Holding

The Court directed that, as a one‑time exception, the 607 vacant posts and the 226 posts for dependents of freedom fighters be filled in the present selection, and that the earlier Supreme Court directions apply to all candidates, making the total selection not less than 4,010 + 1,022.

Summary

The Supreme Court examined the selection process for 4,010 Sub‑Inspector and Platoon Commander posts in Uttar Pradesh, which had been marred by multiple revisions, allegations of candidates using whitener/blade, and unfilled vacancies. The Court considered whether vacancies arising from candidates who discontinued training or failed medical/character verification (607 posts) and those reserved for dependents of freedom fighters (226 posts) could be filled in the current selection as a one‑time exception. It also addressed whether the earlier Supreme Court directions in Hanuman Dutt Shukla, granting additional vacancies to candidates excluded for using whitener/blade, should be limited to earlier petitioners or extended to all eligible candidates. The Court held that the High Court's decision was correct, directing that the 607 and 226 vacancies be filled in the present selection, and that the total number of candidates selected should not be less than 4,010 plus 1,022 additional candidates. Consequently, all pending appeals, writ petitions and related matters were disposed of, with the selection to proceed on merit, reservation and preference.

Issues considered

Whether vacancies arising from candidates discontinuing training or failing medical/character verification can be filled in the present selection as a one‑time exception.
Whether the 226 posts reserved for dependents of freedom fighters can be filled in the current selection.
Whether the number of candidates called for group discussion exceeding the statutory limit can be regularised without re‑conducting the exercise.
Whether the benefit of the Supreme Court's earlier directions in Hanuman Dutt Shukla should be confined to earlier petitioners or extended to all eligible candidates.
Interpretation of Rule 15(j) of the Uttar Pradesh Sub‑Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules regarding carrying forward vacancies.

Legislation cited

Subjects

recruitmentreservationmeritwhitener/bladegroup discussionvacanciesservice rulesUttar Pradesh police

Judgment

328 SUPREME[2018]
COURT 14REPORTS
S.C.R. 328 [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A ALOK KUMAR SINGH & OTHERS
v.
STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 11370 of 2018)
B NOVEMBER 27, 2018
[KURIAN JOSEPH AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police)
Service Rules, 2018 – rr.6, 14 and 15 – Selection undertaken in
respondent-State pursuant to advertisement for recruiting 4010 posts
C
namely 3698 posts of Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police) and 312 posts
of Platoon Commander (Provincial Armed Constabulary or PAC)
of Uttar Pradesh – Final results were published seeking to fill up
all the posts except 226 posts namely 205 and 21 posts reserved for
dependents of freedom fighters – Challenge raised to the selection
D of certain candidates inter alia on the ground that said candidates
had used whitener/blade while answering questions in the main
examination – Final results revised excluding names of all such
candidates – Challenge to – Direction by Supreme Court in Hanuman
Dutt Shukla case that such candidates whose names were excluded
as a result of use of whitener or blade in the main examination,
E
would also be accommodated – List of 809 successful candidates
declared – Entire selection process and the revised final result again
challenged in the High Court – Writ petitions dismissed – In the
meantime, another set of petitions challenged the entire selection
process – Direction that the result of the main written examination
F be prepared afresh, affirmed by the Division Bench of the High
Court in Special Appeal No.416 of 2016 – On appeal, held:
Considering the facts that the present selection has seen various
interventions including revision in final list on more than one
occasion and considering the large number of vacancies of 607
posts where certain candidates either discontinued training or did
G
not qualify in medical examination/character verification, as a one
time exception it is directed that such 607 posts be made available
in the present selection itself – Decision of the High Court in Special
Appeal No.416 of 2016 was correct – Going by the Rules, only
12030 candidates could have been allowed to participate in Group
H
328
ALOK KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 329

Discussion against the number of 14256 – But at this length of A
time, it would be inappropriate to re-do the exercise and eliminate
the excess number from consideration, more particularly when the
number of 14256 represents all those who secured 50% or more
marks in the written examination and there are still 607 vacancies
to be filled up – In terms of the decisions of Supreme Court in
B
Hanuman Dutt Shukla case 809 candidates were given benefit,
followed by 24 similarly situated candidates – To this number of
833, 189 similarly situated candidates will have to be added as
dealt with in the order passed by Supreme Court – This aspect was
repeatedly made clear that those vacancies would be in addition –
Therefore, total number of candidates who could be selected in the C
selection relatable to the year 2011 in any case ought not to be less
than 4010+1022 – Directions issued.
Issuing directions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Considering the facts that the present selection
has seen various interventions including revision in final list on D
more than one occasion and considering the large number of
vacancies of 607 posts where certain candidates either
discontinued training or did not qualify in medical examination/
character verification, as a one time exception it is directed that
such 607 posts be made available in the present selection itself. E
One more reason for such direction is that large number of posts
namely more than 8000 posts are currently available for
succeeding selections. Similarly, the decision of the High Court
in Special Appeal No.416 of 2016, was correct. Going by the
Rules, only 12030 candidates could have been allowed to
participate in Group Discussion against the number of F
14256. But at this length of time, it would be inappropriate to
re-do the exercise and eliminate the excess number from
consideration, more particularly when the number of 14256
represents all those who secured 50% or more marks in the
written examination and there are still 607 vacancies to be filled G
up. [Para 25][347-E-H]
1.2 In the order dated 31.10.2017, Supreme Court had
emphasized the adherence to eligibility of 50% while the order
dated 30.11.2017 had directed completion of Selection process
H
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A in the order of merit. Thereafter, the order dated 16.01.2018
categorically stated that three factors namely, merit, reservation
and preference should be taken into consideration. Therefore,
the submission that the benefit, if any, of the order or directions
should be confined to those who are/were before this Court or
the High Court alone, in the capacity of either the
B
petitioners or the intervenors ignoring merit cannot be accepted.
[Para 26][348-A-B]
1.3 Though the number of candidates called for group
discussion ought to have been thrice the notified vacancies i.e.
12030, the Board had called 14256 candidates. The first list viz.
C the result notified on 25.06.2015 had named 3784 candidates
leaving out 226 unfilled posts as a result of non-availability of
candidates in the category of dependents of freedom fighters as
stated above. In terms of the decisions of this Court in Hanuman
Dutt Shukla 809 candidates were given benefit, followed by 24
D similarly situated candidates. To this number of 833, 189 similarly
situated candidates as dealt with in the order passed by this Court
on 14.08.2018 will have to be added. The decision of this Court
in Hanuman Dutt Shukla was very clear that the revised final list
dated 25.06.2015 ought not to be disturbed but benefit must be
given to those candidates who were excluded for use of whitener/
E blade etc. while answering the main examination. This aspect
was repeatedly made clear that those vacancies would be in
addition and therefore, the number of 1022 (809 in terms of
Hanuman Dutt Shukla, 24 in terms of case of Deepak Kumar and
189 in terms of the order dated 14.08.2018) have to be reckoned
F in addition to the figure of 4010. Therefore, total number of
candidates who could be selected in the selection relatable to
the year 2011 in any case ought not to be less than 4010+1022.
Status and identity of the candidates who form the group of 1022
candidates is very clear. In this context it is to be noted that the
vacancies notified are only approximate and there is
G nothing wrong if the number increases in the exigencies of
service. [Para 28][349-C-H]
1.4 In the peculiar fact situation of the present case, as a
one time exception, following directions are issued :-

