Order
IA No. 76673 of 2017 in SLP (C) No. 16432 of 2017 and IA No. 138528 of 2017 in TC No. 83 of 2017
1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicants and the learned Additional Advocate General of the State of U.P.
2. The complaint is that they were provided faulty chips during the physical efficiency test but the learned counsel appearing for the State submit that though the chips were faulty a further verification through the CCTV footage was conducted and, therefore, no injustice has been done to the applicants. In any case they have not been permitted to participate in the written examination. Since much water has flown down the bridge, we do not find it appropriate to consider the matter on merits at this stage.
3. Accordingly, no further orders are required in these applications.
Diary No. 6207 of 2018, TCs (C) Nos. 70, 77, 79, 81, 86, 101, 108, 137-38, 143, 150, 163, 175, 182 and 243 of 2017, IA No. 112153 of 2018 in SLP (C) No. 16723 of 2017, IAs Nos. 66093 and 116082 of 2017 both in SLP (C) No. 16432 of 2017, IA No. 64944 of 2017 in SLP (C) No. 16432 of 2017
4. These petitions/applications pertain to dispute on the question either being wrong or key answer otherwise being incorrect. We find that some of them have already gone to the High Court and some petitions are pending in the High Court.
5. All these petitions/applications are disposed of, if not already disposed of, with the following directions:
5.1. The disputes raised in these petitions/applications shall be referred to an Expert Committee forthwith and the Expert Committee shall consider the same and take an appropriate decision, in the light also of the judgment/orders passed 2017 SCC OnLine All 2716, (2017) 3 All LJ 565 by the High Court. This exercise shall be completed within three weeks.
5.2. We make it clear that the decision thus taken by the Expert Committee shall be final. It is further made clear that benefit, if any, accruing from the decision of the Expert Committee shall be limited only to those petitioners/applicants/interveners/respondents, who have raised such a challenge. The Expert Committee shall also include three special experts, one of whom shall be expert in Hindi language, in addition to those who constituted the original committee, in case those persons are available.
5.3. All the petitioners/applicants/interveners/respondents are directed to serve an additional copy of the petition to the Secretary, Police Recruitment Board, positively within one week from today.
5.4. The Committee shall also examine the grievance regarding non-evaluation of any answers, in case they have raised such issues in Court.
TCs (C) Nos. 84, 96, 115, 177, 248, 280 and 291 of 2017
6. These petitions/applications pertain to certain disputes on the non-production of the caste certificate/domicile certificate within time. It is the case of the candidates that they had forwarded certain information, which has been found to be insufficient and they were required to produce fresh certificate/original certificate, etc. It is also submitted that at the initial stages, they were permitted to participate in the process on the basis that they belong to a particular reserved category.
7. One can understand that a person acquires a qualification after the cut-off date and claims he/she is qualified. That is not the case here. It is a case where a person belongs to a particular category and that certificate is produced belatedly and their candidature had already been scrutinised on the basis of the particulars already furnished by the candidate that he/she belonged to a particular category.
8. In such circumstances, we are of the view that such candidates, in case they produce the original certificate, as required by the Selection Board regarding their caste or domicile within three weeks from today before the Recruitment Board, they shall be entitled to participate in the selection process. Ordered accordingly. We make it clear that this order is limited only to those candidates who are before this Court or before the High Court as on date. The transferred cases are, accordingly, disposed of.
Contempt Petition No. 972 of 2018 in SLP (C) No. 10468 of 2018 and Contempt Petition No. 1200 of 2018 in TC (C) No. 58 of 2017
9. The grievance of the petitioners in these contempt petitions is that the order dated 30-11-2017 2017 SCC OnLine SC 1579 has not been complied with.
10. Mr V. Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel and Ms Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Advocate General for the State of U.P. submit that 809 vacancies should be part of 4010 vacancies notified for selection.
11. We find it difficult to appreciate the submission, since it has been made clear in the order of this Court dated 19-1-2016 in Hanuman Dutt Shukla v. State of U.P. (2018) 16 SCC 447 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.
12. The 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 Commander) shall be entertained.
13. The affidavit which is directed to be filed is not in the final shape and hence we permit the State to file it within three weeks from today. List all these matters on 11-9-2018 at 2.00 p.m.
Court Masters