- (1.) Satyendra Prasad Singh is before this Court for quashing the order dated 26.7.2012 passed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U.P. Headquarter, Allahabad-respondent no.4 and for a further direction to the respondents to forthwith call the petitioner for interview to the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) (Male)/ Platoon Commander (PAC) (Male) Examination, 2001 under Ex-serviceman category and thereafter declare the result of interview and also pay all consequential benefits to the petitioner from the date when the similarly situated candidates joined the post.
(2.) This much is reflected from the record that the U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad had invited applications for 799 posts of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) (Male); 89 posts of Sub Inspector (Civil Police) (Female) and 99 posts of Platoon Commander (PAC) (Male) by issuing advertisement dated 1.9.2001. The petitioner belonging to general and Ex-serviceman category has applied for the said posts under his category. As per the advertisement following stages were prescribed for selection in question:- "(a) Preliminary written examination (b) Physical efficiency examination (c) Mains written examination and (d) Interview/ Health check-up"
(3.) The petitioner had succeeded in preliminary written examination and physical efficiency examination. But in the mains written examination, which was declared on 28.7.2003, he could not succeed. The petitioner has alleged that despite he had correctly answered more than 60% questions and as per guideline of the advertisement his name must be placed amongst the successful candidates in the mains examination but the same was not done. He has also averred that in the selection in question only 1% reservation has been given to ex-serviceman in place of 5%. Aggrieved with the same, the petitioner had preferred Writ Petition No.34056 of 2003. Since there were several disputes existed in respect of Examination, 2001, therefore, learned Single Judge had clubbed all the disputes and heard the cases. Learned Single Judge vide common judgment dated 26.2.2004 has dismissed the bunch of writ petitions along with writ petition filed by the petitioner. It is averred that leading case was related to 'questions' and the learned Single Judge had paid main attention on this issue instead of other issues like quota for ex-serviceman. Against the same, the petitioner and others have preferred Special Appeal (D) No.370 of 2004, which after condoning the delay was given regular number as Special Appeal No.729 of 2004. It is submitted that in the said special appeal, a supplementary counter affidavit was filed in which it was admitted that the reservation percentage for ex-serviceman was increased from 1% to 5%. It was further admitted that for general category (ex-serviceman) 22 more candidates were to be called for interview. It was also stated in that affidavit that out of three petitioners-appellants in the said appeal two petitioners-appellants namely Sri Surendra Pandey and Sri Radhey Kamal were issued interview letter but the petitioner-appellant Sri Satyendra Prasad, who stood much lower in the merit list could not qualify and not called for interview. In an another affidavit the respondents have revealed that last candidate under general/ex-serviceman, who was called for interview had obtained 364 marks while the petitioner has obtained 342 marks, therefore, he was not called for interview in his category. The petitioner has contended that according to 5% reservation fixed for ex-serviceman, total 52 posts were reserved for ex-serviceman, and as per ratio of 2.5 against every vacancy for calling for interview total 130 ex-serviceman candidates ought to have been called for interview but instead of calling the said strength of candidates, the respondents had called lesser number of candidates for interview. The petitioner has questioned the criteria for selecting the ex-serviceman and freedom fighter candidates. The said special appeal was finally disposed of vide order dated 23.5.2012, the operative portion of which is reproduced as under:- "The bone of contention between the parties is now, thus, has been narrowed down only to the question whether the appellant was entitled to be called for interview and the respondents have committed any error in not calling the appellant for the same. Although, after calculating the number of posts, according to 5% quota the respondents further called 26 candidates to appear in the interview whereas the said treatment was denied to the appellant. In this counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents, no specific reason has been given as to why the appellant was not called for to appear in interview except that the last selected candidate in ex-army quota under general category has secured 364 marks but since the appellant has secured less mark than the last selected candidate, he could not be called for interview. We fail to see that as to how the marks of the last candidate is relevant for calling a candidate in interview. The ratio has already been fixed by the respondent as 2.5. Learned Standing Counsel submits that it shall be appropriate if necessary directions to respondent no.6 be given to consider the above aspects of the matter and take appropriate decision regarding claim of the appellant that as to why he was not called for interview. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the posts which were notified and earmarked have not been filled up and the said posts are still lying vacant. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, ends of justice be served in disposing of the special appeal with direction to respondent no.6 to take appropriate decision as to whether the appellant according to marks which was secured by him in the main written examination, was not eligible to call for interview, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before him. It goes without saying that it shall be open for the respondent to take further consequential action in accordance with the decision so taken, if required. The special appeal is disposed of.";