B.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) This special appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 10th March, 2000, by which the writ petition filed by the respondents has been allowed quashing the result of the Infantry Training/Physical Training test (hereinafter called the 'IT/PT test'), held for the purpose of departmental promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) from the post of Head Constable and directing the respondents to hold the selection in the light of the observations made therein.
(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that for the purpose of departmental promotion on the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police from the eligible Head Constables, having three years experience and below the age of 40 years, as on 1.1.1999, applications were invited and preliminary written examination was held on 5.9.1999. All the said respondents passed the said examination and they were asked to appear in the IT/PT test held from 16.11.1999 to 20.11.1999. It's result was declared on 11.2.2000 and none of the said respondents could qualify the said examination. They challenged the said result by filing the Writ Petition No. 9694 of 2000 on various grounds. Their petition stood allowed vide impugned judgment and order, basically on two grounds. Firstly, the vacancies has not been determined year wise as the selection could not be held for several years, thus, unequals were treated equals. Vacancies should have been determined year wise and candidates eligible for the said posts should have been considered for the particular year only. The said conclusion was reached following the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in State of U.P. and Ors. v. Shakuntala Shukla, (1993) 3 UPLBEC 1702. Secondly, that the Selection Board constituted for the purpose of holding the IT/PT test was not in accordance with the U.P. Government Servant Criterion for Recruitment Promotion Rules, 1994 (hereinafter called the Rules 1994) and the Government Order, dated 27.2.1999. Thus, the result of the test stood vitiated.
(3.) Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned Additional Advocate General, has submitted that promotions have to be made throughout the State of Uttar Pradesh and eligible Head Constables have a right to apply for the promotional posts. Vacancies could not be filled up for years altogether because of interim order of the Courts in respect of earlier selection process. Not determining the vacancies year-wise did not adversely affect any respondent. All the respondents had been fully aware of the promotion rules, Government orders in respect of the process of test as well as the constitution of the Board. If there was any deficiency in the procedure or defect in the Constitution of the Board they should not have participated at the relevant time. All of them participated in the selection process, took the chance of favourable result and as they failed, they cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the result of the test. He further submitted that not a single candidate who qualified the test has been impleaded, though the successful candidates had also been screened by the same Board following the same procedure. There is nothing on record to show as to how the case of respondents got prejudiced. The appeal deserved to be allowed.;