1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11370  OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.12538 of 2016)

Alok Kumar Singh & Others        ……Appellants

VERSUS

State of U.P. & Others         ..…. Respondents

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.11372 OF 2018

S.L.P. (C) No.31192 of 2018 (CC No. 22932/2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11373 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 34047/2016)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11374 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 16723/2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11375 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.16669/2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11371 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9028/2018)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11377 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9033/2018)

2

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11378 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 9026/2018)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11380 OF 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.31199  of  2018)

(Diary No.22129/2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.11381-11382 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.31202-31203 of 2018)

(Diary No.22319/2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11383 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.31204 of 2018 )

(Diary No.22536/2017)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11384 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.31205 of 2018)

(Diary No.22655/2017)

W.P.(C) No. 735/2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11385 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No.31206 of 2018)

(Diary No. 25266/2017)

WP(C) No.736/2017

T.C.(C) No.51/2017

T.C.(C) No.52/2017

T.C.(C) No.53/2017

T.C.(C) No.54/2017

T.C.(C) No. 55/2017

T.C.(C) No. 56/2017

T.C.(C) No. 57/2017

3

T.C.(C) No. 58/2017

T.C.(C) No. 59/2017

T.C.(C) No. 60/2017

T.C.(C) No. 62/2017

T.C.(C) No. 61/2017

T.C.(C) No. 63/2017

T.C.(C) No. 64/2017

T.C.(C) No. 65/2017

T.C.(C) No. 66/2017

T.C.(C) No. 67/2017

T.C.(C) No. 68/2017

T.C.(C) No. 69/2017

T.C.(C) No. 71/2017

T.C.(C) No. 73/2017

T.C.(C) No. 74/2017

T.C.(C) No. 75/2017

T.C.(C) No. 80/2017

T.C.(C) No. 83/2017

T.C.(C) No. 85/2017

4

T.C.(C) No. 87/2017

T.C.(C) No. 88/2017

T.C.(C) No. 89/2017

T.C.(C) No. 90/2017

T.C.(C) No. 91/2017

T.C.(C) No. 93/2017

T.C.(C) No. 97/2017

T.C.(C) No. 98/2017

T.C.(C) No. 99/2017

T.C.(C) No. 100/2017

T.C.(C) No.102/2017

T.C.(C) No. 103/2017

T.C.(C) No. 105/2017

T.C.(C) No. 106/2017

T.C.(C) No. 109/2017

T.C.(C) No. 110/2017

T.C.(C) No. 111/2017

T.C.(C) No. 112/2017

T.C.(C) No. 113/2017

T.C.(C) No. 114/2017

5

T.C.(C) No. 116/2017

T.C.(C) No. 117/2017

T.C.(C) No. 118/2017

T.C.(C) No. 120/2017

T.C.(C) No. 121/2017

T.C.(C) No. 122/2017

T.C.(C) No. 123/2017

T.C.(C) No. 124/2017

T.C.(C) No. 125/2017

T.C.(C) No. 126/2017

T.C.(C) No. 127/2017

T.C.(C) No. 128/2017

T.C.(C) No. 129/2017

T.C.(C) No. 131/2017

T.C.(C) No. 132/2017

T.C.(C) No. 133/2017

T.C.(C) No. 134/2017

T.C.(C) No. 135/2017

T.C.(C) No. 136/2017

T.C.(C) No. 140/2017

6

T.C.(C) No. 142/2017

T.C.(C) No. 144/2017

T.C.(C) No. 145/2017

T.C.(C) No. 146/2017

T.C.(C) No. 147/2017

T.C.(C) No. 148/2017

T.C.(C) No. 149/2017

T.C.(C) No. 151/2017

T.C.(C) No. 152/2017

T.C.(C) No. 153/2017

T.C.(C) No. 154/2017

T.C.(C) No. 155/2017

T.C.(C) No. 156/2017

T.C.(C) No. 157/2017

T.C.(C) No. 159/2017

T.C.(C) No. 161/2017

T.C.(C) No. 162/2017

T.C.(C) No. 165/2017

T.C.(C) No. 166/2017

T.C.(C) No. 167/2017

7

T.C.(C) No. 168/2017

T.C.(C) No. 169/2017

T.C.(C) No. 171/2017

T.C.(C) No. 172/2017

T.C.(C) No. 173/2017

T.C.(C) No. 176/2017

T.C.(C) No. 178/2017

T.C.(C) No. 180/2017

T.C.(C) No. 181/2017

T.C.(C) No. 183/2017

T.C.(C) No. 184/2017

T.C.(C) No. 107/2017

T.C.(C) No. 141/2017

T.C.(C) No. 219/2017

T.C.(C) No. 226/2017

T.C.(C) No. 227/2017

T.C.(C) No. 220/2017

T.C.(C) No. 192/2017

T.C.(C) No. 216/2017

T.C.(C) No. 200/2017

8

