Sanjay Kumar Shukla And Ors. vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And

"Heard Mr. L.P. Mishra, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. K.S. Pawar, Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Mr. Amit Bose and others for the petitioners. Mr. I.P. Singh learned Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. Badrul Hasan Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of U.P., Mr. J.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate, Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Senior Advocate, , Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, Mr. R.C. Tiwari, Mr. Mr. Manjeev Shukla, Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Ashish Chaturvedi, Mr. Shyam Kinkar Pandey, Mr. Prakhar Mishra, Mr. S.C. Yadav and Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman for the respondents. The petitioners are aggrieved with the process of selection of U.P. Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Ranker Examination, 2000- 2008 on various grounds, therefore, they have prayed to quash the result of the written examination of the said selection. 4 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 Simultaneously they have also prayed to provide full marks for the questions of mathematics which have been cancelled for the reason of multiple correct answers shown against them. At this stage State Government as well as the candidates who have qualified in the written examination are interested to be sent for training on the premise that against 5389 vacancies as advertised by means of notification dated 12th June, 2012 (Annexure no.-3 to the writ petition) only 3358 candidates have qualified in the written examination. In result 2031 vacancies are still available the qualified candidates. In order to qualify in the written examination the cut off marks have been fixed as 50% minimum marks of the total marks of the written examination. Total 300 marks were fixed for written examination which were classified into 4 subjects (1) Hindi Essay --100 marks (2) Substantive Law --100 marks (3) Numerical and Mental Ability Test --50 Marks and (4) Mental Aptitude and Reasoning Test --50 Marks. from amongst for selection The Selection Board published the model question paper and its answers in its website whereby the third and fourth subject were proposed separately with the 50 marks each but at the time of examination instead of indicating the separate subject of third and fourth, the Selection Board provided only one paper for both the subject containing Part-A and Part-B. In Part-A there was only Numerical question and in Part-B the question of Mental Aptitude and Reasoning etc. were given. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some candidates had been expecting to be successful on the basis of the Mental Ability test in comparison to the Numerical question, however, since the Numerical Aptitude questions were missing they could not be successful. It is pertinent to mention here that in the whole examination total 18 questions were cancelled due to multiple correct answers shown against them. However, the petitioners' case is that, it is not their fault as they have answered those questions correctly. Ultimately after the argument at length keeping in view the facts that 2031 vacancies are still available for selection from amongst the qualified candidates as has been pointed out by the State Government through its affidavit filed on 25.05.2012, the petitioners instead of pressing their relief to quash the whole selection confined their alternative relief to award them the marks against the cancelled questions in general as those have 5 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 been cancelled not at their fault but at the fault of the Selection Board. The petitioners are working as Constables and Head Constables. The matter of petitioners promotion are governed under the U.P. Sub Inspectors and Inspectors (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008. Rule -16 of the said rules provides the procedure for recruitment by promotion to the post of Sub Inspector. The marks awarded in the written test are also relevant for preparation of the final merit list. Since the petitioners are not at fault in cancellation of the question papers, I feel it appropriate to issue direction to award the respective full marks against those 18 questions to all the petitioners for preparation of the eligibility list for the next stage of the selection process so that they should not be put to be disadvantaged for their correct answers. Since it is difficult to verify those question correctly, in the interest of justice I feel it appropriate to issue direction to the respondents to award the full marks of all those questions rational manner without discriminating any body. Since these marks are relevant for preparation of the final merit list I hereby also provide that simultaneously the candidates who have qualified the written examination shall also be added with the marks as is asked to award the petitioners to judge their final merit in the examination save with their qualified status. State shall proceed for next step forthwith. the candidates who have answered favour Since the petitioners have to cross several stages to reach the stage of training and the qualified candidates after going through those stages are waiting for training, I hereby permit the respondents to sent the candidates, who have qualified the written examination, for training but those shall have no claim to be placed over and above to the petitioners in the merit list, as the placement in the merit list of all the candidates shall be on the basis of marks awarded finally in accordance with rules and the promotion orders shall be issued accordingly. It is also clarified that the unsuccessful candidates who are not before this Court shall have no right to claim the benefit of order passed by this Court. Since nothing remains for further adjudication, the writ petitions stand disposed of finally with the consent of the parties except the State."

5. In nutshell what the learned Single Judge ordered was that full 6 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 marks be awarded in respect of 18 questions to the writ petitioners as also to the qualified candidates, meaning thereby the respondents herein. As the benefit of the said order was restricted to the petitioners before the writ court and not to others who may have been similarly situated, therefore, some persons filed an appeal bearing Special Appeal No.577 of 2012; Ranvijai Pratap Singh and ors. vs. State of U.P. and ors., wherein an interim order was passed on 30.08.2012 which reads as under :- "9. Till 3.9.2012, further operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 3.8.2012 shall remain suspended and, no person shall be sent for training in pursuance of the order dated 3.8.2012. Those candidates, who have already been sent for training in pursuance of the result declared originally, shall continue with the training which shall be subject to further orders of this Court."

