Augustine George Masih, J. - (1.) THIS order will dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 19965, 20649 of 2006, 19155 of 2007, 11937, 11908, 11494, 11492, 11481, 14084, 14111, 11872, 14317, 15159, 15160, 15164, 15170, 15191, 15223, 8757, 15385 of 2008 as common questions of facts and law are involved therein. The claim of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that they are working as Constables in the Police Department, Haryana. In the year 2001, Punjab Police Rules have been amended and as per the amended Rules, 55% seats are reserved for B -1 on the basis of the test, 35% seats are reserved on the basis of seniority -cum -fitness while 10% seats are reserved for the sports quota and outstanding performance. As per the Punjab Police Rules, 1934, as applicable to the State of Haryana, and as amended in 2001, Rule 13.7 deals with selection of candidates for admission to course at the Police Training College. List B is maintained by the each Superintendent of Police which shall include all names of Constables selected for admission to the Lower School Course to be held at the Police Training College. The selection to the list B is to be made in the month of January each year and is limited to the number of seats allotted to the district for the said year. The number of seats in the Lower School Course in a year is to be on the basis of existing vacancies and the vacancies likely to the created within that year in the respective unit. 55% of the seats allotted to a unit in the lower school course are to be filled on the basis of a competitive examination, 35% on the basis of seniority -cum -fitness and 10% on the basis of consistent outstanding performance in job/obtaining gold or silver medal in All India Police Games/duty meet/national games or exceptional display of bravery during the curse of performance of official duty. A criteria has also been spelt out for selection of persons against the different quota. The norms are thus fixed and accordingly, the candidates are selected under the three different categories. The present writ petitions are with regard to the 35% quota wherein the claim of the petitioners is on the basis of seniority -cum -fitness.
(2.) IT is the claim of the petitioners that despite their fulfilling the minimum Bench mark fixed by the Department for selection in this category, juniors to them have been selected and deputed to the Lower School Course which is in total violation of the statutory Rules. It is further their contention that this Court has, - -vide its judgment dated 5th November, 2004 in C.W.P. No. 7952 of 2004 Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others held as follows: - - Since Rule 13.7 of the 1934 Rules, extracted hereinabove, clearly envisages the applicability of the principle of seniority cum fitness for determining the entitlement of a constable to be placed on List B -1 i.e. for being deputed to the Lower School Course, as have no doubt whatsoever, that given the minimum requisite merit/fitness required, the senior has to be placed on list B -1 as a matter of preference. The only justification depicted in the written statement for considering the claim of respondent No. 4 as superior to that of the petitioner is, that respondent No. 4 was placed at a higher level vis   -vis the petitioner while adjudicating the relevant merit of the candidates. As noticed by the Apex Court in Lt. Gen. Rajender Singh Kadyan's case (supra), the comparison of candidates on the basis of merit is irrelevant under the aforesaid principle of promotion. In the aforesaid view of the matter, since it is not the case of the respondents, that the petitioner did not fulfill the minimum requisite merit for being placed on List B -1, we are satisfied, that the instant writ petition must succeed and the petitioner, on account of seniority, must be preferred over respondent No. 4 for being placed on list B -1 and accordingly for being deputed to the Lower School Course. The petitioners, therefore, contend that they -are entitled to the same relief as this Court has clearly held that a person who fulfills the minimum requisite merits/fitness as required, the senior is to be placed in List B -1 as a matter of preference and, therefore, they should have been deputed to the Lower School Course prior to deputing their juniors. The petitioners have further contended that in some cases, they have been deputed to the Lower School Course subsequent to the juniors and therefore, have been put as juniors to such persons who have passed the Lower School Course earlier. They cannot be deprived of their seniority merely on the basis of having been deputed to the lower school course at a later stage due to wrong interpretation of the Rules or due to inaction on the part of the respondents. They, therefore contend that they are entitled to be treated as having qualified the Lower School Course as if they have been deputed to the Lower School Course along with the juniors and have accordingly passed the same in that very batch. It is further pleaded that the State of Haryana preferred a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 10409/2005 from the judgment and order dated 5th November, 2004 passed in CWP No. 7952 of 2005 (Naresh Kumar v. State of Haryana and others) which has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, - - -vide its order dated 10th May, 2005.
(3.) THE petitioners have contended that large number of writ petitions have been decided by this Court following the judgment passed by this Court in Naresh Kumar's case (supra). The petitioners have further contended that on 14th May, 2008, a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 1194 of 2005 (Hawa Singh v. State of Haryana and others) has again considered a similar claim as that of the petitioners and allowed a much of 42 writ petitions. There also, the contention of the respondents with regard to the merit inter se between the 35% quota has been considered and this Court has again reiterated the law as laid down in Naresh Kumar's case (supra) and granted the same relief as has been prayed for by the petitioners in the present writ petitions.;