Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
Writ Petition (Civil) No.1369 of 2018
Arvind Kumar Tiwari & Ors. .... Petitioner(s)
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. …. Respondent (s)
WITH
Writ Petition (Civil) No.1330 of 2019
Writ Petition (Civil) No.606 of 2019
Writ Petition (Civil) No.1488 of 2018
Writ Petition (Civil) No.42 of 2019
Writ Petition (Civil) No.41 of 2019
Writ Petition (Civil) No.339 of 2019
Writ Petition (Civil) No.267 of 2019
Writ Petition (Civil) No.330 of 2019
Writ Petition (Civil) No.376 of 2019
Writ Petition (Civil) No.487 of 2019
Writ Petition (Civil) No.754 of 2019
1 | P a g e
J U D G M E N T
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The complaint of the Writ Petitioners is that their result/
marks of “Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) Ranker’s Examination
2000-2008” have not been declared. The further grievance
of the Petitioners is that the benefit of the judgment dated
30.01.2017 of this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.45 of 2016
(Raghuraj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.) has
not been extended to them.
2. A Notification was issued on 12.06.2010 by U.P. Police
Recruitment and Promotion Board (for short “the Board”) for
selection to 5389 posts of Sub Inspector (Civil Police)
Rankers’ by promotion from eligible Constables and Head
Constables on the basis of a Departmental examination. The
vacancies pertained to the years 2000-2008. Constables and
Head Constables who completed a period of three years’
service on the first day of the year of recruitment and who
have not attained 40 years of age were eligible to take part
in the selection. Recruitment to posts of Sub-Inspectors is
governed by Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil
Police) Service Rules, 2008 (for short “the Rules”). Rule 5
2 | P a g e
thereof provides that 50% of the posts of Sub-Inspectors shall
be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% by
promotion on the basis of Departmental examination from
amongst substantially appointed Head Constables and
Constables of the Uttar Pradesh Civil Police/ Armed Police/
Armed Police Mounted Police/ P.A.C. Procedure for
recruitment by promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector is
governed by Rule 16 of the Rules according to which the
Board shall conduct a written examination. The written
examination shall carry 300 marks. The allocation of marks is
as follows:
1. Hindi Essay (based on Law and Order case study and
police functioning) - 100 marks
2. Basic Law, Construction and Police Procedure (Indian
Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Evidence Act and
Police Manual etc.) – 100 marks
3. Numerical and Mental Ability Test – 50 marks
4. Mental Aptitude Test/ I.Q. Test/ Responding – 50 marks
3. Except the subject Hindi Essay, questions of other
subjects would be of objective type. Note 2 to Rule 16(2)
stipulates that a candidate who fails to obtain minimum 50%
marks in each subject shall not be eligible for promotion.
4. The examination was conducted on 13.03.2011. The
Board issued a Notification on 20.04.2011 cancelling 08
questions which were found to be incorrect. Thereafter,
3 | P a g e
another Notification was issued by the Board on 26.05.2011
cancelling 18 questions which were found to be incorrect. On
11.06.2011, the result of the written examination was
declared and 3891 candidates were selected out of whom
3351 candidates qualified after going through the physical
test and group discussion.
5. A Writ Petition was filed in the High Court of Judicature
at Allahabad by some of the unsuccessful candidates to set
aside the result of the written examination. They complained
of irregularities in the conduct of written examination. The
cancellation of 18 questions was the main point taken by the
Writ Petitioners. As the cancellation of questions was not due
to any mistake of the candidates, a learned Single Judge of
the High Court directed the Board to award full marks for the
cancelled questions. Having been informed that there were
several vacancies, the Respondents-therein were permitted
to send the Writ Petitioners for training if found eligible after
revision of the list. The said judgment of the learned Single
Judge was challenged by a Special Appeal before the High
Court. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide interim
order dated 30.08.2012, stayed the operation of the
judgment of the learned Single Judge and directed that no
person shall be sent for training. The State of U.P.
4 | P a g e
approached this Court questioning the order passed by the
Division Bench on 30.08.2012. This Court set aside the order
of the Division Bench on 07.10.2013.
6. By an order dated 18.07.2014, this Court took note of
the ongoing litigation pertaining to the selection to the posts
of Sub-Inspectors by promotion in the State of Uttar Pradesh
and issued 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 and Promotion
Board, Lucknow shall scrutinize 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.
5 | P a g e
(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 of
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.
(e) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed
within a period of three months, hence the
successful candidates shall be duly
intimated and subsequent action shall be
taken by the State.
7. From the 3358 candidates who were declared
successful by a Notification dated 11.06.2011, 3248
candidates actually joined. 110 candidates who were not
permitted to join due to their crossing the age of 40 years,
were given the benefit of relaxation of age pursuant to an
order passed by this Court. In Writ Petition (Civil) No.45/
2016 Raghuraj Singh (supra), this Court directed the
Petitioners to be accommodated in the existing vacancies of
Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police) Ranker if they have obtained
6 | P a g e
marks between 190.16667 and 223.33333. It is clear from a
perusal of the order that the Petitioners therein were
qualified for being selected and promoted as Sub-Inspectors
(Civil Police) Ranker.
