I.S. Tiwana, J. - (1.) The petitioner who is employed as a constable in Haryana Police has made & grouse of his not being sent to the Police Training Course under the Punjab Police Rules 1934 (hereinafter to be referred as the Rules, in preference to respondents No. 4 to 13, who according to his allegations are junior to him He claimed that he was appointed as a constable on 20th of October 1971 and since then has discharged a meritorious service. His claim further is that before framing a list under rule 13 7 of the rules for bringing the constable on list 'B' the procedure prescribed under rule 19.14 has to be resorted to and the constable who are selected in compliance with that procedure are only to be placed on list B' as envisaged by rule 13.7 of the Rules. This claim of the petitioner appears to be based on misreading of rules The said rules are in the following terms "13.7 List B (in Form 13 7) shall also be maintained by each Superintendent of Police and shall be divided into two parts. (i) Selection grade constables considered suitable as candidate for the lower school course at the Police Training School (ii) Constables (selection or time-scale) considered suitable for drill and other special courses at the Police Training School. Selection shall be made from this list as vacancies occur for admission to the courses concerned at the Police Training School, provided that no Constable shall be considered eligible for any such course until the entry of his name in list 'B' has been approved by the Deputy Inspector-General of the Range. Ordinarily seniority in age shall be given prior consideration in making such selections, irrespective of the date of admission to the list, and care must be taken that a constable borne on the list is not allowed to become over-age for admission to the school . before being selected. The restrictions on admission to the lower school course and Instructors' courses at the Police Training School limit the conditions for admission to List 'B' No constable shall be admitted to that list whose age is such that he cannot in the normal course be sent to the Training School before he attains the age of 30 years. No constable, who has failed to qualify at the Training School, shall be re-admitted to the list unless the Superintendent and the Principal of the School are in agreement that he is deserving of another chance of qualifying in the course in the event of disagreement as to such a case the Deputy Inspector General shall decide " 19.14 Preliminary training of candidates for the lower school at Phillaur. The selection of constables made under rule 13.7, shall be made at least three months before the men are due at the Police Training School. It shall be made after the men competing have been called into lines and put through a short "refresher" course of drill and instruction in the headquarters school, at the end of which they shall be examined in competition. After regard has been had to those candidates hearing the age limit, selection shall be made, as far as expedient, according to the result of this competition The men selected shall be posted to police stations as Assistants to station clerks or on similar duty until they are due to be sent to the Police Training School " As would be apparent from the reading of the two Rules, the selection to be made in accordance with Rule 19.14. of the Rules succeed the bringing of the constables on list 'B' and does not precede it. Rule 13.7 of the Rules itself envisages the selection to be made for this list as the vacancies for admission to the Promotion course occur at the Police Training School and it is that selection which has to be made in accordance with Rule 19.14 of the Rules. Since the petitioner was not placed on list 'B' or as is the stand of the respondents, was not so approved by. respondent No. 2 Deputy Inspector General of the Renge on merits for being so placed on list he cannot have any possible grouse or locus standi to challenge the non holding of test or non-compliance of the procedure laid down in rule 19.14 of the Rules It is only the constable on list *B' who can assail such a non-compliance of the latter Rule, The rest of the assertions of the petitioner that some of the constables were withdrawn or re-admitted to this list 'B' at the time of their sending to the Police Training Course from amongst the respondents No. 4 to 13, have also to be negatived for the same very reason, i. e be has no locus standi to assail their further selection or non-selection for being sent to the said Course. The pre-requisite for a constable being asked to take a test under Rule 19 14 of the Rules or the compliance of the other formalities of the Rules is that the constable should be on list 'B* framed under Rule 13.7.
(2.) Towards the end, the learned counsel for the petitioner faintly suggested that even the selection and approval made by respondents No. 2 and of the constables for being placed on list 'B' is wrong and is bad for the reason that no criteria was laid down for such a selection of- approval and that no weight was given to the service record of the petitioner and his age at that time This also has no weight in view of the categorical assertion made in the return on behalf of respondents No. 2 and 3 wherein it is stated that though the petitioner had a longer service than some of the selected respondents, yet be could not be placed on list 'B* on account of his merits In .this view of the matter, I do not find any substance in this petition and dismiss the same with no orders as to costs. Petition Dismissed.;