- (1.) THE order dated 18th January, 1996 passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal is under challenge in these appeals. THE controversy relates to selection of Police Constables for training for further promotion to the rank of Lance Naik. Admittedly in the Police Manual, there is no provision for regulating the selection of Police Constables for training for promotion to the rank of Lance Naik, however, the same is regulated by the Police Order No. 266 of 1981 in which criteria for selection of candidates and procedure have been prescribed. According to the Police Order, a Constable can be promoted to the rank of Lance Naik provided : (1) he has put in three years' service after recruits training; (ii) is below 35 years of age; (iii) has passed the district drill test; and (iv) has a good record of service. THE Selection Board constituted as per the aforesaid Police Order would conduct the test. THE subjects on which the test is to be conducted as specified in the said Order are as stated below:- THE pass marks on out-door and indoor subjects would be 50% i.e. 80 marks."
(2.) THE said Order spells out that the size of the Select List should be one and half times the number of anticipated vacancies. Since the number of expected vacancies in .the post of Lance Naik was 24, a Select List of 36 candidates was to be prepared. 100 eligible Constables were called for promotional test. In the test,' 57 candidates were selected for promotional post on the basis of the 50% aggregate marks secured by them irrespective of the marks secured in the individual items of both outdoor and indoor tests and marks awarded in the miscellaneous test. A list of 36 candidates was prepared for training to the promotional post on the basis of the highest aggregate marks secured by them. THE validity of the Select List of 36 candidates prepared for the training for further promotion to the post of Lance Naik was questioned before the Tribunal on the ground that the Select List should have been prepared on the basis of the length of seniority in the rank of Constables. An application was filed before the Tribunal for intervention which was allowed and the intervenors were arrayed as respondents 4 to 13 before the Tribunal. THE Tribunal, after considering rival contentions and respective submissions passed the order directing as under:- "Hence without quashing the entire selection, we would direct that first a list of candidates who had secured the minimum of 50% in each of the indoor and outdoor subjects should be prepared (List-1). THEir marks in indoor and outdoor subjects should then be totaled up and to the aggregate marks of each of the candidates, the marks secured by him in miscellaneous subjects should be added. A list of 36 candidates who have secured the highest marks arrived at in this matter should be prepared (List-II). THEn this List-II should be redrawn in order of seniority (List-Ill). Candidates should be deputed for training according to their placement in this list (List-III)." Aggrieved by the same, the appellants are before us in these appeals. Shri P.H. Parekh, the learned counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 860 of 1998 urged that the Tribunal was not right in ignoring the length of service of the candidates as Constables; length of service of each qualified candidate should have been taken into consideration irrespective of marks secured in the individual subjects. According to him, the Police Order did not prescribe that the candidates should secure 50% marks in each individual subject irrespective of aggregate marks secured by them; securing 50% aggregate marks in out-door and indoor tests was enough; there was no need to insist upon securing 50% marks in each individual item under out-door and indoor tests. He added that the Tribunal committed an error in directing to revise the Select List on the basis of the 50% marks secured in the individual subjects when the Select List had been, prepared by the Selection Board without any mala fide or bias. He further submitted that a Select List could be prepared on the basis of 50% aggregate marks secured by the candidates in out-door and indoor tests and thereafter inter-se seniority could be arranged in Select List which would be fair, proper and.reasonable.
(3.) SHRI Janarjan Das, the learned counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 861 of 1998 while supporting the argument of SHRI Parekh, the learned counsel for the appellants in Civil Appeal No. 860 of 1998, so far it related to securing 50% marks in aggregate in out-door and indoor tests without insisting upon securing of 50% marks in each individual subject in out-door and indoor tests, submitted that once the candidates are selected on the basis of marks secured by them irrespective of the aggregate marks secured, the candidate should be selected for training strictly in accordance with their seniority. Both the learned counsel submitted that the pass marks of outdoor and indoor tests would be 50% i.e. 80 marks as can be seen from the Police Order -itself; insisting upon securing minimum pass marks in each item in out-door and indoor tests was not at all mandatory. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 found themselves in difficulty in taking a clear stand having regard to the counter filed before the Tribunal and having not filed any appeal challenging the order of the Tribunal. The counsel for the private respondents reiterated their stand that was taken before the Tribunal.;