H
ALOK KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 331

A) 607 posts lying vacant as a result of certain candidates A
having discontinued training or having failed to qualify in medical
examination/character verification, shall be offered and made
available in the present selection itself, strictly in order of merit
and subject to fulfilment of having obtained 50% or more marks.
B) There are 226 unfilled posts as a result of non-availability B
of candidates in the cadre of dependents of freedom fighters.
Normally, “freedom fighters” is not a category which, over a period
of time, would keep increasing. In any case, there are selections
which are round the corner in which more than 8000 posts are
available for the candidates. The interest of those candidates
who answer the description “dependents of freedom fighters” C
would therefore be taken care of in the succeeding selections.
These 226 posts should also be made available for the present
selection.
C) The State Government and its authorities are therefore
directed to make available 833 posts (607+226) for the present D
selection strictly in order of merit subject to the fulfillment of the
criteria that the candidates had obtained 50% or more in the
main written examination, in keeping with principles of
reservation and preference.
D) Direction to fill-up the above 833 posts in terms of this E
Judgment is in addition to any other directions already issued.
E) A group of matters namely SLP (Civil) Nos.10674 of 2018,
10675 of 2018, 12891-12893 of 2018 and 15699 of 2018 are filed
by individuals who are either Head Constables or Constables in
the police service and are seeking promotion to the post of Sub- F
Inspectors (Civil Police). Since the nature of controversy and
the questions raised therein are completely unconnected with
the present selection, said matters are segregated and it is
directed that they be listed immediately before the appropriate
Bench for consideration. [Para 29][349-C-H; 350-A-B] G
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11370
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.01.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 67748 of 2015.
H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A With
C. A. Nos. 11372, 11373, 11374, 11375, 11371, 11377, 11378, 11379,
11380, 11381-82, 11383, 11384, 11385, 11402, 11388-90, 11386-87, 11391,
11392, 11393, 11394, 11406, 11407, 11396, 11398 and 11399 of 2018.
W. P. (C) Nos. 735, 736 and 1053 of 2017.
B
T. C. (C) Nos. 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64,
65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 71, 73, 74, 75, 80, 83, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 93, 97, 98,
99, 100, 102, 103, 105, 106, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 116, 117, 118,
120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136,
140, 142, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157,
C 159, 161, 162, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 171, 172, 173, 176, 178, 180, 181,
183, 184, 107, 141, 219, 226, 227, 220, 192, 216, 200, 185, 186, 187, 188,
189, 190, 191, 194, 195, 196, 197, 199, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 207, 206,
213, 215, 214, 217, 218, 222, 221, 224, 225, 228, 229, 230, 232, 234, 241,
252, 231, 250, 233, 247, 246, 235, 242, 236, 237, 244, 238, 239, 254, 255,
D 245, 277, 278, 279, 281, 282, 283, 289, 284, 285, 287, 286, 288, 292, 297,
299 and 307 of 2017.
W. P. (C) No. 22, 441, 913 and 1059 of 2018
Contempt Petitions (C) No. 815/2018 in SLP (C) No. 16669/2017
MA No. 1297/2018 in T.C. (C) No. 92/2017
E
MA No. 1993/2018 in T.C. (C) No. 210/2017
MA No. 1960/2018 in T.C. (C) No. 293/2017
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1200/2018 in T.C. (C) No. 58/2017

F Contempt Petition (C) No. 1257/2018 in T.P. (C) No. 283/2017
T. C. (C) No. 53 of 2018
Contempt Petition (C) No. 972/2018 in SLP (C) No. 10468/2018
SLP (C) No. 10674, 10675, 12891-12893 and 15699 of 2018
G T. C. (C) No. 62/2018 in T. P. (C) No. 1053/2018
Aishwarya Bhati, AAG, R. Venkataramani, V. Shekhar,
Parag Tripathi, Manoj Prasad, Anoop G. Chaudhari, Ms. June Chaudhari,
Rakesh Khanna, Dushyant Dave, Pallav Sishodia, Ms. Mahalakshmi,
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Advs., Nagamuthu, Piyush Sharma,
H Avijit Mishra, Yashraj Bundela, Praveen Vignesh, Anand Nandan,
ALOK KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 333