8. These Writ Petitions have been filed seeking a direction
that the order passed in Raghuraj Singh (supra) should be
extended to them after declaring the marks obtained by
them. The contention of the Petitioners is that there are
several unfilled vacancies. It was submitted on behalf of the
Petitioners that there is no reason for which their marks are
not declared. It was submitted on behalf of the Petitioners
that there can be no objection for declaring their marks and
their promotion if they are found eligible. Finally, it was
argued on behalf of the Petitioners that they are entitled for
the same order that was passed in Raghuraj Singh (supra)
in Writ Petition (Civil) No.45/ 2016. On behalf of the State of
Uttar Pradesh, it was contended that the Petitioners are not
entitled for the relief sought as they did not qualify in the
selection of the test. According to the Respondents, the
selection test is conducted in four stages. In the first stage
of written examination, the candidates failing to obtain 50%
marks in each of the four subjects prescribed for written
examination shall be filtered out and the candidates
7 | P a g e
obtaining minimum 50% marks in every subject shall be
included in the list of candidates for physical ability test. The
learned counsel appearing for the State referred to a decision
of the Board dated 22.02.2011 according to which the papers
of objective type answer sheets will be evaluated initially.
The Hindi Essay answer sheet will be taken up for evaluation
thereafter only of those candidates who have obtained
minimum 50% in each of the subjects which are of objective
type. In other words, the candidates who do not secure
minimum 50% marks in the three objective type subjects
shall be disqualified and the examination paper for Hindi
Essay shall not be evaluated. Initially, the marks of the
candidates who were declared unsuccessful in the
examination was not declared. By a Notification dated
17.05.2019, the Board uploaded the marks of all
unsuccessful candidates. Several applications were filed
seeking information relating to the marks obtained by them
in the written examination. In response to the applications
filed by 1815 candidates, marks have been given to 1637
candidates.
9. The scheme of the examination conducted for selection
by promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police is in
accordance with Rule 16 of the said Rules. There are three
8 | P a g e
subjects which are categorized as objective type. Note 2 of
Rule 16 provides that a candidate who fails to obtain
minimum of 50% marks in each subject shall not be eligible
for promotion. The decision of the Board dated 22.02.2011
makes it clear that unless a candidate obtains minimum 50%
marks in the objective type subjects, they shall not be
entitled to seek evaluation of the Hindi Essay Subject. Such
of those candidates who failed to secure 50% marks in the
objective type subjects stood disqualified. The Writ
Petitioners are in such category. Therefore, their Hindi Essay
paper was not evaluated and the marks were not declared.
The decision of the Board was taken prior to the date of the
examination and no fault can be found with the same. More
than 50,000 candidates appeared for the examination and
the short-listing of the candidates in stages is within the
domain of the Board and cannot said to be arbitrary and
discriminatory.
10. The Petitioners are not entitled for extension of the
order passed in Raghuraj Singh (supra). There is no
dispute about the fact that the Petitioners-therein were
qualified. Whereas, in these writ petitions the Petitioners
could not secure 50% marks in the objective type subjects
and therefore are not entitled to seek evaluation of the Hindi
9 | P a g e
Essay paper. Yet another point pertaining to the ambiguity in
the process of conducting written examination was raised on
behalf of some of the Petitioners. It was argued that subjects
C and D were clubbed as one paper. However, they were
treated as separate subjects for assessment whether the
candidate has secured minimum 50% marks. It is clear from
Rule 16 that there are four different subjects and the note to
the Rule provides that the candidates should secure 50%
marks in each of the subjects to be qualified. Therefore,
subjects C and D cannot be clubbed together. It is clear from
the sample papers circulated to the candidates much in
advance that subjects C and D would be treated separately
though both the subjects were clubbed for the purpose of
holding examination. Certain errors that were made in the
preparation of the list were pointed out by the Petitioners.
These Writ Petitions relate to the selection conducted for
promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors pursuant to an
advertisement issued in 2010. We are informed by the State
Government that the scheme of the examination has also
undergone a change. By an order dated 02.12.2020 in SLP
(C) No. 28838/2019, this Court refused to entertain any
challenge to the same selection process on the ground that
several years have gone by. Selections conducted more than
10 | P a g e
a decade earlier cannot be the subject matter of interference
by this Court.
11. For the aforementioned reasons, the Writ Petitions are
dismissed.
.....................................J.
[ L. NAGESWARA RAO ]
.....................................J.
[ ANIRUDDHA BOSE]
New Delhi,
July 26, 2021.
11 | P a g e
