Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018 Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.  1

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4837 OF 2019                       (Arising out of SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018)

LANCE NAYAK PNO NO.980510777 RAJ BAHADUR & ORS. … Petitioner(s)

Versus

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.                                                    …Respondent(s)

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4838 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10674 of 2018)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO.4839 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10675 of 2018)

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4840-4842 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12891-12893 of 2018)

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4844 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12247 OF 2019)

(D.NO.31847 of 2018)

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4845 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12248 OF 2019)

(D.NO.42625 of 2018)

WITH  CIVIL APPEAL NOS.4843 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.7168 of 2019)

Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018 Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.  2

WITH  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4846 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12250 OF 2019)

(D.NO.46457 of 2018)

WITH  

CMA NO.643 OF 2019 IN TC(C) NO.297 OF 2017   

WITH  

CMA NO.732 OF 2019 IN TC(C) NO.287 OF 2017

J U D G M E N T

Uday Umesh Lalit, J.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4837 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018)

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the correctness of the final judgment and

order  dated  20.04.2018  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at

Allahabad in Writ appeal No.10308 of 2018.  This appeal was taken as the

lead matter.

3. The appellants belong to Scheduled Caste category and are posted

as Constables/Head Constables in the Police Department of Uttar Pradesh.

They appeared in the limited departmental examination held for filling up

Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018 Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.  3

the  posts  of  Sub-Inspector  (Civil  Police),  pursuant  to  an  advertisement

issued by UP Police Recruitment and Promotion Board on 12.06.2010 for

filling up 5389 posts.  The conduct of examination was to be governed by

Uttar  Pradesh Sub-Inspector  and Inspector  (Civil  Police)  Service Rules,

2008.  Said Rule 16 is to the following effect:  

“16. Procedure for recruitment by promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector – For the purpose of recruitment by promotion on the basis of departmental examination to the post of Sub- Inspector, the Board shall conduct a written examination in the following manner:  

(a) Written Examination - (I) The eligible candidates 3 shall be required  to  appear  in  the  written  examination  which  shall car4ry 300 marks. The details of the subjects included in the written  examination  and  the  marks  shall  allotted  for  each subjects are as follows:  

S.No. Subject Maximum marks

1 Hindi  Essay  (based  on  Law  and Order  case  study  and  police functioning)

100 marks

2 Basis Law, Constitution and Police Procedure  (Indian  Penal  Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Evidence Act and Police Manual etc.)

100 marks (objective

type)

3 Numerical and Mental Ability Test 50 marks (objective

type) 4 Mental  Aptitude  Test/I.Q.

Test/Reasoning 50marks

(objective type)

Note- The question papers shall be set up keeping in mind the job profile of the post of Sub-Inspector and commensurate with the job responsibility.  

Note  2-  The  candidates  who  fail  to  obtain  minimum fifty percent  marks  in  each  subject  shall  not  be  eligible  for promotion.

Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018 Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.  4

(ii)  The  Selection  Committee  shall,  have  regard  to  the provision of reservation referred to in Rule 6, prepare a list of successful candidates on the basis of marks obtained by them in the written examination under sub-clause (I) of Clause (a).

(b) Physical Efficiency Test – The candidates selected under clause (a) shall be required to appear in a Physical Efficiency Test  of  qualifying  nature.  The  male  candidates  shall  be required to complete a run of 10 kilometers in 75 minutes and female candidates a run of 5 kilometers in 45 minutes.  

(c) Service Records – marks on the basis of Service Records shall be awarded to each candidate selected under sub-clause (ii)  of  clause  (a).  the  maximum  marks  for  the  length  of service  shall  be  20(01  marks  for  each  year),  for  the educational qualification of Graduation and above degree 10 marks.  Training  Course  30  marks  out  of  which  10 marks, Training Course 30 marks out of which 10 marks each for every substantive training subject to a maximum of 20 and 02 marks  each for  every  non-substantive training  subject  to  a maximum of 10 marks and 30 marks for annual entry. For every medal of National leave 03 marks, every medal of state level  02  marks  subject  to  maximum  of  10  marks  and  no marks  will  be given for  cash reward.  Thus,  there  shall  be maximum  100  marks  as  above.  The  Training  Director  of Police organization is authorised to 4 notify any training as substantive and non-substantive subject to the condition that no training which is  less than one month’s during shall  be notified as substantive training. For every major punishment 30  marks,  for  every  minor  punishment  02  marks  and  for every  adverse  entry,  petty  punishment  01  marks  shall  be deducted.  The  Service  Records  shall  also  be  examined keeping  in  view  whether  the  candidate  has  been  awarded some kind of punishment which renders him unsustainable for promotion. Any candidate whose integrity was withheld ever  within  the  last  five  years  shall  not  be  eligible  for promotion.  