T.C.(C) No. 185/2017

T.C.(C) No. 186/2017

T.C.(C) No. 187/2017

T.C.(C) No. 188/2017

T.C.(C) No. 189/2017

T.C.(C) No. 190/2017

T.C.(C) No. 191/2017

T.C.(C) No. 194/2017

T.C.(C) No. 195/2017

T.C.(C) No. 196/2017

T.C.(C) No. 197/2017

T.C.(C) No. 199/2017

T.C.(C) No. 201/2017

T.C.(C) No. 202/2017

T.C.(C) No. 203/2017

T.C.(C) No. 204/2017

T.C.(C) No. 205/2017

T.C.(C) No. 207/2017 T.C.(C) No. 206/2017

T.C.(C) No. 213/2017

9

T.C.(C) No. 215/2017

T.C.(C) No. 214/2017

T.C.(C) No. 217/2017

T.C.(C) No. 218/2017

T.C.(C) No. 222/2017

T.C.(C) No. 221/2017

T.C.(C) No. 224/2017

T.C.(C) No. 225/2017

T.C.(C) No. 228/2017

T.C.(C) No. 229/2017

T.C.(C) No. 230/2017

T.C.(C) No. 232/2017

T.C.(C) No. 234/2017

T.C.(C) No. 241/2017

T.C.(C) No. 252/2017

T.C.(C) No. 231/2017

T.C.(C) No. 250/2017

T.C.(C) No. 233/2017

T.C.(C) No. 247/2017

T.C.(C) No. 246/2017

10

T.C.(C) No. 235/2017

T.C.(C) No. 242/2017

T.C.(C) No. 236/2017

T.C.(C) No. 237/2017

T.C.(C) No. 244/2017

T.C.(C) No. 238/2017

T.C.(C) No. 239/2017

T.C.(C) No. 254/2017

T.C.(C) No. 255/2017

T.C.(C) No. 245/2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11379 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.15876/2018)

W.P.(C) No. 1053/2017

T.C.(C) No. 277/2017

T.C.(C) No. 278/2017

T.C.(C) No. 279/2017

T.C.(C) No. 281/2017

T.C.(C) No. 282/2017

T.C.(C) No. 283/2017

T.C.(C) No. 289/2017

11

T.C.(C) No. 284/2017

T.C.(C) No. 285/2017

T.C.(C) No. 287/2017

T.C.(C) No. 286/2017

T.C.(C) No. 288/2017

T.C.(C) No. 292/2017

T.C.(C) No. 297/2017

T.C.(C) No. 299/2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11402 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C)No. 37085/2017)

T.C.(C) No. 307/2017

W.P.(C) No. 22/2018

CON.PET.(C) No.815/2018 in SLP(C) No.16669/2017

W.P.(C) No.441/2018

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 11388-11390 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.31208-31210 of 2018  

(Diary No.14629/2018)

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.11386-11387OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.31211-31212 of /2018  

(Diary No.15295/2018)

MA 1297/2018 in T.C. (C) No.92/2017

MA 1993/2018 in T.C. (C) No.210/2017

12

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

CON. PET. (C) No.1200/2018 in T.C. (C) No.58/2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11391  OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition(C) No.31213 of  2018)

(Diary No.22644/2018)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11392  OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.31214 of 2018)

(Diary No. 22656/2018)

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11393 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.31215 of 2018)

(Diary No. 22921/2018)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11394 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.31216 of 2018)

(Diary No. 22993/2018)

CONMT.PET.(C) No. 1257/2018 in T.P.(C) No. 283/2017

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11406 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.31241 of 2018)

(Diary No. 23957/2018)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11407 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.31245 of /2018)

(Diary No. 24620/2018)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11396 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.31217 of 2018)

(Diary No. 27543/2018)

W.P.(C) No. 913/2018

T.C.(C) No. 53/2018

CON. PET. (C) No.972/2018 IN SLP (C) No.10468/2018

13

SLP(C) No.10674/2018

SLP(C) No.10675/2018

SLP(C) No.12891-12893/2018

SLP(C) No.15699/2018

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11398 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.31219 of 2018)

(Diary No.28830/2018)

CIVIL APPEAL NO.11399 OF 2018 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.31220 of 2018)

(Diary No.32106/2018)

W.P.(C) No.1059/2018

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

JUDGMENT

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

1. Leave to appeal granted in all special leave petitions except those petitions

dealt with in para 29(E) hereinafter.

