The court will not interfere in matters like selections for posts in a police force that took place more than a decade ago. This was held in the judgement passed by a bench consisting of Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Aniruddha Bose in the case of Arvind Kumar Tiwari & Others v The State of Uttar Pradesh [W.P/1369/2018].
A notification was issued by the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board for selection to 5389 Sub Inspector posts by promotion from eligible constables and head constables through departmental examination. Constables below the age of 40 who would complete service of three years by the first day of the recruitment were declared as eligible to be a part of the selection. The recruitment process was governed by the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector Service Rules 2008 which state that 50% of the posts are to be filled up by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% by promotion on the basis of Departmental examination from among suitable head constables and constables. From the 3358 candidates who were found worthy, only 3248 ultimately joined.
Additionally, a few of the candidates were allowed relaxation by the High court of Uttar Pradesh through the Raghuraj Singh v State of Uttar Pradesh [Civil Writ Petition No. 45 of 2016] judgement despite narrowly crossing the age of 40 years as they had proven themselves to be very good candidates. The petitioner, Arvind Kumar Tiwari had applied for the posts mentioned in the notice in 2010 and he was not among the selected candidates. He filed this petition requesting that the results of the examinations conducted to be revealed. The petitioner’s main contention was that there were several unfilled vacancies, so the marks of the examination should be revealed and the benefit allowed to the candidates in the Raghuraj Singh judgement (supra) should be extended to all the other candidates as well. The respondents pointed out the decision of the board which made it clear that a candidate would not be able to seek evaluation in further subjects unless they obtained a minimum 50% marks in the objective type subjects which the petitioner failed to do.
Justice L. Nageswara Rao stated that “The Petitioners are not entitled to extension of the order passed in the Raghuraj Singh case. There is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioners-therein was qualified. Whereas, in these writ petitions the Petitioners could not secure 50% marks in the objective type subjects and therefore are not entitled to seek evaluation of the Hindi Essay paper” and the judgement concluded that “Selections conducted more than a decade earlier cannot be the subject matter of interference by this Court”.