Rohit Ranjan, Sumit Mishra, Amit Pawan, Rajeev Kumar Dubey, A
Vaidruti Mishra, Kamlendra K. Mishra, Amit Bose, Hitesh Kumar
Sharma, S. K. Rajora, M. A. Chinnasamy, Dr. Lokendra Malik, Danish
Zubair Khan, Prashant Shukla, Madhumay Misra, Ms. Shreya Mishra,
Dr. Satyendra Kumar Mishra, Satyajeet Kumar, Pradeep Kr. Dwivedi,
Vivek Tiwari, Umesh Dubey, Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Ms. Kausar
B
Raza Faridi, Prashant Kumar Singh, Jugal Kishore Gupta, Sanjay Rastogi,
Vivek Vishnoi, Pankaj Kumar Singh, Pawan Kumar Shukla, Markand
Pratap Singh, Raj Singh Rana, Yashpal Dhingra, Ms. Anuradha Mishra,
Vandit Mishra, Ms. Jahnvi Sharma, Raghwendra Tiwari, Ms. Mamta
Tiwari, Abhishek Verma, Navank Shekhar Mishra, Pankaj Kr. Mishra,
Alok Kumar Misra, Ashutosh Lal, Manoj Kumar Shukla, Shekhar Kumar, C
Ms. Ritu Rastogi, R. C. Kaushik, Rakesh Mishra, Sandeep Kumar
Dwivedi, Ms. Leelawati, Ms. Madhubala, Saurabh Ahuja, Dr. Vinod
Tewari, Pradip Kumar Dwivedi, Sandeep Kumar Dwivedi, Satyam
Pandey, Arun Kumar, Vivek Tewari, C. B. Gururaj, K. P. Singh, Prakash
Ranjan Nayak, Susheel Tomar, Ms. Mishika Mishra, Rajesh Srivastav,
D
Ms. Pooja, Ms. Rani S. Jha, Prabhat Kumar Rai, Christopher D’souza,
Anurag Dubey, Rajesh Kumar Pandey, Ms. Meenakshi Parihar,
Rajesh Pathak, Abhishek Chakraborty, Shirish Kumar, Bhupender Kumar
Bhardwaj, Sanjay Kumar Dubey, Sumit Kumar, Devvrat, Praveen Kumar
Rai, Hemal Kiritkumar Sheth, Ms. Priyanka Kakkar, Mukesh Sinha,
Amit Kumar, Saurabh Kumar, Devesh Kumar Tripathi, V. Rana, E
S. R. Setia, Krishna M. Singh, Rajiv Kumar, Ms. Rohina Nath,
Vivekanand Rana, Ms. Anu Gupta, Ms. Gouri Karuna Das Mohanti,
Arvind Gupta, Saurabh Mishra, Shiva Kumar, Neelkanth Dhyneshwar,
Mohit Kumar Kaushik, Gurudatta Ankolekar, S. K. Tyagi, Ms. Poonam
Tyagi, Praveen Jain, Pramod Kumar Anurag Kasana, Rupinder Walia,
F
Arvind Yadav, Nikilesh Ramachandran, Kislay Komal, Rakesh
Chaurasiya, Sanjeev Kumar, Ms. Shalu Sharma, Suryodaya Prakash
Tiwari, Ms. Shuchi Singh, Krishna Kant Dubey, Dharmendra Kumar
Sinha, Raju Sonkar, Sanveer S. Mehlwar, Arun Adlakha, Mata Prasad
Singh, Sanjaya Kumar Singh, Keshav Rai, S. Premchandra, Ms. Ranjana
R. Singh, Debasis Mishra, R. C. Sharma, Amol Chitale, Nirnimesh Dube, G
Mrs. Pragya Baghel, Anuj Bhandari, Mrinmay Bhattmewara, Hemant
Parmar, Vivek Gupta, Gopal Jha, G. Shreyash Bhardwaj, Manjeet Jha,
G. R. Pandey, Avinash Sharma, F. A. Khan, Adesh Kumar, L. Sarweswar,
M. K. Aswathi, Bijender Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Saroj Tripathi,
Pradeep Mishra, Pranay Kumar Mohapatra, Ranjit Kumar Sharma, Shiv
H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A Sagar Tiwari, Ms. Abha R. Sharma, Anirudh Sanganeria, Siddharth Dave,
Balraj Dewan, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, Dhananjai Jain, Sanjeev Malhotra,
Sanjay Jain, Ms. K. Sarada Devi, Gyan Prakash Srivastava, Vinay Garg,
Abhijat P. Medh, Ashwani Kumar Dubey, Vishnu Shankar Jain, Ms.
Susmita Lal, Rabin Majumder, Lakshmi Raman Singh, G. Ramakrishna
Prasad, Rajesh Goyal, Yashraj Singh Deora, Shyam Agarwal, Gorkela
B
Law Office, Satpal Singh, Advs. with them for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.
1. Leave to appeal granted in all special leave petitions except
C those petitions dealt with in para 29(E) hereinafter.
2. These appeals and connected matters arise out of selection
undertaken pursuant to advertisement dated 19.05.2011 for recruiting
4010 posts namely 3698 posts of Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police) and 312
posts of Platoon Commander (Provincial Armed Constabulary or PAC)
D in State of Uttar Pradesh. Since the issues raised in these matters arise
from the same selection, they are dealt with together.
3. The provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and
Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2018 (‘the Rules’, for short)
contemplate a five phase programme of examinations for direct
E recruitment to the posts of Sub-Inspector and Platoon Commander. The
five phases are: (i) Physical Standard Test (ii) Preliminary Written
Examination (iii) Physical Efficiency Test (iv) Main Written Examination
and (v) Group Discussion.
4. Part V of the Rules deals with the procedure for recruitment.
F In terms of Rule 14, the appointing authority is to determine and intimate
the number of vacancies to be filled during the course of the year of
recruitment, including those which are earmarked for reserved categories.
Rule 6 contemplates reservation for candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other categories. The reservation for
other categories is governed by Uttar Pradesh Public Services
G
(Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom
Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993, (1993 Act, for short)
5. The procedure for direct recruitment after the vacancies are
advertised is dealt with in detail in Rule 15. According to Rule 15(h) in
order to succeed in the Preliminary Written Examination, the candidates
H
ALOK KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 335
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

