judge, the Division Bench went on toobserve :- “It is not in dispute that total number of vacancies was 4010and thus in terms of the provisions contained in 15(f) of the ServiceRules, 2008, the total number candidates, who were required toCbe selected on the basis of evaluation of written examination wouldbe 12030 for allowing them to participate in group discussion. Inthe selection, which was under challenge before learned SingleJudge, as against 12030 candidates, total number of candidateswho were declared successful and were called for and subjectedDto group discussion was 14243[1]. Thus, 2213 candidates in excesswere called for group discussion and it was thus, contended bythe writ petitioners that the same was violative of rule 15(f) of theService Rules, 2008.

Rule 15(f) of the Service Rules, 2008 prescribes that a candidateEwho is declared successful in Physical Efficiency Test shall berequired to appear in the main written examination carrying 400marks in the subjects detailed therein. It further categoricallyprescribes that a candidate, who fails to obtain minimum 50%marks in each subject shall not be eligible for recruitment.”FThe Division Bench thus dismissed the Special Appeals.

12. The Judgment of the Division Bench dated 06.4.2017 in SpecialAppeal No.416 of 2016 and other connected matters is under challengein Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.16669 of 2017 and 22129 of2017 and other connected matters. These matters came up on 19.06.2017.GWhile issuing notice, this Court declined to stay the implementation ofthe order of the High Court but directed that any steps taken in pursuanceof the decision of the High Court would abide by further orders of thisCourt. The matters then came up on 21.07.2017 when following orderwas passed by this Court:

H1The candidates called for Group Discussion were 14256 and not 14243.

“We are informed by all the learned counsel present here thatincluding 37 writ petitioners, 237 persons approached the HighCourt against the selection at various stages in one capacity orother.

We are also informed that 810 candidates also had a grievancewith regard to whitener being used. However, for those 810candidates, additional vacancies were created, therefore, they donot come in the way of the present issue. Since there is no disputewith regard to 810 candidates, who are covered by the Judgmentpassed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 587-588 of 2016 dated19.01.2016, we direct the learned Additional Advocate General toascertain as to what is the impediment in sending them for trainingsince their issue is finally settled by the Judgment of this Court.

We are informed that pursuant to the directions issued by theHigh Court regarding reservation, a list of 3784 candidates hasbeen published on 26.11.2016, out of which 3533 have alreadyundergone training. We direct the learned Additional AdvocateGeneral to clarify as to what is the impediment in sending theremaining candidates also for training. He will also take instructionas to whether 237 people, who went to the High Court, can alsobe sent for training in respect of the vacancies which would havearisen subsequent to the advertisement, subject of course to theireligibility.”

13. In SLP (C) No.12538 of 2016, an affidavit in reply was filedon behalf of the State Government stating that each of the petitionershad secured marks less than the cut off marks. As regards 226 postswhich could not be filled up due to non-availability of suitable candidates,attention was invited to the provisions of Section 3(2) of 1993 Actwhereunder unfilled vacancies would be required to be carried forwardfor further two years and the vacancies could be treated to be lapsedonly if no sufficient candidates were available in such subsequentselection(s).

14. Thereafter, both the aforesaid set of Special Leave Petitionsalong with connected matters came up on 14.09.2017, when followingdirections were passed by this Court.

“We direct the Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P.to get an affidavit filed by the competent authority as to how A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Amany candidates are remaining to be considered who haveobtained the cut-off marks indicated above in the respectivecategories, after the list is to be revised as per the directions ofthe High Court. Barring the candidates already selected, theaffidavit shall indicate as to how many more candidates are therein the respective categories.B

All the persons who are before this Court on the ground that theywere before the High Court on or before 31.12.2016, either aspetitioners or as interveners, may submit their particulars to thelearned Additional Advocate General, who will verify theparticulars and submit a report before this Court beforeC31.10.2017.”