2. These  appeals  and  connected  matters  arise  out  of  selection  undertaken

pursuant to advertisement dated 19.05.2011 for recruiting 4010 posts namely 3698

posts  of  Sub-Inspectors  (Civil  Police)  and  312  posts  of  Platoon  Commander

14

(Provincial  Armed Constabulary  or  PAC)  in  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh.  Since  the

issues raised in these matters arise from the same selection, they are dealt with

together.

3. The provisions  of  the  Uttar  Pradesh Sub-Inspector  and Inspector  (Civil

Police)  Service  Rules,  2018  (‘the  Rules’,  for  short)  contemplate  a  five  phase

programme of examinations for direct recruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspector

and Platoon Commander.   The  five  phases  are:  (i)  Physical  Standard  Test  (ii)

Preliminary Written Examination (iii) Physical Efficiency Test (iv) Main Written

Examination and (v) Group Discussion.

4. Part V of the Rules deals with the procedure for recruitment.  In terms of

Rule  14,  the  appointing  authority  is  to  determine  and  intimate  the  number  of

vacancies to be filled during the course of the year of recruitment, including those

which are earmarked for reserved categories.   Rule 6 contemplates reservation for

candidates  belonging  to  the  Scheduled  Castes,  Scheduled  Tribes  and  other

categories.   The  reservation  for  other  categories  is  governed by Uttar  Pradesh

Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom

Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993, (1993 Act, for short)

5. The procedure for direct recruitment after the vacancies are advertised is

dealt with in detail in Rule 15. According to Rule 15(h) in order to succeed in the

15

Preliminary Written Examination, the candidates must secure a minimum of fifty

per cent marks.  Rule 15 (h) contemplates drawing up of a “Tentative Select List”

on  the  basis  of  marks  obtained  in  the  Main  Written  Examination  and  Group

Discussion.   Such  Tentative  Select  List  is  to  be  prepared  in  respect  of  each

category of candidates in the light of reservation policy and is thereafter sent to

Police  Head  Quarters  for  further  action.   Character  Verification  is  thereafter

undertaken and in terms of Rule 15(j) if candidates are found unfit in Medical Test

or  Character  Verification,  the  vacancies  are  to  be  carried  forward  for  further

selection.   

6. After the publication of advertisement on 19.05.2011 for selection of 4010

posts i.e. 3698 posts for Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police) and 312 posts for Platoon

Commander (PAC), the selection process was undertaken.  After the physical test,

the preliminary examination was held on 11.12.2011.  The main examination was

thereafter held on 14.09.2014 which was followed by Group Discussion.  Final

results were published on 16.03.2015 seeking to fill up all the posts which were

advertised except 226 posts namely 205 and 21 posts reserved for dependents of

freedom fighters in the categories of  Sub-Inspectors  (Civil  Police)  and Platoon

Commander  (PAC)  respectively,  which  could  not  be  filled  because  of  non-

availability of candidates.  According to the authorities, these posts were therefore

required to be carried forward for subsequent selection.

16

7. A challenge was raised to the selection of certain candidates inter alia on

the ground that said candidates had used whitener/blade while answering questions

in the main examination.  It was submitted that such candidates ought to have been

disqualified and excluded from the final result.  The challenge was accepted by the

High  Court  of  Allahabad  in  its  decision  dated  29.05.2015  in  Writ  Petition

No.67782 of 2014, (Saket Kumar vs. State of U.P.) which directed the authorities

to exclude the names of all those candidates who had used whitener/blade in the

main examination.  In the light of this decision, the authorities then revised the

final result on 25.06.2015 and excluded names of all such candidates.  As a result,

some candidates who were not part of the final result on 16.03.2015 were included

in the revised final result.  This revised final result thus became the basis and the

candidates  who  figured  therein  were  sent  for  training,  pursuant  to  subsequent

orders passed by this Court.   

8. The aforesaid decision of the High Court was subject matter of challenge

before this Court and by its Judgment and Order dated 19.01.2016 in SLP (Civil)

No.21843-44 titled as Hanuman Dutt Shukla vs. State of UP, this Court accepted

the contention of those whose names stood excluded as a result of the High Court

decision.  However, since the revised final result was published by that time, this

Court directed that those candidates whose names were included in the revised

result  of  25.06.2015,  ought  not  to  be  disturbed.   It  was  directed  that  such

17

candidates whose names were excluded as a result of use of whitener or blade in

the main examination, would also be accommodated over and above those who

were selected as per revised final result.  It is common ground that in compliance

of said order dated 19.01.2016 of this Court, a list of 809 successful candidates

was declared on 05.12.2016 by the Recruitment Board and appropriate relief in

terms of order dated 19.01.2016 passed by this Court was given.