must secure a minimum of fifty per cent marks. Rule 15 (h) contemplates A
drawing up of a “Tentative Select List” on the basis of marks obtained in
the Main Written Examination and Group Discussion. Such Tentative
Select List is to be prepared in respect of each category of candidates in
the light of reservation policy and is thereafter sent to Police Head
Quarters for further action. Character Verification is thereafter
B
undertaken and in terms of Rule 15(j) if candidates are found unfit in
Medical Test or Character Verification, the vacancies are to be carried
forward for further selection.
6. After the publication of advertisement on 19.05.2011 for
selection of 4010 posts i.e. 3698 posts for Sub-Inspectors (Civil Police)
and 312 posts for Platoon Commander (PAC), the selection process C
was undertaken. After the physical test, the preliminary examination
was held on 11.12.2011. The main examination was thereafter held on
14.09.2014 which was followed by Group Discussion. Final results were
published on 16.03.2015 seeking to fill up all the posts which were
advertised except 226 posts namely 205 and 21 posts reserved for D
dependents of freedom fighters in the categories of Sub-Inspectors (Civil
Police) and Platoon Commander (PAC) respectively, which could not
be filled because of non-availability of candidates. According to the
authorities, these posts were therefore required to be carried forward
for subsequent selection.
E
7. A challenge was raised to the selection of certain candidates
inter alia on the ground that said candidates had used whitener/blade
while answering questions in the main examination. It was submitted
that such candidates ought to have been disqualified and excluded from
the final result. The challenge was accepted by the High Court of
Allahabad in its decision dated 29.05.2015 in Writ Petition No.67782 of F
2014, (Saket Kumar vs. State of U.P.) which directed the authorities to
exclude the names of all those candidates who had used whitener/blade
in the main examination. In the light of this decision, the authorities then
revised the final result on 25.06.2015 and excluded names of all such
candidates. As a result, some candidates who were not part of the final G
result on 16.03.2015 were included in the revised final result. This revised
final result thus became the basis and the candidates who figured therein
were sent for training, pursuant to subsequent orders passed by this
Court.

H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A 8. The aforesaid decision of the High Court was subject matter of
challenge before this Court and by its Judgment and Order dated
19.01.2016 in SLP (Civil) No.21843-44 titled as Hanuman Dutt Shukla
vs. State of UP, this Court accepted the contention of those whose names
stood excluded as a result of the High Court decision. However, since
the revised final result was published by that time, this Court directed
B
that those candidates whose names were included in the revised result
of 25.06.2015, ought not to be disturbed. It was directed that such
candidates whose names were excluded as a result of use of whitener
or blade in the main examination, would also be accommodated over
and above those who were selected as per revised final result. It is
C common ground that in compliance of said order dated 19.01.2016 of
this Court, a list of 809 successful candidates was declared on 05.12.2016
by the Recruitment Board and appropriate relief in terms of order dated
19.01.2016 passed by this Court was given.
9. In the meantime, fresh challenge was raised to the entire
D selection process and the revised final result by filing Writ Petition
no.49802 of 2015 and other connected matters in the High Court of
Allahabad. It was submitted that the expression “such vacancies shall
be carried forward for further selection” in Rule 15(j) ought to be
construed to mean that the vacancies must be offered to the next
available candidates in order of merit regardless whether they had failed
E to make the cut off level. This challenge was negated by the High Court
by its Judgment and order dated 29.01.2016 and the writ petitions were
dismissed. It was observed by the High Court as under:
“In the present case, there is a clear statutory embargo which
provides that such vacancies shall be carried forward for further
F selection which is specifically in the context of candidates being
found unfit in the medical test or being invalidated as a result of
the character verification. Rule 15 (h) clearly contemplates drawing
up of a tentative select list on the basis of marks obtained in the
main written examination and group discussion for each category
G of candidates which is then sent to the Head of the Department
with a recommendation, subject to medical test and verification
of testimonials/character. Rule 15(h) specifically contemplates that
no waiting list is to be prepared by the Board. It is in this
background that Rule 15 (j) provided that prior to the issuance of
letters of appointment, completion of the character verification is
H
ALOK KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 337
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

necessary and if any candidate has been found unfit in the medical A
test or as a result of the character verification, these vacancies
shall be carried forward for further selection. The principle that
the vacancies which are available should be filled up is subject to
statutory rules laying down the method and process of selection.
Each of the petitioners admittedly has received marks which are
B
lower than the cut off which was prescribed for the general
category of candidates and had been unable to be selected on the
basis of the cut off.
Hence, we find no merit in the submission which has been urged
on behalf of the petitioners that Rule 15(h) should be so construed
as to require that the vacancies which remain unfilled as a result C
of unfitness of 104 candidates and the absence of 46 should be
offered to the petitioners or to other persons in order of merit.
This would be plainly contrary to the provisions contained in the
Rules.”
Consequently, Writ Petition No.67748 of 2015 was also dismissed D
on the same date, which decision is subject matter of challenge in Civil
Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition No.12538 of 2016. The
aforesaid Special Leave Petition came up along with connected matters
on 25.04.2016 before this Court on which date notice was issued.
10. It may be mentioned here that in terms of the decision of a E
Single Judge of the High Court of Allahabad rendered on 16.03.2016
which was confirmed by the Division Bench by its Judgment and Order
dated 29.07.2016, in connection with horizontal reservation to be adopted
while finalizing the result, another revised final result was published on
29.11.2016. Since no grievance is made on this count, we have refrained F
from going into the details in respect of such challenge and the
consequences as a result of such directions.
11. In the meantime, another set of petitions challenging the entire
selection process and consequential result inter alia, on the ground that
the “rounding of percentage” adopted by the authorities had violated the G
principle laid down in Rule 15(d) of the Rules as a result of which ineligible
candidates were declared successful, was filed in the High Court of
Allahabad. The challenge was accepted by a Single Judge of the High
Court by its Judgment and Order dated 24.08.2016 in Writ Petition

H
338 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A No.5158 of 2015 and it was directed that the result of the main written
examination be prepared afresh in the light of the observations made
therein. This decision of the Single Judge was affirmed by the Division
Bench of the High Court in Special Appeal No.416 of 2016. (Dharmendra
Kumar and others vs. State of U.P. & Others) and other connected
matters by its Judgment and Order dated 06.04.2017. While upholding
B
the decision of the Single Judge, the Division Bench went on to
observe :-
“It is not in dispute that total number of vacancies was 4010
and thus in terms of the provisions contained in 15(f) of the Service
Rules, 2008, the total number candidates, who were required to
C be selected on the basis of evaluation of written examination would
be 12030 for allowing them to participate in group discussion. In
the selection, which was under challenge before learned Single
Judge, as against 12030 candidates, total number of candidates
who were declared successful and were called for and subjected
D to group discussion was 142431. Thus, 2213 candidates in excess
were called for group discussion and it was thus, contended by
the writ petitioners that the same was violative of rule 15(f) of the
Service Rules, 2008.
Rule 15(f) of the Service Rules, 2008 prescribes that a candidate
E who is declared successful in Physical Efficiency Test shall be
required to appear in the main written examination carrying 400
marks in the subjects detailed therein. It further categorically
prescribes that a candidate, who fails to obtain minimum 50%
marks in each subject shall not be eligible for recruitment.”

