- (1.) All these three Special Appeals relating to promotional recruitment on the post of Sub- Inspectors, involve common issues to be decided. Therefore on the request of the learned counsel for the parties all the appeals are being heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
(2.) Brief facts related to these appeals are that:- 2.1 Petitioners-appellants Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh, Constable 1082 Civil Police, Satendra Kumar, Constable 1048 Civil Police, Sanjeev Kumar, Constable 343, Civil Police, Omveer Singh Nagar, Constable 204 Civil Police Dayachand and Head Constable 106 Civil Police Mahesh Kumar of Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011 were working as constables/ Head constable in Civil Police, Uttar Pradesh. 2.2 The petitioner-appellant in Special Appeal No.829 of 2012 Rajveer Singh Yadav was appointed as Constable in Civil Police on 01.09.1988. In the year 2004, he was granted promotion as Head Constable. 2.3 In the year 2011, a circular letter was issued by U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Board') notifying selection under 50% quota for filling up posts of Sub Inspector by promotion amongst Constables and Head Constables. 2.4 Being eligible, the petitioners-appellants applied and appeared in the written examination held for above selection. 2.5 On 20.5.2011, result of the aforesaid written examination was published, in which, petitioners-sappellants, were declared as fail in Paper No.1 pertaining to Hindi Essay. 2.6 Aggrieved whereof, Petitioner- appellants Omveer Singh and others filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.41319 of 2011, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 26.7.2011 subject to challenge in Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011. 2.7 Petitioner-appellant Rajveer Singh Yadav filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011 (Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others) which was allowed vide judgment impugned dated 17.2.2012, with direction to evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner-appellant afresh. 2.8 Special Appeal No.839 of 2012 has been filed by petitioner-appellant, Rajveer Singh Yadav against the judgment and order dated 17.02.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011 (Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others). 2.9 Another Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38676 of 2011, Suresh Chandra Vs. State of U.P. and others, which was also allowed vide judgment and order dated 17.2.2012 along with aforesaid Civil Misc Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011 with direction referred above. 2.10 Petitioner Suresh Chandra has not challenged the judgment impugned by filing of appeal, rather he has filed intervening application which will be dealt hereinafter at appropriate place. 2.11. Respondents-appellants State of U.P. and others have also filed Special Appeal No.1220 of 2012 against the order impugned dated 17.02.2012 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38563 of 2011, Rajveer Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants in Special Appeal No.1495 of 2011 (Constable 979 Civil Police Omveer Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others has contended that the procedure adopted for checking of answer copies and declaration of result is contrary to the Recruitment Rules and totally unjustified inasmuch as :- 3.1 The facts brought on record clearly demonstrate that an innovative method of evaluation of answer sheets pertaining to Hindi Essay paper has been adopted by the respondents by subjecting the answer-sheets to evaluation on two occasions i.e. by two examiners one by one. 3.2. A large number of candidates who have passed on the basis of the marks awarded in the first evaluation, have been shown failed in the aforesaid paper after taking the average marks of the same after second evaluation for which there is no justification at all. 3.3 It were never informed to the candidates appearing in the written examination that their answer sheets would be subjected to evaluation twice and thereafter, the result would be declared on the basis of average of the marks obtained by them in the two evaluations. 3.4 Even otherwise, the petitioners-appellants have performed extremely well and there exist no occasion for the petitioners/ appellants to be declared as having failed in Hindi Essay paper. 3.5 As against 5389 vacancies of Sub Inspectors, which were required to be filled-up only 3891 candidates have been shown as having qualified in the written examination and there was no qualified candidte available for remaining 1498 posts. 3.6 In the facts and circumstances, in respect of marks obtained by petitioner-appellants on the answer copies in the first evaluation, the second evaluation and on the basis of their average marks obtained by them ought to have been summoned by the Court including the records but learned Single Judge did not apply his judicial mind and wrongly declined to do so by passing the impugned judgment and order. 3.7 In any view of the matter, there is no justificatin for dismissal of some writ petitions on identical issues while entertaining and allowing some other writ petitions involving the same controversy.;