(d) Subject to the provision of clauses (a) and (c)- The marks obtained by each candidate shall sub-clause (ii) of clause (a) shall be added to marks obtained by him under sub-rule (v). the Selection Committee shall prepare a list of candidates on the basis of aggregate of marks so arrived.  

(e) Group discussion – The candidates selected under the rule 17(a) shall be required to appear in a Group Discussion for which  separate  groups  of  then  candidates  each  shall  be formed. The process of Group discussion shall be carried out under  the  supervision  of  a  panel  comprising  Managing

Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018 Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.  5

Expert,  Psychologist  and  Criminologist  in  the  presence  of Chairman  of  the  Board  of  his  nominee,  one  Additional Director  General  Police  nominated  by Director  General  of Police, (Uttar Pradesh) or Inspector General of Police/Deputy Inspector General of Police nominated by him. In the said Group Discussion,  Police case study shall  be presented for discussion  and  the  entire  Group  discussion  shall  be completed  within  the  stipulated  timeframe.   The  group discussion  shall  carry  20  marks  and  it  will  include  the evaluation  of  candidates  Management  Skill  (5  marks), Presentation (5 marks), Attitude (5 marks) and Personality (5- marks).  The  marks  shall  also  be  uploaded  in  the  Board website.  

Note-1 The entire process of Group Discussion shall be video graphed and a Compact Form thereof shall be prepared.  

Note  2-Nomination  of  officers  for  giving  representation  to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes of Citizens in the Selection Committee shall be made in accordance with Section 7 of the Act, as amended from time to time.  

(f) Election and merit list – The Board shall, having regard to the provisions  of  reservation  referred in  Rule 6,  prepare  a final select list of candidates in order or merit as disclosed by aggregate of  marks  obtained by them under  sub-clause (d) and sub-clause (e) if two or more 5 candidates obtain equal marks,  the  candidate  obtaining  higher  marks  under  rule- rule(c)  shall  be  placed  higher  in  the  list.  The  selection committee  shall  forward  the  list  of  the  Board  which  shall forward it to the Head of the Department.”

4. The  candidates  were  thus  required  to  appear  in  the  written

examination  which  was  to  carry  300  marks.   The  written  examination

comprised  of  four  subjects  as  enumerated  in  Rule  16(a)(i)  and  the

candidate who failed to obtain minimum 50 marks in each subject would

not be eligible for promotion.

5. It appears that 18 questions in the written examination were found

to  be  set  in  an  erroneous  manner  which  mistake  was  accepted  by  the

Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018 Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.  6

Department in a challenge raised in Writ Petition (Service Single) No.3918

of  2011 (Aarakshi  Vimal  Kumar Singh and others  v.  State  of  U.P.  and

others) before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench.

The Single Judge by his order dated 03.08.2011 directed the authorities to

award full marks to every candidate in respect of those 18 questions.   The

order passed by the Single Judge was stayed by the Division Bench in

Special Appeal arising therefrom.  The matter finally reached this Court

and by an order dated 18.07.2014 following directions were issued by this

Court in Civil Appeal No.6547 of 2014:

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the convinced opinion, the controversy should be put to rest from all  spectrums  and  accordingly  we  issue  the  following directions:-  

(a)  The  posts  that  have  been  filled  up  by  successful candidates, as has been apprised to us at the Bar, are 3358 and the  candidates  who have joined in  the  said  posts  and presently working shall not be disturbed.  

(b)  The  U.P.  Police  Recruitment  &  Promotion  Board, Lucknow  shall  scrutinise  the  papers  of  all  the  candidates, namely, the persons who had approached the writ court and the candidates who had not approached the writ court and if they have attempted and answered the 18 questions, which were wrongly set  out,  they will  be awarded full  marks for said 18 questions.  

(c) If a candidate has not answered any erroneous question, the  same  shall  be  proportionately  reduced.  To  clarify,  the candidate  shall  only  get  full  marks  for  the  questions answered.  

(d) A fresh select list shall be drawn up taking into account the  aforesaid  marks  in  respect  of  2031  posts  which  are available in present pertaining to the year 2008.

Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018 Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.  7

(e) The aforesaid exercise shall complete within a period of three  months  hence  and the  successful  candidates  shall  be duly intimated and subsequent action shall be taken by the State.     