F The Division Bench thus dismissed the Special Appeals.
12. The Judgment of the Division Bench dated 06.4.2017 in Special
Appeal No.416 of 2016 and other connected matters is under challenge
in Civil Appeals arising out of SLP (C) Nos.16669 of 2017 and 22129 of
2017 and other connected matters. These matters came up on 19.06.2017.
G While issuing notice, this Court declined to stay the implementation of
the order of the High Court but directed that any steps taken in pursuance
of the decision of the High Court would abide by further orders of this
Court. The matters then came up on 21.07.2017 when following order
was passed by this Court:
1
H The candidates called for Group Discussion were 14256 and not 14243.
ALOK KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 339
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

“We are informed by all the learned counsel present here that A
including 37 writ petitioners, 237 persons approached the High
Court against the selection at various stages in one capacity or
other.
We are also informed that 810 candidates also had a grievance
with regard to whitener being used. However, for those 810 B
candidates, additional vacancies were created, therefore, they do
not come in the way of the present issue. Since there is no dispute
with regard to 810 candidates, who are covered by the Judgment
passed by this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 587-588 of 2016 dated
19.01.2016, we direct the learned Additional Advocate General to
ascertain as to what is the impediment in sending them for training C
since their issue is finally settled by the Judgment of this Court.
We are informed that pursuant to the directions issued by the
High Court regarding reservation, a list of 3784 candidates has
been published on 26.11.2016, out of which 3533 have already
undergone training. We direct the learned Additional Advocate D
General to clarify as to what is the impediment in sending the
remaining candidates also for training. He will also take instruction
as to whether 237 people, who went to the High Court, can also
be sent for training in respect of the vacancies which would have
arisen subsequent to the advertisement, subject of course to their E
eligibility.”
13. In SLP (C) No.12538 of 2016, an affidavit in reply was filed
on behalf of the State Government stating that each of the petitioners
had secured marks less than the cut off marks. As regards 226 posts
which could not be filled up due to non-availability of suitable candidates, F
attention was invited to the provisions of Section 3(2) of 1993 Act
whereunder unfilled vacancies would be required to be carried forward
for further two years and the vacancies could be treated to be lapsed
only if no sufficient candidates were available in such subsequent
selection(s).
G
14. Thereafter, both the aforesaid set of Special Leave Petitions
along with connected matters came up on 14.09.2017, when following
directions were passed by this Court.
“We direct the Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P.
to get an affidavit filed by the competent authority as to how
H
340 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A many candidates are remaining to be considered who have
obtained the cut-off marks indicated above in the respective
categories, after the list is to be revised as per the directions of
the High Court. Barring the candidates already selected, the
affidavit shall indicate as to how many more candidates are there
in the respective categories.
B
All the persons who are before this Court on the ground that they
were before the High Court on or before 31.12.2016, either as
petitioners or as interveners, may submit their particulars to the
learned Additional Advocate General, who will verify the
particulars and submit a report before this Court before
C 31.10.2017.”
15. An affidavit in compliance of the directions issued by this
Court on 14.09.2017, was filed on behalf of the State Government on
27.10.2017. It was submitted as under:
D “11. That as stated above all the candidates who used whitener/
blade etc., and have procured the marks more than the cut-off
marks fixed for this category have been declared as selected and
as on date no such candidate remains to be selected who had
obtained marks more-than the cut-off marks fixed either for those
who used whitener/blade etc. or for those who did not adopt
E whitener/blade etc.
12. That as already submitted, out of 165 candidates/petitioners
only 95 candidates were selected. The Status Report of these 95
candidates is as hereunder :

F 1. Candidates sent for training 53
2. Candidate whose character verification & 11
medical examination is in process
3. Candidates found unfit in medical 31
G examination & character verification
Total 95

H
ALOK KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 341
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Status of 95 selected candidates A
13. That a list of 237 candidates (till 21.10.2017) was received
from the office of the Learned Additional Advocate General. All
these 237 candidates have approached this Hon’ble Court either
as petitioner or as intervener. After scrutiny of the records it had
been found that none of these candidates have procured the marks B
upto the cut-off marks. This being so, their result had so far not
been declared by the Recruitment Board.”
16. All the matters thereafter came up before this Court on
31.10.2017 and following observations were made by this Court in its
order :- C
“In furtherance to our order dated 14.09.2017 an affidavit has
been filed on behalf of the Government of U.P., on 27.10.2017. It
is stated in the affidavit that a total of 4617 candidates have so far
been selected and sent for training. At paragraph 5 it is seen that
the selection is based on cut off marks differently applied for the D
candidates who have used whitener/blade etc.
Learned counsel appearing for some of the parties submit that
despite their furnishing the particulars, there is no verification by
the learned Additional Advocate General. In case any of the
names furnished to the State have been left out their particulars E
will be verified and a further affidavit will be filed within three
weeks. In case, any of the candidates would still like to give the
particulars they can furnish the same to Ms. Aishwarya Bhati,
Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. on or before
10.11.2017.
F
There will also be a direction to the State of U.P. to file an
affidavit as to how many among 4617 candidates already selected
have either discontinued the training or left the service. It shall
also be clarified in zone of consideration for appointment in case
the cut off marks for general candidates are applied to those who
used whiteners/blade etc. G
The State is also directed to clarify, going by the original
eligibility of 50% marks, how many more candidates would be
there in the zone of consideration.”