6. By the above quoted order operation of the impugned order dated

03.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge was suspended and it was further observed that no person shall be sent for training in pursuance to the said order, however, those candidates who had already been sent for training in pursuance to the result declared originally would continue with the training which shall be subject to further orders of the division bench. It is not out of place to mention that in the interregnum that is on 17.07.2012, 3241 candidates were ordered to undergo training. On 07.01.2013, a further interim order was passed in above mentioned Special Appeal No.577 of 2012, staying the order dated 27.07.2012, by which posting was provided to trainee officers. The order dated 07.01.2013 reads as under :- "We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of Special Appeal. 7 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 Looking to the background of the case which seems to be shrouded with confusion on sending of Police Personnels to training centre towards promotion on the post of the Sub Inspectors without following changed rules in respect of old vacancies, we have no option but to stay the order dated 27.12.2012 providing postings to such trainee officers. List the matter on 23.01.2013 for final disposal as Item No.1."

7. The matter went up to the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.34100 of 2013 and after being converted into Civil Appeal No.9688 of 2013 it was allowed on 07.01.2013 with a direction to decide the special appeal within six months. The said special appeal was not decided as was ordered by the Supreme Court. Certain persons filed Special Leave Petition (C) No.2702 of 2014 which was converted into Civil Appeal No.6547 of 2014 and as informed, these were persons who did not get the benefit of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge as they had not approached the Court earlier. Their Special Leave Petition was finally disposed of on 18.07.2014 in the following terms :- "Applications for impleadment are allowed. Leave granted. Heard Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the State. The appellants, along with many others, appeared in U.P. Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Ranker Examination under U.P. Civil Police Service Rules, 2008 for the post of Sub Inspectors. It is not in dispute that in question papers 18 questions were set in an erroneous manner. The learned Single Judge being approached by some of the candidates in a writ petition, directed that the petitioners who have knocked at the doors of the High Court shall be granted full marks in respect of the 18 questions, who have attempted the said erroneous questions. The said order was assailed by some of the candidates before the Division Bench of the High Court, which is subjudice. Be it stated, an interim order was passed by the High Court in the Special Appeal No. 577/2012. 8 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 Questioning the correctness of the said interim order, State of U.P. and its functionaries came before this Court and on 7.10.2013 in C.A. No. 9688/2013, this Court vacated the order of stay and permitted the selected candidates to go for training and join the posts. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the convinced opinion, the controversy should be put to rest from all spectrums and accordingly we following directions:- (a) The posts that have been filled up by successful candidates, as has been apprised to us at the Bar, are 3358 and the candidates who have joined in the said posts and presently working shall not be disturbed. (b) The U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow shall scrutinise the papers of all the candidates, namely, the persons who had approached the writ court and the candidates who had not approached the writ court and if they have attempted and answered the 18 questions, which were wrongly set out, they will be awarded full marks for said 18 questions. (c) If a candidate has not answered any erroneous question, the same shall be proportionately reduced. To clarify, the candidate shall only get full marks for the questions answered. (d) A fresh select list shall be drawn up taking into account the aforesaid marks in respect of 2031 posts which are available in presenti pertaining to the year 2008. (e) The aforesaid exercise shall completed within a period of three months hence and the successful candidates shall be duly intimated and subsequent action shall be taken by the State. By virtue of our order, any matter pending in the Writ Court or before the Division Bench shall be deemed to have been disposed of. The appeal stands disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs."

8. As would be evident from a reading of the aforesaid judgment dated 18.07.2014, the Supreme Court of India categorically provided that - the posts that have been filled up by successful candidates which are 3358 and the candidates who have joined the said post and at presently are working shall not be disturbed. The private opposite parties herein were part of these 3358 candidates, therefore, their 9 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 candidature was not to be disturbed.

9. The select list in respect to them (respondents) had already been issued earlier and the appellants before us did not challenge the said select list nor sought any relief for themselves regarding their inclusion in the select list on the ground that they had secured more marks than the private respondents herein.