 By virtue of our order, any matter pending in the Writ Court or before the Division Bench shall be deemed to have been disposed of.”

6. The select list was thereafter published on 27.11.2014.   

7. In SLP(C) No.25377-78 of 2014 (Qamar Hasan Khan & others v.

State of U.P. & Ors.) an order was passed on 10.08.2015 by this Court as

under:

“It  is  hereby  made  clear  that  no  court  shall  entertain  any grievance relating to this  particular  selection.   Our present order would not dislodge, if any candidate, who has already been selected or sent for training.  Needless to emphasize, the present order has been passed regard being had to the special features of the case.”

8. In April 2018 a writ petition being Writ A-No.10308 of 2018 was

preferred by the appellants submitting inter alia that the selection process

was  undertaken  without  applying  Reservation  Policy  and  that  while

considering 50 per cent cut off marks criteria must be “paper” wise and not

“subject” wise.

9. In view of the order passed by this Court on 10.08.2015 in (Qamar

Hasan Khan & others v. State of U.P. & Ors.) the High Court refused to

entertain  the  writ  petition  and  dismissed  the  same  by  its  order  dated

20.04.2018, which order is now under challenge.

Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018 Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.  8

10. When  the  matters  were  taken  up  on  15.04.2019  Mr.  Pallav

Shishodia,  learned  Senior  Advocate  appearing  for  the  appellants  relied

upon Order dated 30.01.2017 passed by this Court  in Writ  Petition (C)

No.45 of 2016 whereunder the concerned petitioners having secured more

than cut off marks were directed to be sent for training.  It was submitted

that similar benefits be given to the appellants.  Submissions advanced by

Mr.  Pallav Shishodia,  learned Senior Advocate  were noted in the order

dated 15.04.2019 as under:

“According  to  the  Rule,  the  eligible  candidates  are  to appear  in  the  written  examination  which  is  to  carry  300 marks and the details of the subjects are given in Rule 16(A). The subjects so specified are 1 to 4 (subjects 3 & 4 carry 50 marks each).   

According to the petition, the requirement to secure 50% marks is not to be reckoned subject-wise but ought to reckon paper-wise.  And since  there  is  common paper  for  subjects 3&4, the minimum marks which ought to be insisted upon must be in terms of the entire paper and not per subject i.e., subjects  3&4.  Mr.  Shishodia  submits  that  his  clients  have secured 54% in the paper though the clients may not have secured 50% minimum in subjects 3&4.  

According  to  Mr.  Shishodia,  if  this  submission  is accepted, the petitioners would be entitled to the benefit of Order dated 30.01.2017 passed by this Court as the aggregate marks secured by them are more than 50%.”  

11. The stand of the State Government is:

(a) That  the  candidates  were  awarded  full  marks  in  the  manner

prescribed by this Court;

(b) That even then, none of the appellants in all these matters were

fulfilling  the  criteria  of  having  obtained  50  per  cent  marks  in  all  the

subjects;

Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018 Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.  9

12. The fact that the appellants had not obtained 50 per cent marks in

each of the subjects is accepted and what is submitted by the appellants is

that Subject Nos.3 and 4, namely, “Numerical and Mental Ability Test” and

“Mental Aptitude Test/I.Q, Test/Reasoning” carrying 50 marks each, were

part of the same paper.   The further submission is that on the strength of

the aggregate from all the subjects, the appellants would be entitled to be

promoted.

13. We  have  given  anxious  consideration  to  the  submissions  as

advanced.  We are concerned in these matters with limited Departmental

examination where the idea is, regardless of seniority levels, a meritorious

candidate be given chance to reach higher levels.  Merit is therefore the

key element and there can be no compromise and dilution of the criteria.

What is required in terms of the Rules is minimum of 50 per cent marks

“in each subject”.  The subjects are delineated in the Rules and there are

four subjects.  Irrespective whether subjects 3 and 4 form part of the same

paper,  the  express  language  of  the  Rules  does  not  permit  any  such

interpretation and the construction suggested by Mr. Shishodia cannot be

accepted.   

14. The  reliance  placed  on  the  order  dated  30.01.2007  is  also

completely misplaced.  The order by itself did not decide any controversy

Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018 Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.  10

and  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  was  observed  that  the  order  would  not

automatically operate as a precedent for other cases.

15. We, therefore, reject the submission and dismiss the appeal.  No

costs.

