Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) PETITIONER has approached this Court, praying for quashing of letters dated 20.8.2010, 19.1.2011 and 27.8.2013, Annexures P -9, P -11 and P -13 respectively, vide which his prayer for fixing him in Batch No. 43 seniority list according to the marks obtained by him, although in the reappear stands rejected. It is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was recruited as a Constable on 28.2.1992. He was brought on List B -1 vide order dated 8.12.2003 and was deputed to undergo the Lower School Course in Batch No. 43 at the Haryana Police Academy, Madhuban. In the result dated 1.10.2004 (Annexure P -2), petitioner was shown as reappear in the paper of Local and Special Law/Evidence Act for the reason that he had used red ink for highlighting the headings in the said paper. The result of the petitioner was, thus, not declared. He appeared in re -appear exam and his result was declared as pass on 19.1.2005 (Annexure P -3) and he was placed at the bottom of said list.
(2.) PETITIONER asserts that he has got higher marks in merits and, therefore, should be placed in the seniority list of Batch No. 43, as per the merit obtained by him in the course after clearance of reappear. He has further stated that no seniority list was ever circulated prior to 26.8.2008 and on the said date tentative seniority list was circulated and the petitioner found his name at Sr. No. 278 whereas he should have been placed higher in the batch as per his merit. He submitted a representation to the Superintendent of Police, Karnal. The said representation of the petitioner for putting him at the higher place in the seniority list was rejected by the Director, Haryana Police Academy, Madhuban (respondent No. 5) vide order dated 20.8.2010 (Annexure P -9). In the said order, it was mentioned as follows: - 2. After examination of the relevant records, it reveals that HC Salinder Kumar, No. 834/KNL, used Red Ink during final examination of Lower School Course Batch No. 43, the final result of which was declared on 01.10.2004 and the board of officers constituted as per para 3.7 & 3.8 of the PTC Manual to review the final result, observed as under: - The Board took a serious view only using the red ink by the two examinees including the applicant and during the proceedings it was observed by the Board that this has been done probably with the intention of getting undue favour in the subject Local & Special Laws. The Board decided that both candidates will reappear with the next batch of Lower School Course in that subject only. Accordingly, the applicant appeared in the subject Local & Special Laws along with other reappear candidates. He secured 66 pass marks during second chance in the subject and his supplementary result was declared. The applicant has moved an application on 15.03.10 at a much belated stage. Had the applicant been serious about his seniority in the Lower School Course, Batch No. 43, he would have certainly protested against the decision of the Board rather than reappearing in the subject "Local & Special Laws". The applicant neither moved any application/representation before the Board of examination nor moved any application before Director or DGP Haryana. 5. Moreover, standing Orders applicable on the functioning of Haryana Police Academy, Madhuban do not have any provision under which the relief sought by the applicant could be granted, therefore, the representation made by HC Salinder Kumar, No. 834/KNL is rejected. The applicant may please be informed accordingly. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted a representation to the Inspector General of Police, Rohtak Range, Rohtak, which was also rejected vide order dated 19.1.2011 (Annexure P -11) on the ground that the petitioner had obtained a re -appear and his result was declared in January 2005 and, therefore, he had to be placed at the tail end of the same batch who had cleared the course on 1.10.2004. Another representation submitted by the petitioner to the Director General of Police, Haryana, was rejected vide order dated 27.8.2013 (Annexure P -13), which orders have been assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
(3.) IT is the contention of counsel for the petitioner that in the light of the fact that the petitioner has cleared the examination in re -appear and his result has been declared on 19.1.2005, the said result would relate back to the date when the other batch members were declared pass i.e. 1.10.2004. His contention is that with the declaration of the result to be related back to 1.10.2004, as per the merit then obtained by the petitioner in B -1 test, he is required to be placed at the appropriate place in the seniority list of that batch. On the question of relating back to the original date of declaration of result, counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of Delhi High Court reported as Prashant Srivastava Vs. C.B.S.E. and others, : AIR 2001 Delhi 28. Prayer has, thus, been made for setting -aside the impugned letters/orders and for directing the respondents to grant him the benefit as has been claimed in the present writ petition.;