9. In the meantime, fresh challenge was raised to the entire selection process

and the revised final result  by filing Writ Petition no.49802 of 2015 and other

connected  matters  in  the  High Court  of  Allahabad.   It  was  submitted  that  the

expression “such vacancies shall be carried forward for further selection” in Rule

15(j) ought to be construed to mean that the vacancies must be offered to the next

available candidates in order of merit regardless whether they had failed to make

the cut off level.  This challenge was negated by the High Court by its Judgment

and order dated 29.01.2016 and the writ petitions were dismissed.  It was observed

by the High Court as under:

“In  the  present  case,  there  is  a  clear  statutory  embargo which provides that such vacancies shall be carried forward for further  selection  which  is  specifically  in  the  context  of candidates  being  found  unfit  in  the  medical  test  or  being invalidated as a result of the character verification.  Rule 15 (h) clearly contemplates drawing up of a tentative select list on the basis of marks obtained in the main written examination and group discussion for each category of candidates which is then sent  to the Head of  the Department  with a  recommendation,

18

subject  to  medical  test  and  verification  of testimonials/character. Rule 15(h) specifically contemplates that no waiting list  is  to  be prepared by the Board.   It  is  in  this background that Rule 15 (j) provided that prior to the issuance of  letters  of  appointment,  completion  of  the  character verification is necessary and if any candidate has been found unfit  in  the  medical  test  or  as  a  result  of  the  character verification, these vacancies shall be carried forward for further selection.  The principle that the vacancies which are available should be filled up is subject to statutory rules laying down the method  and  process  of  selection.   Each  of  the  petitioners admittedly has received marks which are lower than the cut off which was prescribed for the general category of candidates and had been unable to be selected on the basis of the cut off.

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

Consequently, Writ Petition No.67748 of 2015 was also dismissed on the

same date, which decision is subject matter of challenge in Civil Appeal arising out

of Special Leave Petition No.12538 of 2016. The aforesaid Special Leave Petition

came up along with connected matters on 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 a Single Judge of

the High Court of Allahabad rendered on 16.03.2016 which was confirmed by the

Division Bench by its Judgment and Order dated 29.07.2016, in connection with

19

horizontal  reservation to be adopted while finalizing the result,  another revised

final  result  was published on 29.11.2016.   Since no grievance is made on this

count, we have refrained from going into the details in respect of such challenge

and the consequences as a result of such directions.

11. In the meantime, another set of petitions challenging the entire selection

process and consequential result  inter alia, on the ground that the “rounding of

percentage” adopted by the authorities had violated the principle laid down in Rule

15(d)  of  the  Rules  as  a  result  of  which  ineligible  candidates  were  declared

successful, was filed in the High Court of Allahabad.  The challenge was accepted

by a Single Judge of the High Court by its Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2016

in Writ Petition No.5158 of 2015 and it was directed that the result of the main

written  examination  be  prepared  afresh  in  the  light  of  the  observations  made

therein.  This decision of the Single Judge was affirmed by the Division Bench of

the High Court in Special Appeal No.416 of 2016. (Dharmendra Kumar and others

vs. State of U.P. & Others) and other connected matters by its Judgment and Order

dated 06.04.2017.  While upholding the decision of the Single Judge, the Division

Bench went on to observe :-  

“It is not in dispute that total number of vacancies was 4010 and thus  in  terms  of  the  provisions  contained in  15(f)  of  the Service  Rules,  2008,  the  total  number  candidates,  who  were required  to  be  selected  on  the  basis  of  evaluation  of  written examination would be 12030 for allowing them to participate in

20

group discussion.  In the selection, which was under challenge before learned Single Judge, as against 12030 candidates, total number  of  candidates who were declared successful  and were called for and subjected to group discussion was 142431.  Thus, 2213 candidates in excess were called for group discussion and it was thus, contended by the writ  petitioners that  the same was violative of rule 15(f) of the Service Rules, 2008.

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

The Division Bench thus dismissed the Special Appeals.

12. The Judgment of the Division Bench dated 06.4.2017 in Special Appeal

No.416 of 2016 and other connected matters is under challenge in Civil Appeals

arising out of SLP (C) Nos.16669 of 2017 and 22129 of 2017 and other connected

matters.  These matters came up on 19.06.2017.  While issuing notice, this Court

declined to stay the implementation of the order of the High Court but directed that

any steps taken in pursuance of the decision of the High Court would abide by

further  orders  of  this  Court.   The  matters  then  came  up  on  21.07.2017  when

following order was passed by this Court:

“We are informed by all the learned counsel present here that including 37 writ petitioners, 237 persons approached the High  Court  against  the  selection  at  various  stages  in  one capacity or other.  