15. An affidavit in compliance of the directions issued by thisCourt on 14.09.2017, was filed on behalf of the State Government on27.10.2017. It was submitted as under:

“11. That as stated above all the candidates who used whitener/Dblade etc., and have procured the marks more than the cut-offmarks fixed for this category have been declared as selected andas on date no such candidate remains to be selected who hadobtained marks more-than the cut-off marks fixed either for thosewho used whitener/blade etc. or for those who did not adoptEwhitener/blade etc.

D

12. That as already submitted, out of 165 candidates/petitionersonly 95 candidates were selected. The Status Report of these 95candidates is as hereunder :

1. Candidates sent for training532. Candidate whose character verification & 11 medical examination is in process 3. Candidates found unfit in medical 31 examination & character verification Total95

F

G

Status of 95 selected candidates

13. That a list of 237 candidates (till 21.10.2017) was receivedfrom the office of the Learned Additional Advocate General. Allthese 237 candidates have approached this Hon’ble Court eitheras petitioner or as intervener. After scrutiny of the records it hadbeen found that none of these candidates have procured the marksupto the cut-off marks. This being so, their result had so far notbeen declared by the Recruitment Board.”

16. All the matters thereafter came up before this Court on31.10.2017 and following observations were made by this Court in itsorder :- “In furtherance to our order dated 14.09.2017 an affidavit hasbeen filed on behalf of the Government of U.P., on 27.10.2017. Itis stated in the affidavit that a total of 4617 candidates have so farbeen selected and sent for training. At paragraph 5 it is seen thatthe selection is based on cut off marks differently applied for thecandidates who have used whitener/blade etc.

Learned counsel appearing for some of the parties submit thatdespite their furnishing the particulars, there is no verification bythe learned Additional Advocate General. In case any of thenames furnished to the State have been left out their particularswill be verified and a further affidavit will be filed within threeweeks. In case, any of the candidates would still like to give theparticulars they can furnish the same to Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. on or before10.11.2017.

There will also be a direction to the State of U.P. to file anaffidavit as to how many among 4617 candidates already selectedhave either discontinued the training or left the service. It shallalso be clarified in zone of consideration for appointment in casethe cut off marks for general candidates are applied to those whoused whiteners/blade etc.

The State is also directed to clarify, going by the originaleligibility of 50% marks, how many more candidates would bethere in the zone of consideration.”

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A17. Accordingly, an affidavit of compliance was filed on behalf ofthe State Government on 21.11.2017. It was stated that in terms of theorders passed by this Court, 911 names were received from the officeof the Additional Advocate General out of which, 11 candidates werealready selected while roll numbers of 11 candidates did not match withthe data available with the Board. 22 candidates were stated to beBdisqualified in physical test and written examination leaving out 867candidates. It was asserted that the total marks obtained by said 867candidates were below the cut-off marks and, therefore, their namesdid not figure in the Select List. It was further submitted that out of4617 already selected, 102 candidates had discontinued training and 3Ccandidates had left the service, thus accepting that there were 105vacancies from and out of 4617 of selected candidates. It was furthersubmitted that 189 candidates who had used whitener/blade etc. on theiranswer sheets had secured marks equal to or above cut-off marks.

It was further submitted that 14256 candidates had scored 50%Dor more marks in each of the four subjects of the main written examinationand had thus qualified for the next stage of recruitment process i.e.Group Discussion. Those 14256 candidates were accordingly called forGroup Discussion. On the basis of total marks obtained by them in theWritten Examination and Group Discussion and after applying the relevantrules of reservation (vertical and horizontal) as per the policy of theEState Government, a select list was prepared by the Recruitment Board.Thus, all the 14256 candidates who had secured 50% or more marks inthe written examination, were considered for the next stage of theselection process. It was further stated that no more candidates, whohad obtained 50% or more marks in each of the four subjects of main Fwritten examination, were now available.18. All the matters, thereafter, came-up on 30.11.2017 whenfollowing order was passed by this Court.

“… … …We find that 189 candidates are to be included in viewof the decision of this Court in Hanuman Dutt Shukla Vs. StateGof U.P. We also note that more than 100 persons appointed haveleft the training/service. The learned counsel appearing for theindividual petitioners have pointed out that the figure would bemore than 200.

