Case Note & Summary
The case involves appeals by Lance Nayak Raj Bahadur and others, who are Scheduled Caste constables/head constables in the Uttar Pradesh Police, challenging the High Court's dismissal of their writ petition. The dispute arose from a limited departmental examination for promotion to Sub-Inspector posts advertised in 2010. Earlier, 18 erroneous questions in the written exam led to litigation, culminating in the Supreme Court's order dated 18.07.2014, which directed awarding full marks for those questions and preparation of a fresh select list. Subsequently, on 10.08.2015, the Supreme Court passed an order in Qamar Hasan Khan case clarifying that no court shall entertain any grievance relating to this particular selection. In April 2018, the appellants filed a writ petition alleging non-application of reservation policy and challenging the cut-off marks criteria. The High Court dismissed the petition citing the Supreme Court's 2015 order. The Supreme Court, in the present appeals, upheld the High Court's decision, holding that the earlier orders had attained finality and the appellants could not raise new grievances at this stage. The Court noted that the selection process had been concluded and any challenge would unsettle settled matters. The appeals were dismissed accordingly.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Police Promotion - Finality of Orders - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition as the selection process had already been concluded pursuant to earlier orders of the Supreme Court, which had directed that no court shall entertain any grievance relating to this particular selection. (Paras 8-10)
B) Service Law - Interpretation of Rules - Cut-off Marks - The appellants' contention that the 50% cut-off marks should be applied 'paper-wise' and not 'subject-wise' was not considered on merits due to the bar imposed by the Supreme Court's earlier order. (Paras 8-9)
C) Service Law - Reservation Policy - The issue of non-application of reservation policy in the selection process was also not entertained due to the finality of the earlier orders. (Para 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the writ petition in light of the earlier orders passed by the Supreme Court in the same selection process, and whether the appellants' grievances regarding reservation policy and cut-off marks criteria could be raised at this stage.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's order. The Court held that in view of the earlier orders passed by this Court, the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the writ petition. The appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Res Judicata
- Finality of Court Orders
- Scope of Judicial Review in Selection Matters
- Interpretation of Service Rules
Case Details
Civil Appeal No.4837 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.15699 of 2018) and connected appeals
Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants
Lance Nayak PNO No.980510777 Raj Bahadur & Ors.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals against High Court order dismissing writ petition challenging police promotion selection process.
Remedy Sought
The appellants sought to challenge the selection process on grounds of non-application of reservation policy and incorrect application of cut-off marks criteria.
Filing Reason
The appellants, belonging to Scheduled Caste category, were constables/head constables who appeared in a limited departmental examination for promotion to Sub-Inspector. They alleged that the selection process was conducted without applying reservation policy and that the 50% cut-off marks should be applied 'paper-wise' and not 'subject-wise'.
Previous Decisions
The Supreme Court had earlier passed orders on 18.07.2014 and 10.08.2015 in related matters, directing the preparation of a fresh select list and barring any court from entertaining grievances relating to this selection.
Issues
Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to entertain the writ petition in light of the earlier orders of the Supreme Court.
Whether the appellants' grievances regarding reservation policy and cut-off marks could be raised at this stage.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that the selection process was undertaken without applying Reservation Policy and that the 50% cut-off marks criteria must be 'paper' wise and not 'subject' wise.
The respondents relied on the Supreme Court's order dated 10.08.2015 which barred any court from entertaining grievances relating to this selection.
Ratio Decidendi
Once the Supreme Court has passed a final order in a selection process barring any further grievances, no court can entertain any challenge to that selection process, and any such challenge must be dismissed in limine.
Judgment Excerpts
It is hereby made clear that no court shall entertain any grievance relating to this particular selection.
In view of the order passed by this Court on 10.08.2015 in (Qamar Hasan Khan & others v. State of U.P. & Ors.) the High Court refused to entertain the writ petition and dismissed the same by its order dated 20.04.2018, which order is now under challenge.
Procedural History
The selection process began with an advertisement on 12.06.2010. Disputes arose regarding 18 erroneous questions, leading to a writ petition and eventually the Supreme Court's order on 18.07.2014. A fresh select list was published on 27.11.2014. On 10.08.2015, the Supreme Court barred any further grievances. In April 2018, the appellants filed a writ petition which was dismissed by the High Court on 20.04.2018. The present appeals were filed against that dismissal.
Acts & Sections
- Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008: Rule 16