10. As regards others, the Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 18.07.2014 directed the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow to scrutinize the papers of all the candidates namely the persons who had approached the writ court and the candidates who had not approached the writ court and if they had attempted and answered the 18 questions, which were wrongly set out, they would be awarded full marks for said 18 questions. If a candidate had not answered any erroneous question the same shall be proportionally reduced. It was clarified that the candidate shall only get full marks for the questions answered. Accordingly it directed that a fresh select list shall be drawn up taking into account the aforesaid marks in respect of 2031 posts which are available in the present pertaining to the year 2008. Any other matter pending in writ court or before the division bench was deemed to have been disposed of by the said judgment.

11. Now all the above directions were subject to the initial observation that those 3358 candidates, who have been selected earlier and posted, would not be disturbed.

12. It is not in dispute that the private respondents herein were selected and issued letters of training and posted on 16.08.2012. No 10 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 challenge to their selection, training or posting was raised by the appellants before us who were also candidates in the same selection.

13. The appellants before us were included in a subsequent select list which was issued in pursuance to the abovementioned judgment dated 18.07.2014, without filing any writ petition because of the directions issued by the Supreme Court which extended the benefit granted by it to all the candidates. But the fact of the matter is that so far as the marks obtained by the appellants as claimed in paragraph 19 of the writ petition and their alleged placement in the select list vis-a-vis placement of the private opposite parties in the earlier select list was never put to challenge nor was any claim raised that they having secured higher marks should be placed in first select list or should be offered posting, training, etc. with the private opposite parties in 2012 itself.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants informed that consequent to the aforesaid exercise, in pursuance judgment dated

18.07.2014, the names of the appellants figured in the select list which was formulated by the opposite parties and they were offered to be sent for training in 2015 and thereafter they were posted as Sub Inspector Civil Police in 2016.

15. It is not in dispute that on 08.07.2017 a tentative seniority list of Sub Inspectors was published wherein all the appellants were placed below the private respondents herein. Out of the 64 appellants before us, who were petitioners before the writ court, only one that is appellant no.1 filed objections to the tentative seniority list. Learned counsel for the appellants Shri Dhaka very fairly submitted that the other 63 appellants/ petitioners did not file any objection to the 11 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 tentative seniority list.

16. We have already stated that none of the appellants raised any challenge to the selection, training and posting of the private opposite parties in 2012 or thereafter. This is relevant because ultimately the claim for seniority is being based on the alleged marks secured by the appellants and the requirement of publishing one select list under the Rules, an aspect which we will consider herein- after.

17. As regards the objections to the tentative seniority list, the law is settled as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Rameshwar Prasad (Dead) By Lrs. and others; (1976) 2 SCC 37 and S.B. Dogra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others; (1992) 4 SCC 455 that one who does not object to a tentative seniority list cannot raise a challenge to the final seniority list. Therefore, so far as the claim of appellant nos.2 to 64 is concerned, the same is barred by the said law.

18. As regards the appellant no.1 is concerned, no doubt he filed objections to the tentative seniority list, which were rejected on

11.12.2017 when the final seniority list was issued. In the final seniority list in paragraph 2 rejection of such objections made to the tentative seniority list, has been mentioned. By the same order the final seniority list was published wherein all the appellants were placed before the private opposite parties herein.

19. Moreover, though in paragraph 19 of the writ petition the appellants have asserted that they had secured more marks than the private opposite parties, but they have not disclosed the basis on 12 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 which this assertion has been made, nor is there any documentary proof on record to establish that the appellants had secured higher marks than the private opposite parties. We may in this very context once again refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated

18.07.2014 according to which the select list already issued was not to be disturbed and the basis of seniority is the select list and the order of placement therein. The appellants have been appointed consequent to a subsequent select list being issued only in pursuance to the directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide judgment dated

18.07.2014 which cannot have any adverse effect on the select list issued earlier in view of the stipulation contained in the same judgment, as already mentioned, therefore, contention that only one select list should have been prepared is not open to be asserted nor acceptable purely in the facts of this case. The assertion that appellants secured more marks apart from without being without any basis, is also irrelevant for the aforesaid reason.

20. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches because the writ petition was filed seeking the reliefs as quoted herein-above which included a challenge to the seniority list. The writ petition was filed on

24.07.2020, that is almost two and a half years after publication of the final seniority list dated 11.12.2017.