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4838-4839 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.10674-10675 of 2018)

CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4840-4842 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12891-12893 of 2018)  

and CIVIL APPEAL NO.4845 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12248 of 2019)    [ D.No.42625 of 2018]

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

        The issues involved in the matters being identical to the earlier

matter where similar contentions were raised, we see no reason to interfere.

These appeals are, therefore, dismissed.  No costs.

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4844 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12247 of  2019)   [ D.No.31847 of 2018]  

And CIVIL APPEAL NO.4846 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.12250 of 2019)   [ D.No.46457 of 2018]

And CIVIL APPEAL Nos.4843 OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.7168 of 2018)  

Delay condoned.

Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018 Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.  11

Leave granted.

It is additionally submitted that the appellants belong to reserved

categories and as such are entitled,  inter alia,  to relaxation in qualifying

marks.   

The criteria under the Rules is minimum of 50 per cent marks in

each of the subjects.  It was open to the State to have prescribed a relaxed

or a different criterion for the reserved categories candidates.  However, no

such relaxation was granted by the State and consequently no relief can be

granted by the Court.  In terms of the Rules, as they stand, the criteria of

minimum of 50 per cent marks has to be met.  Since the appellants do not

fulfil the criteria, no exception can be made.  These appeals are, therefore,

dismissed.  No costs.

M.A. No.732 of 2019 in TC (C) No.287 of 2017

Selection  undertaken  pursuant  to  an  advertisement  dated

19.05.2011 for recruiting 4010 posts of Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police) and

312  posts  of  Platoon  Commanders  (Provincial  Armed  Constabulary  –

PAC) in the State of UP by direct recruitment was the subject matter of

decision by this Court in Alok Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and

others Civil Appeal No.11370 of 2018 and other connected matters.  

Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018 Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.  12

Writ Petition No.2604 of 2015 preferred by the present applicants

in the High Court,  was transferred to  this  Court  and was numbered as

TC(Civil) No.287 of 2017.  It was disposed of along with aforesaid Civil

Appeal No.11370 of 2018 etc.   

It is now submitted that the grievance raised by the applicants in

the Writ Petition was in respect of selection through limited departmental

examination for promotion to the post of UP Sub-Inspector (Civil Police)

Rankers Examination and was not by way of direct recruitment and that

the matter was wrongly clubbed with Civil Appeal No.11370 of 2018.  We,

therefore, recall the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 to the

extent it disposed of Transfer Case (Civil) No.287 of 2017.   

  Said  Transferred  Case  is  now taken  up  for  consideration.   The

principal prayer in the writ petition is to the effect that the respondent be

directed to give reservation and relaxation to the writ petitioners as SC/ST

candidates.  The submission in that behalf has already been considered in

the matters dealt with above.  We see no reason to interfere in the matter.

Transferred Case No.287 of 2017, therefore, stands dismissed.

Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018 Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.  13

M.A. No.643 of 2019 in TC (C) No.297 of 2017

Selection  undertaken  pursuant  to  an  advertisement  dated

19.05.2011 for recruiting 4010 posts of Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police) and

312  posts  of  Platoon  Commanders  (Provincial  Armed  Constabulary  –

PAC) in the State of UP by direct recruitment was the subject matter of

decision by this Court in Alok Kumar Singh and others v. State of U.P. and

others Civil Appeal No.11370 of 2018 and other connected matters.   

Writ Petition No.18788 of 2017 preferred by the present applicants

in the High Court,  was transferred to  this  Court  and was numbered as

TC(Civil) No.297 of 2017.  It was disposed of along with aforesaid Civil

Appeal No.11370 of 2018 etc.   

It is now submitted that the grievance raised by the applicants in the

Writ  Petition  was  in  respect  of  selection  through  limited  departmental

examination for promotion to the post of UP Sub-Inspector (Civil Police)

Rankers Examination and was not by way of direct recruitment and that

the matter was wrongly clubbed with Civil Appeal No.11370 of 2018.  We,

therefore, recall the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 27.11.2018 to the

extent it disposed of Transfer Case (Civil) No.297 of 2017.  

Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2019 @ SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018 Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors.  14

  Said  Transferred  Case  is  now taken  up  for  consideration.   The

principal prayer in the writ petition is to the effect that the respondent be

directed to give reservation and relaxation to the writ petitioners as SC/ST

candidates.  The submission in that behalf has already been considered in

the matters dealt with above.  We see no reason to interfere in the matter.

Transferred Case No.297 of 2017, therefore, stands dismissed.

…………………………..J. (Uday Umesh Lalit)

………………………….J. (Indu Malhotra)

New Delhi May 09, 2019