Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors  Insc 623 (27 September 2006)
Pasayat & Lokeshwar Singh Panta
Out of S.L.P. (C) No.18642 of 2005) With CIVIL APPEAL NO.4283 of 2006 (Arising
out of SLP (C) No.22044 of 2005) ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.
in these appeals is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing
the writ petition so far as it related to the present appellants while issuing
notice to the other two writ petitioners.
High Court held that the present appellants are not entitled to the benefit in
terms of Rule 3.8 of Police Training College Manual (in short the 'Manual') and
thus not entitled to grant of grace marks. As noted supra, in the case of
co-writ petitioners notice was issued by the High Court. According to learned
counsel for the appellants various submissions were made before the High Court
which it did not notice and only on the ground that no benefit was available
under Rule 3.8 of the Manual the writ petition was dismissed.
counsel for the respondent-State, however, supported the order of the High
as claim of different submissions made by the appellants as is clear from a
bare reading of the writ petition they were essentially as follows:
action of the respondents is contrary to the Police Training College Manual
wherein four chances have been provided and services of the petitioners are
being terminated only after granting two chances.
petitioners were not even allowed to complete their one year training as per
Rules. Rather first examination was conducted when they have only completed 9
sufficient time was not granted to the petitioners when 2nd time examination
also many chances have been given to pass the examination. Even opportunity was
granted to pass the training fresh to many candidates.
discharge the petitioners only after granting two opportunities is on the face
of it arbitrary and illegal.
That the course
was very lengthy and there was no proper instructors to teach the law subjects
and even the examinations were conducted without completing the full, one year
training." The writ petition was dismissed so far as the present appellants
are concerned at the admission stage. No notice had been issued and no counter
affidavit had been filed. The stand of learned counsel for the State is that
various stands highlighted by the appellant in the writ petition are clearly
unsustainable in law.
reading of the High Court's order shows that it did not consider the various
stands of the appellants. It also did not mention that no other point except
that relating to Rule 3.8 of the Manual was pressed into service. Had it been
so, the grievance of the appellants would have been without any basis. But the
High Court did not even refer to the various stands taken by the appellants. It
was open to the High Court to discard the plea but to restrict consideration to
one point and not to others was certainly not a permissible course. It may be,
as contended by learned counsel for the State, that different pleas as raised
are without any substance. But that should have been clearly indicated in the
having not done so, we set aside the order of the High Court and remand the
case to it for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. Since the counter
affidavit has not been filed by the respondents before the High Court, let them
do so within a period of four weeks. Since the matter is of some urgency the
High Court is requested to decide the writ application as early as possible
preferably by the end of December, 2006. We make it clear that we have not
expressed any opinion so far as acceptability or otherwise of the stands taken
by the writ petitioner nos.1 and 2 and/or the acceptability of various stands
as noted above taken by present appellants.
appeals are allowed. There will be no order as to costs.