H

Be that as it may, we direct the learned AAG appearing for theState to verify as to how many persons are in actual service as ontoday in the post of Sub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders outof 4617 candidates already appointed. In respect of suchvacancies and in respect of 189 candidates of whitener category,we direct the State to complete the selection process in the orderof merit. … … …”.

19. In its subsequent order dated 16.01.2018 this Court thereafterdirected as under:

“… … …Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted thatthe order dated 30.11.2017 could not be fully implemented becauseof lack of clarification regarding the candidates who used whitener,blade etc.

We make it clear that since the candidates who have usedwhitener, blade etc. have otherwise been permitted, the State needto follow only one list.

It is also clarified that in the matter of appointment pursuant toour order dated 30.11.2017 all the three factors, namely, merit,reservation and preference should be taken into consideration. …… …”.

20. On 16.03.2018 an additional affidavit was filed on behalf ofthe State Government in compliance of the orders passed by this Courton 30.11.2017 and 16.01.2018. It was stated that as per informationreceived from the Headquarters of the Director General of Police,Lucknow, a total of 3858 persons were in actual service on the posts ofSub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders out of the 4617 candidatesalready appointed. It was stated that training orders for 72 selectedcandidates had also been issued leaving a total of 607 posts (Sub-Inspectors:537 + Platoon Commanders: 70) which were lying vacant.The affidavit stated :- “So far as the selection under the orders of this Hon’ble Court isconcerned, it is submitted that the answering respondents havereceived information regarding the aforesaid 607 vacancies alongwith the relevant reserved categories in which such vacanciesexist. It is submitted that the said vacancies would be filled in A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aaccordance with the three parameters specified by this Hon’bleCourt from time-to-time viz. merit, preference and reservation.”21. The matters then came-up on 22.03.2018. After hearing learnedcounsel, the following directions were issued by this Court:

“1.The advertised vacancies of 4010 in the Post of SubBInspector and Platoon Commanders should be filed up bythe State of Uttar Pradesh expeditiously on merits and interms of the orders passed by this Court, if not already filledup.

2. We have been informed by learned counsel for the State ofCUttar Pradesh that due to orders passed from time to timeby this Court, perhaps more than 4010 posts have been filledup. It that is so, persons occupying posts in excess of 4010shall not be disturbed until further orders from this Court.

3. Whether the persons who have been appointed in excess ofD4010 posts are to continue or their services may be dispensedwith will have to be argued by learned counsel for the partiesand we will certainly consider those submissions and passappropriate orders.

4. We may mention that according to learned counsel for theEpetitioners a large number of posts are lying vacant andperhaps some persons can be adjusted against those vacantposts over and above 4010 posts. We are not taking anydecision on this without hearing learned counsel for theparties.

F5.Following the order passed on 14[th] September, 2017, we makeit clear and direct that all applications for interventionimpleadment, etc. or fresh matters instituted after the cutoff date of 31[st] December, 2016 stand disposed of.”

22. When the matters again came-up on 14.08.2018, it wasGdisclosed that 213 candidates were similarly placed as 809 candidates inthe whitener category, whose case was dealt with by this Court in itsorder dated 19.01.2016 in Civil Appeal Nos.587-588 of 2016 (HanumanDutt Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.). A submission H

was made on behalf of the State Government that the said 809 candidatesas well as similarly situated 213 candidates ought to be taken as part of4010 vacancies notified for Selection. Said submission was rejected asunder:- “… … …Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel and Ms.Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General for theState of U.P. submit that 809 vacancies should be part of 4010vacancies notified for selection.

We find it difficult to appreciate the submission, since it had beenmade clear in the order of this Court dated 19.01.2016 in HanumanDutt Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (CivilAppeal Nos.587-588 of 2016) that on account of accommodationof 809 candidates in the whitener category, nobody should bedisplaced. There is no dispute that 213 candidates (24+189) aresimilarly situated, therefore, these 213 candidates are also to betreated as additional vacancies for all purposes and they shall besent for training forthwith.

Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of theclarification, as above, the candidates will be immediately sent fortraining, subject to codal formalities. We also make it clear thaton account of the implementation of this order, no representationfor change in the category (i.e. from Sub Inspector to PlatoonCommander) shall be entertained. … … …”

23. On 11.09.2018 a further affidavit was filed on behalf of StateGovernment in response to the queries posed on earlier occasions and itwas submitted that as on 07.08.2018 the total vacant posts in the cadresof Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) and Platoon Commander (PAC) were8260 and 289 respectively. It was further submitted that a requisitionfor recruitment of 3000 posts was sent to the Recruitment Board on04.04.2016 pursuant to which the selection was undertaken by theRecruitment Board and said process was in its final stages. Further,another requisition was made in respect of 5234 posts on 30.06.2018 tothe Recruitment Board. As regards the present selection it was submittedby the State Government as under :

A

B

CD

E

F

G

A

B

CD

E

F

G

346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A1 .T o t a l n u m b er o f v a c a n c i e s a s p e r 4 , 0 1 0n o t i fi c a t i o n / a d v e rt i s e m e n t ( S I 3 6 9 8 + P C 3 1 2 ) 2 . T o t a l n u m b e r o f a p p li c a t io n s re c e i v e d p u r s u a n t 5 ,3 1 , 2 3 9 t o th e a d v e rt i s e m e n t 3 . A f te r s cr u ti n y v a l id a p p l i c a t io n s 5 ,0 1 , 3 1 7 4 . P h y s ic a l S t a n d ar d T e s t ( D o c u m e n t V e r i f i c a t i o n ) 2 ,7 7 , 0 6 6 f o u n d q u a li fi ed B5 . P er s o n q u a l i f i e d f o r p r e l im i n a r y E x a m i n a t io n 2 ,7 7 , 0 6 6 ( 5 0 % ) 6 . N u m b e r o f ca n d i d a t e s a p p e a rin g i n th e 2 ,5 8 , 0 2 9 e x a m i n a t i o n 7 . C a n d i d a t e s q u a li f y i n g t h e E x a m i n a t i o n 4 9 , 1 0 0 8 . P er s o n s q u a l i f y in g P h y s i ca l E f fic ie n cy T e s t 1 5 , 7 7 7 C9 . P er s o n s c a l le d f o r W r it t e n E x a m i n a ti o n 1 5 , 7 7 7 1 0 . P er s o n s a p p e a r ed fo r E x a m i n a t io n 1 5 , 2 9 5 1 1 . P er s o n s q u a l if i e d ( N o n - w h i t e n er 1 1 , 3 7 6 W h it e n e r 2 8 8 0 ) 1 4 , 2 5 6 ( F o u r s u b j e c t t e s t – 4 0 0 m a r k s M i n im u m 5 0 % i n De a c h s u b j e ct to q u ali fy f o r n e x t s t a g e i . e . G r o u p D is c u s s io n ) A s p e r r u l e 3 t i m e s th e n o t i f ie d v a c a n ci e s is t o b e c a l l e d f o r G r o u p D i s c u s s io n w h ic h m e a n s 1 2 0 3 0 w a s t o b e c a l le d b u t th e B o a r d c a l l e d 1 4 2 5 6 , w h o a l l a pp e a r ed . 1 2 . F i n a l l is t n o n - w h it e n e r f o r S I 3 , 7 8 4 3 4 9 3 a n d P C 2 9 1 EN u m b e r o f v a c a n c i e s r e s e r v e d f o r e x -s e r v ic e m e n d e p e n d e n t o f f r e e d o m fi g h t e r s w h i c h w e re 2 2 6 c a r r i ed fo r w a r d d u e to n o n - a v a i l a b i li t y o f c a n d i d a te s T o t a l a s p e r a d v e rt i s e m e n t / n o t ifi c a ti o n 4 , 0 1 0 P er s o n s u s i n g w h i te n e rs w e r e d i s q u a li f ie d Fp u r s u a n t t o la rg e n u m b e r o f co m p la in t s r e c ei v e d a l le g in g u n f a ir p r a ct i c e b y th e c a n d i d a t e s . 1 3 . N u m b e r o f c a n d i d a te s u s i n g w h i te n e r s e le c t e d i n a d d it i o n t o t h e a l r e a d y s e l e c t e d w h i ch w a s a s p e r t h e a d v e rt i s e m e n t b u t i n c o m p l i a n c e o f o rd e r 8 0 9 d a t e d 1 9 . 0 1 . 2 0 1 6 i n th e ca s e o f H an u m a n D u t t S h u k l a p u r s u a n t t o o r d e r o f t h i s H o n ’ b le C o u rt d a t e d 2 3 . 0 8 .2 0 1 7 i n t h e ca s e o f D e e p a k K u m a r 2 4 1 4 . E x c es s n u m b e r o f c a n d i d a t e s w h o w e r e t o b e 8 3 3 Gc o n s i d e r e d a n d d ee m e d to h av e b e e n s e l e c te d p u r s u a n t t o t h e o r d e r s o f th e C o u r t s ( S I 7 5 5 + P C 7 8 )1 5 . P o s i t i o n a s o b t a in e d f ro m t h e a b o v e s i tu a t i o n 4 , 6 1 7 ( 3 7 8 4 + 8 3 3 )1 6 . C a n d id a t e s w h o d i s c o n t i n u e d tr a i n i n g /d id n o t 6 0 7 q u a li f y i n m e d i c a l e x a m i n a ti o n / c h a r a c t e r v e ri fi c a t i o n 1 7 . T o t a l n u m b e r o f p e o p l e i n s e r v ic e (4 6 1 7 - 6 0 7 ) 4 , 0 1 0 H

