1 2025:HHC:20038 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMP(M) 758 of 2025 a/w LPA No. 322 of 2025 Date of decision: 25.06.2025 ________________________________________________________ State of HP & others …..Appellants Versus Madan Lal & another …Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 ________________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Mr. Sidharth Jalta, Deputy Advocate General. G.S. Sandhawalia , Chief Justice (Oral) The present appeal is barred by 68 days and is directed against the judgment dated 25.10.2024, passed by the learned Single Judge in CWPOA No. 4382 of 2020, titled as Madan Lal & another Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh & others. 2. The learned Single Judge allowed the Original Application which had been transferred from 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 the erstwhile Tribunal and set aside the office order dated 16.12.2017 (Annexure A-12) passed by the Director General of Police, Himachal Pradesh, by virtue of which, the representation of the petitioners was rejected. The learned Single Judge also set aside the office order dated 07.05.2012 (Annexure A-3), passed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shimla, whereby the candidature of the writ petitioners was rejected. Resultantly, directions were issued to the writ respondents-State to consider the candidature of the petitioners for B-1 Indoor Test and on successful completion of their B-1 Indoor Test, the petitioners would be promoted as Head Constables, for the date(s), when their juniors were promoted alongwith all consequential benefits. 3. A perusal of the impugned communications dated 07.05.2012 & 16.12.2017 would go on to show that the Superintendent of Police, on the basis of the clarification received from the Additional Director General of Police & Training HP, Shimla, had come to the conclusion that since the cut-off date for eligibility 3 was 20.04.2012 and test was to be held on 21st and 22nd April, 2012, the provisional permission given to the writ petitioners to appear in the online B-1 indoor test to be held on 22.04.2012, was liable to be rejected on the ground that they had applied after the cut-off date. 4. The petitioners had thereafter approached this Court by way of CWP No. 10197 of 2012. Thereafter, the State Government had created the State Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) and the matter was transferred to the Tribunal and was registered as T.A. No. 1617 of 2015, which was disposed of on 12.10.2017 as the applicants had been provisionally allowed to appear in the B-I test by the concerned Authorities after the cut-off date. Since they had qualified the test, liberty was given to the applicants to take up the matter with the Director General of Police afresh by way of separate representations. 5. As per the direction of the Tribunal, the petitioners had preferred a detailed representation on 4 23.10.2017 before Director General of Police, however the said representation was rejected on 16.12.2017. 6. The Director General of Police, while rejecting the representation of the writ petitioners, had held that though the petitioner’s name appeared in the list of successful candidates, but their candidature was rejected on 07.05.2012 on the ground that the cut-off date for applying for the said examination was 20.04.2012, whereas they had applied on 22.04.2012. The reason for rejection of their candidature as such was that since they worked in S.P. Office, it was unreasonable for them to claim that they did not know the cut-off date for submitting application and there was no provision for relaxation in cut-off date in the rules/instructions. It was further held that the then Superintendent of Police had exceeded his powers in allowing the said officials who worked in his office to appear in the written test and they were rightly denied to appear in the physical test. 7. While keeping in view the provisions of Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, the learned Single 5 Judge came to the conclusion that merely because the fax message as such had been circulated on 20.03.2012 and the cut-off date for online B-I Indoor Test was fixed as 20.04.2012, but the same was contrary to the Rules which provided that the list shall include the names of all the Constables, selected for admission to the promotional course for Constables at the Police Training College which was to be done by the Superintendent of Police/Commandant. In other words, the learned Single Judge put the responsibility on the employer as such to include the name of those Constables, who fulfilled the criteria by the cut-off date, as in terms of the Rules as such, which had been relied upon by holding that executive instructions cannot supplement the said Rules and there was no requirement as such for them to apply. In such circumstances, the necessary directions had been issued keeping in view the fact that it is not disputed that the petitioners No.1 & 2 had secured 86.75 and 88.75 marks in B-I Indoor Test, respectively and figured in the list of successful candidates. 6 8. Though, Counsel for the State has argued that the said order is liable to be set-aside as the cut-off date is sacrosanct, but we are not inclined to accept the same. 9. The Rule as such has been reproduced by the learned Single Judge but not referred to in the order of the Director General Police as such, whereby it was observed that they were aware of the cut-off date, which is not sustainable in view of the fact that there was no reference to the Rules as such and once the Rule as such has provided that it is for the Superintendent of Police/Commandant of the Battalion concerned to include the names and then merely because by the fax message, the cut-off date for eligibility was fixed for 20.04.2012, it would not mean that they had not applied as such. The purpose as such for fixing the date as 20.04.2012 was only for the purpose of considering the eligibility criteria of five years’ service. 10. It is not disputed that the original applicants were having the necessary five years’ service and 7 therefore, they were eligible and therefore, the said cut-off date could not have gone against them. It is only for that purpose the cut-off date had to be taken into consideration for the purpose of Rule 13.7(ii), which provided that five years’ service is required for a candidate to appear in the test. 11. In such circumstances, we see no illegality or irregularity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, we do not find any reason as such to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is well-speaking. 12. Accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The order passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 13. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. (G.S. Sandhawalia) Chief Justice. June 25, 2025 (Ranjan Sharma) (hemlata) Judge.