Anupinder Singh Grewal, J. - (1.) The petitioner has challenged the selection list dated 20.04.2010 (Annexure P-3), wherein the name of the petitioner has not been included for undergoing Lower School Course for the year 2010.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is working as a Constable in the Haryana Armed Police. In the list prepared by the respondents for deputing the Constables for Lower School Course in terms of the Punjab Police (Haryana Amendment) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as, 'the Rules of 2001), the petitioner has secured 63 marks and his name has been shown at Sl. No. 49, while respondent No. 3, who has secured only 51.5 marks, has been shown at Sl. No. 57. He further contends that the official respondents have arbitrarily placed respondent No. 3, ahead of the petitioner, which is contrary to the Rules of 2001. He has placed reliance upon Sub-rule 2(i) and (ii) of Rule 13.7 of the Rules of 2001 in support of his contention that the eligibility of the candidates has to be determined on the Ist day of January, in the year in which the selection is made. He further contends that once the eligibility of respondent no. 3 has been determined on the Ist day of January, 2010 it could not have been changed by the respondents later on by adding marks as claimed by respondent No. 3. Learned counsel has also contended that 9 vacancies in the Scheduled Caste Category for deputing the Constables for Lower School Course were unfilled and hence, they should have been thrown open to the General Category, in which eventuality the petitioner would find place in the list of selected candidates, who are deputed for the Lower School Course.
(3.) On the contrary, learned State counsel has stated that for not including the marks due for his educational qualification as well as commendation certificates, respondent No. 3 had made a representation to the official respondents. On consideration of the qualification of respondent No. 3 as well as his commendation certificates, his marks were computed as 64.5, which were higher than 63 marks obtained by the petitioner. Learned State counsel has further contended that the vacancies in the SC Category, which remain unfilled, are being filled up by carrying them forward in the subsequent selection.;