1 The candidates called for Group Discussion were 14256 and not 14243.

21

We  are  also  informed  that  810  candidates  also  had  a grievance with regard to  whitener  being used.  However,  for those  810  candidates,  additional  vacancies  were  created, therefore, they do not come in the way of the present issue. Since there is no dispute with regard to 810 candidates, who are  covered by the  Judgment  passed  by this  Court  in  Civil Appeal Nos. 587-588 of 2016 dated 19.01.2016, we direct the learned Additional Advocate General to ascertain as to what is the impediment in sending them for training since their issue is finally settled by the Judgment of this Court.

We are informed that pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court regarding reservation, a list of 3784 candidates has  been published on 26.11.2016,  out  of  which 3533 have already undergone training. We direct the learned Additional Advocate General to clarify as to what is the impediment in sending the remaining candidates also for training. He will also take instruction as  to  whether  237 people,  who went  to  the High  Court,  can  also  be  sent  for  training  in  respect  of  the vacancies  which  would  have  arisen  subsequent  to  the advertisement, subject of course to their eligibility.”

13. In SLP (C) No.12538 of 2016, an affidavit in reply was filed on behalf of

the State Government stating that each of the petitioners had secured marks less

than the cut off marks.  As regards 226 posts which could not be filled up due to

non-availability of suitable candidates, attention was invited to the provisions of

Section 3(2) of 1993 Act whereunder unfilled vacancies would be required to be

carried forward for  further  two years and the vacancies could be treated to be

lapsed  only  if  no  sufficient  candidates  were  available  in  such  subsequent

selection(s).

22

14. Thereafter,  both the aforesaid set  of  Special Leave Petitions along with

connected matters came up on 14.09.2017, when following directions 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 many candidates are remaining to be considered who have obtained the  cut-off  marks  indicated  above  in  the  respective categories, after the list is to be revised as per the directions of the High Court.   Barring the candidates already selected,  the affidavit  shall  indicate  as  to  how many more  candidates  are there in the respective categories.  

All the persons who are before this Court on the ground that they were before the High Court on or before 31.12.2016, either as petitioners or as interveners, may submit their particulars to the learned Additional Advocate General, who will verify the particulars  and  submit  a  report  before  this  Court  before 31.10.2017.”

15. An  affidavit  in  compliance  of  the  directions  issued  by  this  Court  on

14.09.2017, was filed on behalf of the State Government on 27.10.2017.  It was

submitted as under:

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

23

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

Status of 95 selected candidates

1. Candidates sent for training 53

2. Candidate whose character verification & medical examination is in process

11

3. Candidates  found  unfit  in  medical examination & character verification

31

Total 95

13. That a list of 237 candidates (till 21.10.2017) was received from the office of  the Learned Additional  Advocate  General. All these 237 candidates have approached this Hon’ble Court either  as  petitioner  or  as  intervener.   After  scrutiny  of  the records it had been found that none of these candidates have procured the marks upto the cut-off marks.  This being so, their result had so far not been declared by the Recruitment Board.”

16. All the matters thereafter came up before this Court on 31.10.2017 and

following observations were made by this Court in its order :-

“In furtherance to our order dated 14.09.2017 an affidavit has  been  filed  on  behalf  of  the  Government  of  U.P.,  on 27.10.2017.   It  is  stated  in  the  affidavit  that  a  total  of  4617 candidates have so far  been selected and sent  for  training.   At paragraph 5 it is seen that the selection is based on cut off marks differently  applied  for  the  candidates  who  have  used whitener/blade etc.

24

Learned counsel appearing for some of the parties submit that despite their furnishing the particulars, there is no verification by the learned Additional Advocate General.  In case any of the names furnished to the State have been left out their particulars will be verified and a further affidavit will be filed within three weeks.  In case, any of the candidates would still like to give the particulars  they can  furnish  the  same to  Ms.  Aishwarya  Bhati, Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. on or before 10.11.2017.

There will also be a direction to the State of U.P. to file an affidavit as to how many among 4617 candidates already selected have either discontinued the training or left the service.  It shall also be clarified in zone of consideration for appointment in case the cut off marks for general candidates are applied to those who used whiteners/blade etc.

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

17. Accordingly, an affidavit of compliance was filed on behalf of the State

Government on 21.11.2017.  It was stated that in terms of the orders passed by this

Court,  911  names  were  received  from  the  office  of  the  Additional  Advocate

General out of which, 11 candidates were already selected while roll numbers of 11

candidates did not match with the data available with the Board.  22 candidates

were stated to be disqualified in physical test and written examination leaving out

867  candidates.   It  was  asserted  that  the  total  marks  obtained  by  said  867

candidates were below the cut-off marks and, therefore, their names did not figure

in the Select List.  It was further submitted that out of 4617 already selected, 102

candidates had discontinued training and 3 candidates had left  the service, thus

25

accepting  that  there  were  105  vacancies  from  and  out  of  4617  of  selected

candidates.   It  was  further  submitted  that  189  candidates  who  had  used

whitener/blade etc. on their answer sheets had secured marks equal to or above cut-

off marks.   

