The case at hand involves a dispute over the interpretation of promotion criteria, culminating in a landmark judgement by the Supreme Court of India. The petitioners argued that their aggregate performance in all subjects justified their entitlement to promotion, emphasizing the need to consider overall performance. On the other hand, the respondents contested this claim, citing specific criteria laid down in the rules governing the selection process. The Supreme Court’s decision in this matter is set to have far-reaching implications for similar cases in the future.
Facts
- The Single Judge directed the authorities to award full marks to every candidate in respect of 18 questions.
- The Division Bench stayed the order passed by the Single Judge in the Special Appeal arising therefrom.
- The State Government’s stand was that the candidates were awarded marks as prescribed by the Court, but none of the appellants fulfilled the criteria of obtaining 50% marks in all subjects.
- The appellants argued that subject Nos. 3 and 4 were part of the same paper, and the minimum marks should be considered for the entire paper, not per subject.
- The Rule specified that eligible candidates are to appear in a written examination carrying 300 marks with subjects 1 to 4 (where subjects 3 & 4 carry 50 marks each).
- The appellants, who belong to the Scheduled Caste category, appeared in a limited departmental examination for the posts of Sub-Inspectors.
- The conduct of the examination was to be governed by the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008.
- A writ petition was filed in April 2018 challenging the selection process and the application of Reservation Policy in the examination.
- The High Court refused to entertain the writ petition based on a previous order of the Court.
- The appeal challenges the final judgment and order of the High Court passed on 20.04.2018.
- Candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector are required to complete a run of 10 kilometers in 75 minutes for male candidates and a run of 5 kilometers in 45 minutes for female candidates.
- The written examination includes Mental Aptitude Test, I.Q. Test, and Reasoning for 50 marks in objective type.
- Training Course carries 30 marks, with 10 marks each for substantive training subjects and 2 marks each for non-substantive training subjects.
- Training courses must be notified by the Training Director, with no training less than one month considered substantive.
- Candidates failing to obtain a minimum of fifty percent in each subject are not eligible for promotion.
- Maximum marks for length of service is 20 (1 mark for each year) and 10 marks for educational qualifications of Graduation and above.
- Marks deductions include 30 for major punishments, 2 for minor punishments, and 1 for adverse entries or petty punishments.
- Marks are awarded for medals of National and State levels, with a maximum of 10 marks for medals.
- Selection of successful candidates is based on the marks obtained in the written examination.
- Service Records are evaluated for marks for selected candidates.
- Male candidates will receive marks based on Service Records.
Also Read: Anticipatory Bail Application in Different Cases: Landmark Judgment by the Supreme Court of India
Arguments
- The appellants are arguing that they should be promoted based on their aggregate performance in all subjects.
- They claim that their overall performance justifies their entitlement to promotion.
- The appellants assert that when all subjects are considered together, they meet the criteria for promotion.
Also Read: Supreme Court of India Dismisses Writ Petition on Arms Export to Israel
Analysis
- Only candidates meeting the requirements specified in clauses (a) and (c) are eligible for consideration.
- Candidate marks under sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) are to be added to marks obtained under sub-rule (v).
- Candidates selected under clause (a) must undergo a Physical Efficiency Test of qualifying nature.
- The Selection Committee prepares a list of candidates based on aggregate marks obtained.
- Nomination of officers for representation of SC, ST, and OBC in the Selection Committee as per Section 7 of the Act.
- Candidates must secure a minimum of 50% marks in each subject in the written examination.
- Failure to obtain 50 marks in each subject renders a candidate ineligible for promotion.
- Group Discussion process to be video graphed and uploaded on the Board website.
- Marks for Management Skills, Presentation, Attitude, and Personality are evaluated.
- Group Discussion supervised by a panel of experts and police officials.
- Police case study presented for discussion during the Group Discussion.
- Group Discussion carries 20 marks in the evaluation.
- An error in 18 questions of the written examination was acknowledged in a Writ Petition.
- Final select list prepared based on merit and reservation provisions.
- Equal marks tie-breaker criteria specified for candidate selection.
- Candidates selected under Rule 17(a) must participate in Group Discussion.
- Merit is emphasized without compromising criteria.
- Candidates with withheld integrity within the last five years are ineligible for promotion.
- The Court emphasized that no court shall entertain any grievance related to this particular selection process.
- This decision was clearly stated to ensure that the selection process and its related grievances are not brought before any court.
- It was made explicitly clear that the jurisdiction of other courts to address issues concerning this selection process is prohibited.
- The grievance raised in the Writ Petition was regarding selection through limited departmental examination for promotion to the post of UP Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) Rankers Examination, not direct recruitment.
- The matter was wrongly clubbed with Civil Appeal No.11370 of 2018.
- The express language of the Rules does not allow for the interpretation suggested by Mr. Shishodia.
- The order dated 30.01.2007 did not settle any controversy and was not meant to serve as a precedent for other cases.
Also Read: National Task Force for Healthcare Safety: Ensuring Dignity and Protection for Medical Professionals
Decision
- Transfer Case No.287 of 2017 stands dismissed.
- The matter finally reached the Supreme Court, and certain directions were issued in Civil Appeal No.6547 of 2014 to put the controversy to rest.
- M.A. No.643 of 2019 in TC (C) No.297 of 2017 involving the selection process for Sub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders in UP was considered in connection with other matters.
- The principal prayer in the writ petition was for reservation and relaxation for SC/ST candidates.
- Writ Petition No.2604 of 2015 was transferred to the Supreme Court as TC(Civil) No.287 of 2017.
- Writ Petition No.18788 of 2017 was also transferred to the Supreme Court as TC(Civil) No.297 of 2017.
- A fresh select list was to be drawn up for certain posts based on corrected marks within three months as per the Supreme Court order.
- Any matter pending in the Writ Court or before the Division Bench was deemed disposed of by the Supreme Court order.
- Transfer Case No.287 of 2017 and No.297 of 2017 were both dismissed by the Supreme Court.
- The U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board was directed to scrutinize the papers of all candidates and award full marks for answered erroneous questions.
- The issues involved in the matters were considered to be identical to earlier cases, leading to the dismissal of appeals with no costs being imposed.
Case Title: LANCE NAYAK PNO NO. 980510777 RAJ BAHADUR Vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Case Number: C.A. No.-004837-004837 / 2019