H
342 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A 17. Accordingly, an affidavit of compliance was filed on behalf of
the State Government on 21.11.2017. It was stated that in terms of the
orders passed by this Court, 911 names were received from the office
of the Additional Advocate General out of which, 11 candidates were
already selected while roll numbers of 11 candidates did not match with
the data available with the Board. 22 candidates were stated to be
B
disqualified in physical test and written examination leaving out 867
candidates. It was asserted that the total marks obtained by said 867
candidates were below the cut-off marks and, therefore, their names
did not figure in the Select List. It was further submitted that out of
4617 already selected, 102 candidates had discontinued training and 3
C candidates had left the service, thus accepting that there were 105
vacancies from and out of 4617 of selected candidates. It was further
submitted that 189 candidates who had used whitener/blade etc. on their
answer sheets had secured marks equal to or above cut-off marks.
It was further submitted that 14256 candidates had scored 50%
D or more marks in each of the four subjects of the main written examination
and had thus qualified for the next stage of recruitment process i.e.
Group Discussion. Those 14256 candidates were accordingly called for
Group Discussion. On the basis of total marks obtained by them in the
Written Examination and Group Discussion and after applying the relevant
rules of reservation (vertical and horizontal) as per the policy of the
E State Government, a select list was prepared by the Recruitment Board.
Thus, all the 14256 candidates who had secured 50% or more marks in
the written examination, were considered for the next stage of the
selection process. It was further stated that no more candidates, who
had obtained 50% or more marks in each of the four subjects of main
F written examination, were now available.
18. All the matters, thereafter, came-up on 30.11.2017 when
following order was passed by this Court.
“… … …We find that 189 candidates are to be included in view
of the decision of this Court in Hanuman Dutt Shukla Vs. State
G of U.P. We also note that more than 100 persons appointed have
left the training/service. The learned counsel appearing for the
individual petitioners have pointed out that the figure would be
more than 200.

H
ALOK KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 343
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

Be that as it may, we direct the learned AAG appearing for the A
State to verify as to how many persons are in actual service as on
today in the post of Sub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders out
of 4617 candidates already appointed. In respect of such
vacancies and in respect of 189 candidates of whitener category,
we direct the State to complete the selection process in the order
B
of merit. … … …”.
19. In its subsequent order dated 16.01.2018 this Court thereafter
directed as under:
“… … …Learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that
the order dated 30.11.2017 could not be fully implemented because C
of lack of clarification regarding the candidates who used whitener,
blade etc.
We make it clear that since the candidates who have used
whitener, blade etc. have otherwise been permitted, the State need
to follow only one list. D
It is also clarified that in the matter of appointment pursuant to
our order dated 30.11.2017 all the three factors, namely, merit,
reservation and preference should be taken into consideration. …
… …”.
20. On 16.03.2018 an additional affidavit was filed on behalf of E
the State Government in compliance of the orders passed by this Court
on 30.11.2017 and 16.01.2018. It was stated that as per information
received from the Headquarters of the Director General of Police,
Lucknow, a total of 3858 persons were in actual service on the posts of
Sub-Inspectors and Platoon Commanders out of the 4617 candidates F
already appointed. It was stated that training orders for 72 selected
candidates had also been issued leaving a total of 607 posts (Sub-
Inspectors:537 + Platoon Commanders: 70) which were lying vacant.
The affidavit stated :-
“So far as the selection under the orders of this Hon’ble Court is
G
concerned, it is submitted that the answering respondents have
received information regarding the aforesaid 607 vacancies along
with the relevant reserved categories in which such vacancies
exist. It is submitted that the said vacancies would be filled in

H
344 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A accordance with the three parameters specified by this Hon’ble
Court from time-to-time viz. merit, preference and reservation.”
21. The matters then came-up on 22.03.2018. After hearing learned
counsel, the following directions were issued by this Court:
“1. The advertised vacancies of 4010 in the Post of Sub
B Inspector and Platoon Commanders should be filed up by
the State of Uttar Pradesh expeditiously on merits and in
terms of the orders passed by this Court, if not already filled
up.
2. We have been informed by learned counsel for the State of
C Uttar Pradesh that due to orders passed from time to time
by this Court, perhaps more than 4010 posts have been filled
up. It that is so, persons occupying posts in excess of 4010
shall not be disturbed until further orders from this Court.
3. Whether the persons who have been appointed in excess of
D 4010 posts are to continue or their services may be dispensed
with will have to be argued by learned counsel for the parties
and we will certainly consider those submissions and pass
appropriate orders.
4. We may mention that according to learned counsel for the
E petitioners a large number of posts are lying vacant and
perhaps some persons can be adjusted against those vacant
posts over and above 4010 posts. We are not taking any
decision on this without hearing learned counsel for the
parties.
F 5. Following the order passed on 14th September, 2017, we make
it clear and direct that all applications for intervention
impleadment, etc. or fresh matters instituted after the cut
off date of 31st December, 2016 stand disposed of.”
22. When the matters again came-up on 14.08.2018, it was
G disclosed that 213 candidates were similarly placed as 809 candidates in
the whitener category, whose case was dealt with by this Court in its
order dated 19.01.2016 in Civil Appeal Nos.587-588 of 2016 (Hanuman
Dutt Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.). A submission

H
ALOK KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 345
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

was made on behalf of the State Government that the said 809 candidates A
as well as similarly situated 213 candidates ought to be taken as part of
4010 vacancies notified for Selection. Said submission was rejected as
under:-
“… … …Mr. V. Shekhar, learned senior counsel and Ms.
Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General for the B
State of U.P. submit that 809 vacancies should be part of 4010
vacancies notified for selection.
We find it difficult to appreciate the submission, since it had been
made clear in the order of this Court dated 19.01.2016 in Hanuman
Dutt Shukla & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Civil C
Appeal Nos.587-588 of 2016) that on account of accommodation
of 809 candidates in the whitener category, nobody should be
displaced. There is no dispute that 213 candidates (24+189) are
similarly situated, therefore, these 213 candidates are also to be
treated as additional vacancies for all purposes and they shall be
sent for training forthwith. D