It  was further  submitted that  14256 candidates had scored 50% or more

marks in each of the four subjects of the main written examination and had thus

qualified for the next stage of recruitment process i.e. Group Discussion.  Those

14256 candidates were accordingly called for Group Discussion. On the basis of

total marks obtained by them in the Written Examination and Group Discussion

and after applying the relevant rules of reservation (vertical and horizontal) as per

the policy of the State Government, a select list was prepared by the Recruitment

Board.  Thus, all the 14256 candidates who had secured 50% or more marks in the

written examination, were considered for the next stage of the selection process.  It

was further stated that no more candidates, who had obtained 50% or more marks

in each of the four subjects of main written examination, were now available.  

18. All the matters, thereafter, came-up on 30.11.2017 when following order

was passed by this Court.

“… … …We find that 189 candidates are to be included in view of the decision of this Court in Hanuman Dutt Shukla Vs.  State of U.P.  We also note that more than 100 persons appointed have left the training/service.  The

26

learned counsel appearing for the individual petitioners have pointed out that the figure would be more than 200.

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

19. In its subsequent order dated 16.01.2018 this Court thereafter directed as

under:

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

We make it clear that since the candidates who have used whitener,  blade  etc.  have  otherwise  been permitted,  the State need to follow only one list.

It  is  also  clarified  that  in  the  matter  of  appointment pursuant  to  our  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  of  the  State

Government in compliance of the orders passed by this Court on 30.11.2017 and

16.01.2018.  It was stated that as per information received from the Headquarters

of the Director General of Police, Lucknow, a total of 3858 persons were in actual

27

service on the posts of Sub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders out of the 4617

candidates already appointed.  It  was stated that training orders for 72 selected

candidates 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  is  concerned,  it  is  submitted  that  the  answering respondents  have  received  information  regarding  the aforesaid  607  vacancies  along with  the  relevant  reserved categories in which such vacancies exist.   It  is  submitted that the said vacancies would be filled in accordance with the three parameters specified by this Hon’ble Court from time-to-time viz. merit, preference and reservation.”   

21. The matters then came-up on 22.03.2018.  After hearing learned counsel,

the following directions were issued by this Court:

“1. The advertised vacancies of 4010 in the Post of Sub- Inspector  and Platoon Commanders should be filed up  by  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  expeditiously  on merits and in terms of the orders passed by this Court, if not already filled up.

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

3. Whether  the  persons  who  have  been  appointed  in excess of 4010 posts are to continue or their services may  be  dispensed  with  will  have  to  be  argued  by learned counsel for the parties and we will certainly

28

consider  those  submissions  and  pass  appropriate orders.

4. We may mention that  according to learned counsel for the petitioners a large number of posts are lying vacant  and  perhaps  some  persons  can  be  adjusted against those vacant posts over and above 4010 posts. We  are  not  taking  any  decision  on  this  without hearing learned counsel for the parties.

5. Following the order passed on 14th September, 2017, we make it clear and direct that all applications for intervention/impleadment,  etc.  or  fresh  matters instituted  after  the  cut-off  date  of  31st December, 2016 stand disposed of.”

22. When the matters again came-up on 14.08.2018, it was disclosed that 213

candidates  were  similarly  placed  as  809 candidates  in  the  whitener  category,

whose case was dealt with by this Court in its order dated 19.01.2016 in Civil

Appeal Nos.587-588 of 2016 (Hanuman Dutt Shukla & Ors.  Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh and Ors.).  A submission was made on behalf of the State Government

that the said 809 candidates as well as similarly situated 213 candidates ought to

be taken as part of 4010 vacancies notified for Selection.  Said submission was

rejected as under:-

“… … …Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel and Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. submit that 809 vacancies should be part of 4010 vacancies notified for selection.

We find it difficult to appreciate the submission, since it had  been  made  clear  in  the  order  of  this  Court  dated

29

19.01.2016 in Hanuman Dutt Shukla & Ors.  Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos.587-588 of 2016) that on account of accommodation of 809 candidates in the whitener category, nobody should be displaced.  There is no  dispute  that  213  candidates  (24+189)  are  similarly situated,  therefore,  these  213  candidates  are  also  to  be treated as additional vacancies for all purposes and they shall be sent for training forthwith.

