- (1.) ALOKE Chakrabarti, J. This writ petition was heard along with several writ petitions involving similar points.
(2.) AS regards selection for promotion to the post-of Sub- Inspectors from con stable and head constables, complain has been made by the present petitioners against not holding selection each year and clubbing of vacancies of several years, violation of provisions of U. P. Govern ment Servant Criterion for Recruitment by Promotion Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as Promotion Rules of 1994 ). Further challenge is against the test held by the authorities known as IT/ft test as regards constitution of the Boards as also their functioning.- Heard Mr. R. B. Singhal, Mr. Vinod Sinha, Mr. K. M. Mishra, Mr. C. B. Rai and other learned Counsel appearing in various connected matters and Mr. P. M. N. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General assisted by Mr. A. R. Mehrotra, learned Standing Counsel for the respon dents. With regards to the first point of the petitioners, it has been contended that the last selection for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors was held in the year 1991 and after eight years the present selection process has been initiated in the year 1999 clubbing all the vacancies and making the candidates to contest amongst large number of vacancies. It is contended that such clubbing of vacancies and selec tion on that basis has been appreciated in various cases and reliance was placed on the judgment in the case pf state of Uttar Pradesh v. Smt. Shakuntala Shukla, (1999) 3 UPLBEC 1702 : 1999 (2) LBESR 900 (All); Syed Khalid Rizvi v. Union of India, 1993 Supp. (3) SCC 575 and Union of India v. Vipin Chand Hiralal, 1996 (6) SCC 721.
(3.) RELYING on the aforesaid law/it has been contended that the vacancies are re quired to be filled up every year and such vacancies cannot be clubbed together for selection after a gap of long period of eight years particularly when no acceptable reason has been assigned for such delay. It is contended that the Govern ment Order dated 29-10-1965 (Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition) provided for the procedure for filling up such vacancies and the same clearly provided for selection-each year and it has been provided therein that notice should be issued for such selec tion in January each year laying down the rules of eligibility and inviting eligible can didates to apply for selection. It was stated that the Government Order dated 27-2-1999 at Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition was issued for providing the procedure for present selection but the same did not amount to repealing the Government Order dated 29-10-1965 either expressly or impliedly and there was no contrary provision as regards the frequency of hold ing such selection. Law has also been referred to in this connection as decided in the case of Municipal Council, Patai v. TJ. Joseph, AIR 1963 SC 1. 561.;