Learned counsel for the State submits that in view of the
clarification, as above, the candidates will be immediately sent for
training, subject to codal formalities. We also make it clear that
on account of the implementation of this order, no representation
for change in the category (i.e. from Sub Inspector to Platoon E
Commander) shall be entertained. … … …”
23. On 11.09.2018 a further affidavit was filed on behalf of State
Government in response to the queries posed on earlier occasions and it
was submitted that as on 07.08.2018 the total vacant posts in the cadres
of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) and Platoon Commander (PAC) were F
8260 and 289 respectively. It was further submitted that a requisition
for recruitment of 3000 posts was sent to the Recruitment Board on
04.04.2016 pursuant to which the selection was undertaken by the
Recruitment Board and said process was in its final stages. Further,
another requisition was made in respect of 5234 posts on 30.06.2018 to G
the Recruitment Board. As regards the present selection it was submitted
by the State Government as under :

H
346 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A 1. T o ta l n u m b er of v a c a n c ie s as
n o t i fi c a t i o n / a d v e rt i s e m e n t ( S I 3 6 9 8 + P C 3 1 2 )
p er 4,0 10

2. T o t a l n u m b e r o f a p p l i c a t i o n s re c e i v e d p u r s u a n t 5 ,3 1 , 2 3 9
t o t h e a d v e rt i s e m e n t

3. A f te r s cr u ti n y v a l id a p p li c a tio n s 5 ,0 1 , 3 1 7

4. P h y s ic a l S t a n d ar d T e st ( D o c u m e n t V er if ic a t io n ) 2 ,7 7 , 0 6 6
f o u n d q u a li fi ed
B 5. P er s o n q u a lif ie d for p r e lim in a r y E x a m in a tio n 2 ,7 7 , 0 6 6
(5 0% )

6. N um ber of ca n d i d a t e s a p p e a ri n g in th e 2 ,5 8 , 0 2 9
e x a m in a tio n

7. C a n d id a te s q u a lif y in g th e E x a m in a tio n 4 9 ,1 0 0

8. P er s o n s q u a l i f y in g P h y s i ca l E f fic ie n cy T e s t 1 5 ,7 7 7
C 9. P er s o n s c a l le d f o r W r it t e n E x a m i n a ti o n 1 5 ,7 7 7

1 0. P e r s o n s a p p e a r e d fo r E x a m i n a t i o n 1 5,29 5

1 1. P er s o n s q u a lif i e d
( N o n - w h it e n er 1 1 , 3 7 6
W h it e n e r 2 8 8 0 ) 1 4,25 6

( F o u r s u b je c t t e s t – 4 0 0 m a r k s M in im u m 5 0 % in
D e a c h s u b j e ct to q u ali fy f o r n e x t s t a g e i . e . G r o u p
D is c u s s io n )

A s p e r r u le 3 t im e s th e n o ti f ie d v a c a n cie s is t o b e
c a lle d f o r G r o u p D is c u s s io n w h ic h m e a n s 1 2 0 3 0
w a s to b e c a lle d b u t th e B o a r d c a ll e d 1 4 2 5 6 , w h o
a l l a p p e a r ed .
1 2. F in a l lis t n o n - w h it en e r f o r S I 3,7 84
3 49 3 a n d P C 29 1
E N u m b e r o f v a c a n c i e s r e s e r v e d f o r e x -s e r v ic e m e n
d e pe n den t of fre e dom fi g h t e r s w h i c h w e re 2 26
c a r r i ed fo r w a r d d ue to n o n - a v a ila b ility of
c a n d id a te s

T o t a l a s p e r a d v e rt i s e m e n t / n o t i fi c a t i o n
4,0 10
P er s o n s u s in g w h i t e n e rs w ere d is q u a lif ie d
p u r s u a n t t o la rg e n u m b e r o f co m p la in t s r e c ei v e d
F a l le g in g u n f a ir p r a cti c e b y th e c a n d i d a t e s .
1 3. N u m b e r o f c a n d id a te s u s in g w h ite n e r s e le c te d in
a d d it i o n t o t h e a lr e a d y s e l e c te d w h i ch w a s a s p e r
t h e a d v e rt i s e m e n t b u t i n c o m p l i a n c e o f o rd e r 8 09
d a te d 1 9 . 0 1 . 2 0 1 6 in th e ca s e o f H an u m a n D u tt
S h u k l a p u r s u a n t t o o r d e r o f t h i s H o n ’ b l e C o u rt
d a t e d 2 3 . 0 8 .2 0 1 7 i n t h e c a s e o f D e e p a k K u m a r 24

1 4. E x c es s n u m b e r o f c a n d id a te s w h o w e r e to b e 8 33
G c o n s id e r e d a n d d ee m e d to h av e b e e n s e l e c te d
p u r s u a n t to t h e o r d e r s o f th e C o u r t s ( S I 7 5 5 + P C
7 8)
1 5. P o s iti o n a s o b ta in e d f ro m th e a b o v e s itu a tio n 4,6 17
(3 78 4+ 8 33 )
1 6. C a n d id a te s w h o d is c o n tin u e d tr a in in g /d id n o t 6 07
q u a li f y in m e d ic a l e x a m i n a tio n /c h a r a c te r
v e ri f i c a t i o n
1 7. T o t a l n u m b e r o f p e o p l e i n s e r v i c e (4 6 1 7 - 6 0 7 ) 4,0 1 0
H
ALOK KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 347
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