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

23. On 11.09.2018 a further affidavit was filed on behalf of State Government

in response to the queries posed on earlier occasions and it was submitted that as

on  07.08.2018  the  total  vacant  posts  in  the  cadres  of  Sub-Inspector  (Civil

Police) and Platoon Commander (PAC) were 8260 and 289 respectively.  It was

further submitted that a requisition for recruitment of 3000 posts was sent to the

Recruitment  Board  on  04.04.2016  pursuant  to  which  the  selection  was

undertaken by the Recruitment Board and said process was in its final stages.

Further, another requisition was made in respect of 5234 posts on 30.06.2018 to

the Recruitment Board.  As regards the present selection it was submitted by the

State Government as under:

1. Total  number  of  vacancies  as  per 4,010

30

notification/advertisement  (SI  3698 +PC 312)

2. Total number of applications received pursuant to the advertisement  

5,31,239

3. After scrutiny valid applications 5,01,317

4. Physical  Standard  Test  (Document Verification) found qualified

2,77,066

5. Person  qualified  for  preliminary Examination (50%)

2,77,066

6. Number  of  candidates  appearing  in the examination

2,58,029

7. Candidates  qualifying  the Examination

49,100

8. Persons qualifying Physical Efficiency Test

15,777

9. Persons  called  for  Written Examination

15,777

10. Persons appeared for Examination 15,295

11. Persons qualified (Non-whitener 11,376 Whitener 2880)

(Four  subject  test  –  400  marks Minimum  50%  in  each  subject  to qualify  for  next  stage  i.e.  Group Discussion)

As  per  rule  3  times  the  notified vacancies  is  to  be  called  for  Group Discussion which means 12030 was to be called but the Board called 14256, who all appeared.

14,256

12. Final list non-whitener for SI 3,784

31

3493 and PC 291

Number of vacancies reserved for ex- servicemen  dependent  of  freedom fighters  which  were  carried  forward due to non-availability of candidates

Total as per advertisement/notification

Persons  using  whiteners  were disqualified pursuant to large number of complaints received alleging unfair practice by the candidates.

226

4,010

13. Number of candidates using whitener selected  in  addition  to  the  already selected  which  was  as  per  the advertisement  but  in  compliance  of order dated 19.01.2016 in the case of Hanuman  Dutt  Shukla  pursuant  to order  of  this  Hon’ble  Court  dated 23.08.2017  in  the  case  of  Deepak Kumar

809

24

14. Excess  number  of  candidates  who were to be considered and deemed to have  been  selected  pursuant  to  the orders of the Courts (SI 755 + PC 78)

833

15. Position  as  obtained  from the  above situation (3784+833)

4,617

16. Candidates  who  discontinued training/did  not  qualify  in  medical examination/character verification

607

17. Total  number  of  people  in  service (4617-607)

4,010

24. The matters were thereafter taken-up for final hearing and we heard all the

learned counsel.  It was submitted by the learned counsel that since number of

posts  were  still  lying  vacant,  appropriate  directions  be  issued  to  make

32

appointments and the benefit of such direction be confined to those who were

before the Court either as Petitioners or Intervenors.  On the other hand, it was

submitted  on  behalf  of  the  State  Government  that,  as  stated  in  its  various

affidavits, all candidates who had secured more than 50% marks were considered

at the appropriate stages in the selection process and that no more candidates who

had obtained 50% or more marks were now available.  It was further submitted

that though there were vacancies to the tune of 8260 in the cadre of Sub-Inspector

(Civil  Police)  and  289  in  the  cadre  of  Platoon  Commander  (PAC)  but  two

subsequent selection processes were already undertaken.  

25. At the outset, we must deal with the challenges raised to the judgments

dated  29.01.2016  and  06.04.2017  passed  by  the  High  Court  in  Writ  Petition

No.49802 of 2015 and in Special Appeal No.416 of 2016 respectively.  

In  our  view,  the  High  Court  was  right  in  negating  the  submission  as

regards construction of the expression “such vacancies shall be carried forward

for further selection” appearing in Rule 15(j).  However, considering the facts

that  the present  selection has seen various interventions  including revision  in

final  list  on  more  than  one  occasion  and  considering  the  large  number  of

vacancies of 607 posts where certain candidates either discontinued training or

did  not  qualify  in  medical  examination/character  verification,  we  deem  it

appropriate,  as  a  one  time  exception  to  direct  that  such  607  posts  be  made

33

available in the present selection itself.  One more reason for such direction is

that large number of posts namely more than 8000 posts are currently available

for succeeding selections.

Similarly,  the  decision  of  the High Court  in  Special  Appeal  No.416 of

2016, in our view, was correct.  Going by the Rules, only 12030 candidates could

have  been allowed to  participate  in  Group Discussion  against  the  number  of

14256.  But at this length of time, it would be inappropriate to re-do the exercise

and eliminate the excess number from consideration, more particularly when the

number of 14256 represents all those who secured 50% or more marks in the

written examination and there are still 607 vacancies to be filled up.