24. The matters were thereafter taken-up for final hearing andwe heard all the learned counsel. It was submitted by the learned counselthat since number of posts were still lying vacant, appropriate directionsbe issued to make appointments and the benefit of such direction beconfined to those who were before the Court either as Petitioners orIntervenors. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the StateGovernment that, as stated in its various affidavits, all candidates whohad secured more than 50% marks were considered at the appropriatestages in the selection process and that no more candidates who hadobtained 50% or more marks were now available. It was furthersubmitted that though there were vacancies to the tune of 8260 in thecadre of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) and 289 in the cadre of PlatoonCommander (PAC) but two subsequent selection processes were alreadyundertaken.

25. At the outset, we must deal with the challenges raised to thejudgments dated 29.01.2016 and 06.04.2017 passed by the High Courtin Writ Petition No.49802 of 2015 and in Special Appeal No.416 of 2016respectively.

In our view, the High Court was right in negating the submissionas regards construction of the expression “such vacancies shall be carriedforward for further selection” appearing in Rule 15(j). However,considering the facts that the present selection has seen variousinterventions including revision in final list on more than one occasionand considering the large number of vacancies of 607 posts where certaincandidates either discontinued training or did not qualify in medicalexamination/character verification, we deem it appropriate, as a onetime exception to direct that such 607 posts be made available in thepresent selection itself. One more reason for such direction is that largenumber of posts namely more than 8000 posts are currently availablefor succeeding selections.

Similarly, the decision of the High Court in Special Appeal No.416of 2016, in our view, was correct. Going by the Rules, only 12030candidates could have been allowed to participate in Group Discussionagainst the number of 14256. But at this length of time, it would beinappropriate to re-do the exercise and eliminate the excess numberfrom consideration, more particularly when the number of 14256represents all those who secured 50% or more marks in the writtenexamination and there are still 607 vacancies to be filled up.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A26. In the order dated 31.10.2017, this Court had emphasized theadherence to eligibility of 50% while the order dated 30.11.2017 haddirected completion of Selection process in the order of merit. Thereafter,the order dated 16.01.2018 categorically stated that three factors namely,merit, reservation and preference should be taken into consideration.We, therefore, cannot accept the submission that the benefit, if any, ofBthe order or directions should be confined to those who are/were beforethis Court or the High Court alone, in the capacity of either the petitionersor the intervenors ignoring merit.

27. We now proceed to deal with the matters concerning vacanciesand the directions that are required to be passed, in the facts andCcircumstances of the present matters.