24. The matters were thereafter taken-up for final hearing and A
we heard all the learned counsel. It was submitted by the learned counsel
that since number of posts were still lying vacant, appropriate directions
be issued to make appointments and the benefit of such direction be
confined to those who were before the Court either as Petitioners or
Intervenors. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the State
B
Government that, as stated in its various affidavits, all candidates who
had secured more than 50% marks were considered at the appropriate
stages in the selection process and that no more candidates who had
obtained 50% or more marks were now available. It was further
submitted that though there were vacancies to the tune of 8260 in the
cadre of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) and 289 in the cadre of Platoon C
Commander (PAC) but two subsequent selection processes were already
undertaken.
25. At the outset, we must deal with the challenges raised to the
judgments dated 29.01.2016 and 06.04.2017 passed by the High Court
in Writ Petition No.49802 of 2015 and in Special Appeal No.416 of 2016 D
respectively.
In our view, the High Court was right in negating the submission
as regards construction of the expression “such vacancies shall be carried
forward for further selection” appearing in Rule 15(j). However,
considering the facts that the present selection has seen various E
interventions including revision in final list on more than one occasion
and considering the large number of vacancies of 607 posts where certain
candidates either discontinued training or did not qualify in medical
examination/character verification, we deem it appropriate, as a one
time exception to direct that such 607 posts be made available in the
present selection itself. One more reason for such direction is that large F
number of posts namely more than 8000 posts are currently available
for succeeding selections.
Similarly, the decision of the High Court in Special Appeal No.416
of 2016, in our view, was correct. Going by the Rules, only 12030
candidates could have been allowed to participate in Group Discussion G
against the number of 14256. But at this length of time, it would be
inappropriate to re-do the exercise and eliminate the excess number
from consideration, more particularly when the number of 14256
represents all those who secured 50% or more marks in the written
examination and there are still 607 vacancies to be filled up. H
348 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A 26. In the order dated 31.10.2017, this Court had emphasized the
adherence to eligibility of 50% while the order dated 30.11.2017 had
directed completion of Selection process in the order of merit. Thereafter,
the order dated 16.01.2018 categorically stated that three factors namely,
merit, reservation and preference should be taken into consideration.
We, therefore, cannot accept the submission that the benefit, if any, of
B
the order or directions should be confined to those who are/were before
this Court or the High Court alone, in the capacity of either the petitioners
or the intervenors ignoring merit.
27. We now proceed to deal with the matters concerning vacancies
and the directions that are required to be passed, in the facts and
C circumstances of the present matters.
28. According to the chart referred to above, though the number
of candidates called for group discussion ought to have been thrice the
notified vacancies i.e. 12030, the Board had called 14256 candidates.
The first list viz. the result notified on 25.06.2015 had named 3784
D candidates leaving out 226 unfilled posts as a result of non-availability of
candidates in the category of dependents of freedom fighters as stated
above. In terms of the decisions of this Court in Hanuman Dutt Shukla
(supra) 809 candidates were given benefit, followed by 24 similarly
situated candidates. To this number of 833 we will have to add 189
E similarly situated candidates as dealt with in the order passed by this
Court on 14.08.2018. The decision of this Court in Hanuman Dutt
Shukla (supra) was very clear that the revised final list dated 25.06.2015
ought not to be disturbed but benefit must be given to those candidates
who were excluded for use of whitener/blade etc. while answering the
main examination. This aspect was repeatedly made clear that those
F vacancies would be in addition and therefore we have no hesitation in
stating that the number of 1022 (809 in terms of Hanuman Dutt Shukla
(supra), 24 in terms of case of Deepak Kumar and 189 in terms of the
order dated 14.08.2018) have to be reckoned in addition to the figure of
4010. Therefore, total number of candidates who could be selected in
G the selection relatable to the year 2011 in any case ought not to be less
than 4010+1022. Status and identity of the candidates who form the
group of 1022 candidates is very clear. In this context it is to be noted
that the vacancies notified are only approximate and there is nothing
wrong if the number increases in the exigencies of service.

H
ALOK KUMAR SINGH v. STATE OF U.P. 349
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.]

29. We now come to the issue as to what should be the approach A
in respect of vacant posts on two counts. The tabular chart then states
that 226 posts remained unfilled as a result of non-availability of candidates
in the category of dependents of freedom fighters etc. and 607 posts are
lying vacant as a result of candidates who discontinued training or did not
qualify in medical examination/character verification. Theoretically, 226
B
unfilled posts ought to be carried forward for further selection as those
posts were earmarked for dependents of freedom fighters.
In the peculiar fact situation of the present case, as a one time
exception, we issue following directions :-
A) 607 posts lying vacant as a result of certain candidates having C
discontinued training or having failed to qualify in medical
examination/character verification, shall be offered and made
available in the present selection itself, strictly in order of merit and
subject to fulfilment of having obtained 50% or more marks.
B) There are 226 unfilled posts as a result of non-availability of D
candidates in the cadre of dependents of freedom fighters. Normally,
“freedom fighters” is not a category which, over a period of time,
would keep increasing. In any case, there are selections which
are round the corner in which more than 8000 posts are available
for the candidates. The interest of those candidates who answer
the description “dependents of freedom fighters” would therefore E
be taken care of in the succeeding selections. We, therefore, direct
that these 226 posts should also be made available for the present
selection.
C) The State Government and its authorities are therefore directed
to make available 833 posts (607+226) for the present selection F
strictly in order of merit subject to the fulfillment of the criteria that
the candidates had obtained 50% or more in the main written
examination, in keeping with principles of reservation and
preference.
D) We make it clear that direction to fill-up the above 833 posts in G
terms of this Judgment is in addition to any other directions already
issued.
E) A group of matters namely SLP (Civil) Nos.10674 of 2018,
10675 of 2018, 12891-12893 of 2018 and 15699 of 2018 are filed
by individuals who are either Head Constables or Constables in H
350 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 14 S.C.R.

A the police service and are seeking promotion to the post of Sub-
Inspectors (Civil Police). Since the nature of controversy and the
questions raised therein are completely unconnected with the
present selection, we segregate said matters and direct that they
be listed immediately before the appropriate Bench for
consideration.
B
30. All appeals, Writ Petitions and Transferred Cases stand
disposed of in above terms. All contempt petitions seeking compliance
of the orders passed by this Court also stand disposed of as no further
orders are called for. There shall be no order as to costs.
C 31. We are grateful for the assistance rendered by all the learned
counsel and sincerely appreciate the efforts put in by them.

Divya Pandey Directions issued.

D

E

F

G

H