26. In the order dated 31.10.2017, this Court had emphasized the adherence to

eligibility of 50% while the order dated 30.11.2017 had directed 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, of the order or directions should be confined to those who

are/were before this Court or the High Court alone, in the capacity of either the

petitioners or the intervenors ignoring merit.

34

27. We now proceed to deal with the matters concerning vacancies and the

directions that are required to be passed, in the facts and circumstances of the

present matters.   

28. According to the chart referred to above, though the number of candidates

called for group discussion ought to have been thrice the notified vacancies i.e.

12030,  the  Board  had  called  14256  candidates.   The  first  list  viz.  the  result

notified on 25.06.2015 had named 3784 candidates leaving out 226 unfilled posts

as  a  result  of  non-availability  of  candidates  in  the category of  dependents  of

freedom fighters  as  stated  above.   In  terms of  the  decisions  of  this  Court  in

Hanuman Dutt Shukla (supra) 809 candidates were given benefit, followed by 24

similarly situated candidates.  To this number of 833 we will have to add 189

similarly situated candidates as dealt with in the order passed by this Court on

14.08.2018.  The decision of this Court in  Hanuman Dutt Shukla (supra) was

very clear that the revised final list dated 25.06.2015 ought not to be disturbed

but  benefit  must  be given to  those candidates  who were  excluded for  use of

whitener/blade  etc.  while  answering  the  main  examination.   This  aspect  was

repeatedly made clear that those vacancies would be in addition and therefore we

have no hesitation in stating 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

the order dated 14.08.2018) have to be reckoned in addition to the figure of 4010.

35

Therefore,  total  number  of  candidates  who could  be  selected  in  the  selection

relatable  to  the  year  2011 in any case  ought  not  to  be less  than 4010+1022.

Status and identity of the candidates who form the group of 1022 candidates is

very clear.  In this context it is to be noted that the vacancies notified are only

approximate and there is nothing wrong if the number increases in the exigencies

of service.

29. We now come to the issue as to what should be the approach in respect of

vacant posts on two counts.  The tabular chart then states that 226 posts remained

unfilled as a result of non-availability of candidates in the category of dependents

of freedom fighters etc. and 607 posts are lying vacant as a result of candidates

who discontinued training or did not qualify in medical  examination/character

verification.   Theoretically, 226 unfilled posts ought to be carried forward for

further  selection  as  those  posts  were  earmarked  for  dependents  of  freedom

fighters.   

In the peculiar fact situation of the present case, as a one time exception,

we issue following directions :-

A) 607  posts  lying  vacant  as  a  result  of  certain  candidates  having

discontinued  training  or  having  failed  to  qualify  in  medical

examination/character verification, shall be offered and made available in

36

the  present  selection  itself,  strictly  in  order  of  merit  and  subject  to

fulfilment of having obtained 50% or more marks.   

B) There  are  226  unfilled  posts  as  a  result  of  non-availability  of

candidates  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 which are round the

corner in which more than 8000 posts are available for the candidates.  The

interest  of  those  candidates who answer  the description “dependents  of

freedom  fighters”  would  therefore  be  taken  care  of  in  the  succeeding

selections.  We, therefore, direct that these 226 posts should also be made

available for the present selection.

C) The State Government and its authorities are therefore directed to

make available 833 posts (607+226) for the present selection strictly in

order of merit subject to the fulfillment of the criteria that the candidates

had obtained 50% or more in the main written examination, in keeping

with principles of reservation and preference.   

D) We make it  clear  that  direction to  fill-up the above 833 posts  in

terms of this Judgment is in addition to any other directions already issued.

37

E) A group of matters namely SLP (Civil) Nos.10674 of 2018, 10675 of

2018, 12891-12893 of 2018 and 15699 of 2018 are filed by individuals

who are either Head Constables or Constables in the police service and are

seeking promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police).  Since the

nature  of  controversy  and  the  questions  raised  therein  are  completely

unconnected  with  the  present  selection,  we  segregate  said  matters  and

direct  that  they be listed  immediately before the appropriate  Bench for

consideration.

30. All  appeals,  Writ  Petitions  and  Transferred  Cases  stand  disposed  of  in

above terms.  All contempt petitions seeking compliance of the orders passed by

this Court also stand disposed of as no further orders are called for.  There shall

be no order as to costs.

31. We are grateful for the assistance rendered by all the learned counsel and

sincerely appreciate the efforts put in by them.

………………………..J. (Kurian Joseph)

…………………..……J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

New Delhi, November 27, 2018.