Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. - (1.) Heard Sri S.K. Kalia, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sameer Kalia and Sri Rajat Rajan Singh, Advocates for the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in the other writ petitions and Sri Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned Advocate General, U.P., for the State-respondents. Issue notice to respondent Nos.3 to 16 returnable at an early date. Since in the connected writ petitions some private respondents have been impleaded as respondents, therefore, let the notices be issue to all the private respondents in the connected writ petitions. Let necessary steps be taken within a week. Office to proceed accordingly. Since the issue involved in these batch of writ petitions is common, therefore, a common order is being passed in all these writ petitions. By means of this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners have assailed the final select list/ result dated 28.02.2019, issued by the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, opposite party No.2, whereby the petitioners have been declared unsuccessful on the ground of "Failed in Written Examination".
(2.) This matter was taken up for admission on 07.03.2019 and this Court passed order, as under:- "Heard Sri Sameer Kalia, learned counsel for the petitioner while notices on behalf the opposite party nos.1 and2 have been accepted in the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. At the present stage in view of the fact that the learned standing counsel is being asked only to obtain instructions in the matter, notices to opposite party nos.3 to 16 are dispensed with for the time being. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the recruitment process pertaining to the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police), Platoon Commander (P.A.C.) and Fire Fighting Second Officer, the petitioners have been declared unsuccessful on account of the implementation of Equi-percentile Method which he submits is not provided for in the service regulations pertaining to the recruitment of such post. He has relied upon the cases of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Singh and another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and others reported in 2007 Volume 3 SCC Page 720 and U.P. Public Service Commission v. Manoj Kumar Yadav and another reported in 2018 Volume 3 SCC Page 706 to substantiate his submissions that in the present case the question papers being objective in nature there would not be any subject or examiner variability and as such the aforesaid method adopted by the Recruitment Board is incorrect and against the provisions of the recruitment rules. For the aforesaid submissions, the learned standing counsel is directed to obtain instructions specifically as under which provision of law the Equi-percentile Method has been imposed with regard to the aforesaid recruitment. List this case on 12.03.2019 as a fresh case."
(3.) Since no instructions were received by the counsel for the State-respondents, therefore, this Court passed order dated 12.03.2019, as under:- "Earlier the learned Standing Counsel had been granted time to seek instructions as to under which provision of law the Equi-percentile Method has been adopted for the on going selections on the post of Sub Inspector. The learned Standing Counsel submits that he has not yet received proper instructions in the matter. As such, list this case on 15th March, 2019 as a fresh case along with writ petition No.7167(S/S) of 2019, on which date the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Home and the Secretary, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board shall file their personal affidavits explaining the aforesaid issue. In view of the large number of selections which could be effected due to the present writ petition, the learned Advocate General may also assist the court on the next date." ;