2026:UHC:3952 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI Writ Petition No. 37 of 2023 (SS) Kailash Joshi and Another --Petitioners Versus State of Uttarakhand and others -Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Advocates: Mr. Karmanya Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. S.S. Chaudhary, Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for UKSSSC Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for interveners ---------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT 1. Petitioners participated in a selection for promotion to the post of Sub Inspector. They were declared unsuccessful, as they could not score sufficiently high marks. In this writ petition, petitioners have challenged the decision taken by Uttarakhand Subordinate Services Selection Commission (UKSSSC), pursuant to order of this Court passed in Writ Petition (SS) No. 908 of 2021 dated 11.07.2022. The direction issued in that writ petition is extracted below: “7. Today, Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel has produced in Court a communication dated 13.05.2022 received from Additional Director General of Police, (P.A.C.), Dehradun, which is taken on record. In the said communication, it is stated that ordinarily a Guard consists of One Head Constable and Three Constables, however, in cases where duty is heavy and for additional guards, One Head Constable with Four Constables are appointed as Guard. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the stand taken by A.D.G. (P.A.C.) is in consonance with Rule 24 of Guards and Escorts Rules, 1928, which is reproduced below:- “24. Strength of guards. Where one sentry has to be mounted, and where the guard can be frequently relieved, the strength of a guard should ordinarily be one head constable and three constables. For guards of which the duties are heavy and for additional guards, four constables should generally be allowed for each sentry post.” 9. In view of the stand taken by A.D.G. (P.A.C.) in its letter dated 13.05.2022, Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the Selecting Body submits that the order 1 2026:UHC:3952 passed by his client, rejecting petitioners’ representation, needs to be re-considered. He points out that in the rejection order, stand taken by the Selecting Body is that correct answer to aforesaid question is the one given in Option (C). He fairly submits that since Police Headquarters has now opined in its letter that option ‘A’ is also a correct answer, therefore, Selecting Body will re-visit the matter and take appropriate decision, as per law, within two weeks. 10. In view of the statement made by Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the Selecting Body, the rejection orders dated 12.07.2021 & 16.08.2021 impugned in these writ petitions are liable to be quashed and are hereby quashed. The Selecting Body shall re-consider the matter in the light of opinion expressed by Police Headquarters and pass appropriate order, within two weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 11. Interim orders dated 02.09.2021 & 07.09.2021 are vacated.” 2. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court, Selecting Body reconsidered the matter and has held that option ‘A’ to question No. 85 of Booklet ‘C’ is the correct answer. The question No. 85 of Booklet series ‘C’ is extracted below: “85. A General Guard consists of police personnel: (A) One Chief Constable and Three Constables. (B) One Chief Constable and Five Constables. (C) Once Chief Constable and Four Constables. (D) None of the above.” 3. It was contended on behalf of petitioners that a General Guard consists of one Head Constable and four Constables. In support of this contention, learned counsel for petitioners relied upon Modern Police Manual published by Bureau of Police Research and Development. 4. Learned counsel appearing for Selecting Body, however, relies upon a Book on Guard And Escort Rules, authored by C.B. Singh. Clause 24 of that book 2 2026:UHC:3952 provides that ordinarily General Guard should consist of one Head Constable and three Constables; however, for heavy duties, the strength of personnel should be one Head Constable and four Constables. He also relies upon para 205 of U.P. Police Regulation, where similar provision is made. 5. Learned counsel for the selecting body also refers to letter dated 13.05.2022 issued by Additional Director General (P.A.C), Uttarakhand, Dehradun, in which it is mentioned that ordinarily the Guard should consist of one Head Constable and three Constables however for heavy duty, the guard may consist of one Head Constable and four Constables. 6. Thus it is contended on behalf of the Selecting Body that as this Court had directed the authorities to revisit the issue in the light of opinion expressed by Police Headquarter and Police Headquarter has also opined that ordinarily a Guard should consist of one Head Constable and three Constables, therefore the decision taken by Selecting Body cannot be faulted. 7. This Court finds substance in the contention raised on behalf of the Selecting Body. 8. The letter issued by Police Headquarter and also the Book authored by Mr. C.B. Singh, clearly indicate that the Guard should ordinarily consist of one Head Constable and three Constables and only in case of heavy or sensitive duty, the strength of Guard may be increased. 3 2026:UHC:3952 9. In the question No. 85 of Booklet Series ‘C’, candidates were required to answer whether a ordinary guard consists of One plus Three or One plus Four police personnel. 10. All the authorities relied by Selecting Body, including para 205 of U.P. Police Regulation, unequivocally provide that a General Guard shall consist of one Head Constable and three Constables. 11. There was nothing to indicate in the question that the candidates were asked to give composition of guard for heavy duty. The material brought on record reveals that General Guard consists of one Head Constable and Three Constables. Thus, this Court do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. Even otherwise also, the Selecting Body consists of experts and the opinion given by subject experts has to be honoured. 12. Thus, there is no scope for interference. The writ petition is dismissed. _______________________________ MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J. Dt: 20.05.2026 Mahinder 4