P.M.CHAUHAN - (1.) Petitioners claim to have been selected and included in the select list for the appointment as Armed Police Constables in the interviews held from 22/12/1987 to Dece 24/12/1987 and pray for Writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directions or order in the Nature of mandamus by directing the respondent No. 1 not to cancel the select list of the Armed Police Constables and to appoint the petitioners who are included in the select list.
(2.) Petitioners were called for the interview for appointment to the post of Armed Police Constables from 22/12/1987 to Dece- mber 24 1987 and after that select list was prepared but it was officially not published and the petitioners were also not informed of having been include in the select list. At the time of selected requisite educational qualifications as per the Constable (Armed Branch Unarmed Branch and Women Branch) Requirement Rules 1979 for the post of Armed Police Constable was passing of Std. VI but by Notification dated 15/02/1988 by the Constable (Armed Branch Unarmed Branch and Women Branch) Recruitment (Amendment) Rules 1988 the educational qualification for appointment to the post of Armed Police Constable was changed and the requisite qualification for appoint- ment to the post of Armed Police Constable is passed Secondary School Certificate Examination or its equivalent. According to the petitioners they have come to know that they are included in the select list. Not only that they are included in the select list but they satisfy the changed criteria for the educational qualification for the recruitment to the post of Armed Police Constable as all the petitioners have passed Secondary School Certificate Examination. Inspite of the fact that the petitioners have been selected and included in the list and 48 vacant posts are available and 33 new posts of the Police Constables are created the petitioners are not being appointed and the respondent have decided to cancel the select list without offering appointment to the petitioners and accordingly the petitioners are denied this legitimate right to get appointment to the post of Armed Police Constables. Out of 144 candidates who were selected for the post of Armed Police Constables 60 are appointed in the month of February 1988. In case the select list is cancelled they will lose the chance for appointment to the post of Armed Police Constable and their career will be ruined. According to the petitioners as other selects who did not satisfy the changed requisite criteria after the amendment in the Rules are appointed and the petitioners who satisfy the same criteria are denied appointment the equality clause under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitu- tion is violated and the petitioners are discriminated against. The petitioners assert that in past the select list was never cancelled till all the candidates were appointed and in case the select list is cancelled the problem about overage for the petitioners for other selection would also as the age limit is 22 years for unreserved class and 27 for reserved classes.
(3.) Admittedly the select list of 144 candidates was prepared on 24/12/1987 and at that time the requisite educational qualifica- tion was Std. VI pass. When the list was prepared there were 101 vacancies of Armed Police Constables but subsequently because of the change of the policy of posting Armed Guards at the Treasury 47 vacancies were not available and 10 posts were kept vacant because of the order of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 2608 of 1987 and therefore at that time 44 posts were actually vacant and were required to be filled in and were filled in by order dated 20/02/1988 After that 17 vacancies arose because of the transfer of 17 Armed Constables to unarmed branch and therefore 17 selects were appointed in August 1989. Subsequently 57 vacancies arose as the system of posting armed guards at Treasuries was reintroduced and the Special Civil Application No. 2608 of 1987 was dismissed but the said 57 vacancies were available in late 1988. According to the respondents the Recruitment Rules were amended in February 1988 and the educa- tional qualification was changed and therefore the Director General of Police by letter dated 7/09/1988 instructed the District Superintendent of Police to cancel the select lists and in pursuance of the said directives the District Superintendent of Police cancelled the select list. It is also contended by the respondents that as per the policy laid down in Government Resolution dated 5/07/1982 the select list remains in force for one year after it is prepared or till the new waiting list is prepared whichever is earlier. As the list was prepared on 24/12/1987 it expired on 23/12/1988 and after that the appointment of the selects included in that list cannot be made. It is asserted that mere inclusion of the names in the select list does not create any right in favour of such selected candidates and therefore the petitioners have no legal or fundamental right to be appointed to the post of Armed Police Constables much less it can be enforced by writ of mandamus. It is admitted in the affidavit dated Dece 28/12/1988 of Geetha Johri District Superintendent of Police Sabarkantha that when the affidavit was filed there were 58 vacancies of the Armed Police Constables in Sabarkantha District. From the Affidavits of Geetha Johri D. S. P. and J. B. Chauhan Deputy Superintendent of Police it transpires that the petitioners were included in the select list and the appointments were made from the select list even after the Amendment in the Recruitment Rules and the select list is cancelled on or about 7/09/1988 on the instructions of the Inspector General of Police as the educational qualification criteria was changed.;