28. According to the chart referred to above, though the numberof candidates called for group discussion ought to have been thrice thenotified vacancies i.e. 12030, the Board had called 14256 candidates.The first list viz. the result notified on 25.06.2015 had named 3784Dcandidates leaving out 226 unfilled posts as a result of non-availability ofcandidates in the category of dependents of freedom fighters as statedabove. In terms of the decisions of this Court in Hanuman Dutt Shukla(supra) 809 candidates were given benefit, followed by 24 similarlysituated candidates. To this number of 833 we will have to add 189Esimilarly situated candidates as dealt with in the order passed by thisCourt on 14.08.2018. The decision of this Court in Hanuman DuttShukla (supra) was very clear that the revised final list dated 25.06.2015ought not to be disturbed but benefit must be given to those candidateswho were excluded for use of whitener/blade etc. while answering themain examination. This aspect was repeatedly made clear that thoseFvacancies would be in addition and therefore we have no hesitation instating that the number of 1022 (809 in terms of Hanuman Dutt Shukla(supra), 24 in terms of case of Deepak Kumar and 189 in terms of theorder dated 14.08.2018) have to be reckoned in addition to the figure of4010. Therefore, total number of candidates who could be selected inGthe selection relatable to the year 2011 in any case ought not to be lessthan 4010+1022. Status and identity of the candidates who form thegroup of 1022 candidates is very clear. In this context it is to be notedthat the vacancies notified are only approximate and there is nothingwrong if the number increases in the exigencies of service.

H

29. We now come to the issue as to what should be the approachAin respect of vacant posts on two counts. The tabular chart then statesthat 226 posts remained unfilled as a result of non-availability of candidatesin the category of dependents of freedom fighters etc. and 607 posts arelying vacant as a result of candidates who discontinued training or did notqualify in medical examination/character verification. Theoretically, 226Bunfilled posts ought to be carried forward for further selection as thoseposts were earmarked for dependents of freedom fighters.

In the peculiar fact situation of the present case, as a one timeexception, we issue following directions :-

A) 607 posts lying vacant as a result of certain candidates havingdiscontinued training or having failed to qualify in medicalexamination/character verification, shall be offered and madeavailable in the present selection itself, strictly in order of merit andsubject to fulfilment of having obtained 50% or more marks.

C

B) There are 226 unfilled posts as a result of non-availability ofDcandidates in the cadre of dependents of freedom fighters. Normally,“freedom fighters” is not a category which, over a period of time,would keep increasing. In any case, there are selections whichare round the corner in which more than 8000 posts are availablefor the candidates. The interest of those candidates who answerthe description “dependents of freedom fighters” would thereforeEbe taken care of in the succeeding selections. We, therefore, directthat these 226 posts should also be made available for the presentselection.

C) The State Government and its authorities are therefore directedto make available 833 posts (607+226) for the present selectionstrictly in order of merit subject to the fulfillment of the criteria thatthe candidates had obtained 50% or more in the main writtenexamination, in keeping with principles of reservation andpreference.

F

D) We make it clear that direction to fill-up the above 833 posts inGterms of this Judgment is in addition to any other directions alreadyissued.E) A group of matters namely SLP (Civil) Nos.10674 of 2018,10675 of 2018, 12891-12893 of 2018 and 15699 of 2018 are filedby individuals who are either Head Constables or Constables inH

E) A group of matters namely SLP (Civil) Nos.10674 of 2018,10675 of 2018, 12891-12893 of 2018 and 15699 of 2018 are filedby individuals who are either Head Constables or Constables in

Athe police service and are seeking promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police). Since the nature of controversy and thequestions raised therein are completely unconnected with thepresent selection, we segregate said matters and direct that theybe listed immediately before the appropriate Bench forconsideration.

B

30. All appeals, Writ Petitions and Transferred Cases standdisposed of in above terms. All contempt petitions seeking complianceof the orders passed by this Court also stand disposed of as no furtherorders are called for. There shall be no order as to costs.

C31. We are grateful for the assistance rendered by all the learnedcounsel and sincerely appreciate the efforts put in by them.

Divya Pandey

Directions issued.

D

E

F

G

H