21. The other orders under challenge were the orders by which private opposite parties were directed to be sent for training for the next higher post of Inspector. The case of the appellants is that they filed the writ petition only on coming to know about the aforesaid seniority list based on the said orders by which the private opposite 13 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 parties were sought to be sent for training for the higher post of Inspector. However in the writ petition we do not find any explanation as to from what source and in what manner the final seniority list dated 11.12.2017, which was under challenge, was received or obtained by the appellants/ petitioners. In the order dated

11.12.2017 paragraph 4 very categorically states that the seniority list has been uploaded/published on the official website http://uppolice.gov.in, meaning thereby, the hard copy was issued thereafter. The same order reflects that a copy of the hard copy of the seniority list dated 11.12.2017 was sent to various officials such as Zonal Additional Police/ Additional Director of Police/ Inspector General of Police, U.P./ Inspector General of Police (Establishment) or Inspector General/ Deputy Inspector General of Ranges, U.P., etc. The contention of the appellant no.1 before us is that he did not come to know about the final seniority list dated 11.12.2017, however, we do not find any such assertion in the writ petition that the seniority list was not uploaded/published on the website aforesaid. What is being stated is that it was not communicated to the appellants. The number of persons whose name figures in the seniority list is more than nine thousand, therefore, at least in the facts of this case it was not possible to serve such a voluminous seniority list to every individual. Publication/ uploading on the website is sufficient compliance on the principles of natural justice.

22. We may point out, the order of the Supreme Court dated

18.07.2014 itself makes it very clear that the selection, training and posting of the 3358 candidates, which includes the private respondents herein, will not be disturbed. Even at the cost of 14 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 repetition it needs to be said that whether or not the select list was published and though it is difficult to accept that it was not so published, the fact is undisputed that the private respondents were posted and appointed in 2012. If the appellants herein were of the opinion that they had secured more marks, then they should have raised a challenge at that point of time itself, which was never done.

23. As regards the contention of Shri Dhaka, learned counsel for the appellants that the cause of action was a continuous one as repeated promotion orders to the post of Inspector are being issued, we are afraid this is an argument only to be rejected. Once the final seniority list was published on 11.04.2017 and prior to it the private opposite parties were not only selected but also sent for training and posted, then the cause of action, if any, occurred at that relevant time in 2012, if not, then in 2015 when the appellants themselves were selected and posted, at least so far as the challenge, if any, to the select list, etc. is concerned. So far as seniority matter is concerned, the seniority list was issued in 2017 itself, as already discussed, whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 2020.

24. Further, once the appellants were selected in 2015 and sent for training then at least at that time they could have raised this challenge. The appellants before us in fact never filed any writ petition prior to 2020 raising such grievance, therefore, it is not open for them now to say that they had secured more marks than the private respondents so as to claim seniority over them.

25. Of course the tentative seniority list was issued for the first time in 2017 but on merits the claim being raised by the appellants herein is that they had secured more marks in the selection than the private 15 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 opposite parties, for which the cause of action did not arise in 2017 but arose firstly in 2012, if not, then, certainly in 2015, when the appellants themselves were selected and posted as Sub Inspector Civil Police but did not raise any such challenge, therefore, the delay in this regard is apparent, inordinate and absolutely unexplained.

26. At this very stage it needs to be pointed out that merely because in some of the decisions relied upon by the appellants' counsel such as those reported in (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 424; and (2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 579 it was observed a delay of three to four years in challenging a seniority list by itself would not defeat such challenge, it does not mean that no explanation for the delay is to be offered. It is neither the intent nor the ratio of the aforesaid judgments that without any explanation for delay of three or four years if a writ petition is filed challenging a seniority list, then the writ court is required to condone or ignore the delay mechanically. The fact that there is a delay which may be inordinate or not inordinate is one thing and the fact that there has to be an explanation to be offered is another thing.

27. In this very context we point out that the aforesaid decisions itself and certain other decisions such as the one reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394; Banda Development Authority, Banda vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and others provide that if for the same cause if first a suit is to be filed before the civil court then a writ petition would not be entertained beyond the limitation prescribed for filing of such a suit. In the case at hand, as the dispute pertained to seniority, that is, a service dispute, at least in the State of Uttar Pradesh the jurisdiction of the civil courts was substituted by the jurisdiction of a specially 16 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 constituted tribunal under the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 under which for raising any such dispute as has been raised herein, the limitation as prescribed is one year and the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable as it is applicable to a suit, meaning thereby, there is no provision for condonation of delay in filing a reference/ claim before the Tribunal. What it means is that if a claim petition was to be filed, which should have been filed instead of straightaway filing a writ petition in view of a catena of decisions in this regard such as State of U.P. and another vs. Labh Chand; AIR 1994 SC 754 where it has been held that where for adjudication of service disputes a special tribunal has been constituted, then first and foremost the said alternative statutory remedy should be available, any such claim or reference filed by the appellant before the Tribunal would be barred by limitation and apparently so, unless of course they are able to show that the final seniority list was never published. In this regard we have already stated that the pleadings in the writ petition are absolutely silent with regard to the uploading or non- uploading of the final seniority list on the portal referred herein- above. Mere assertion that the list was not communicated was not sufficient. A specific and categorical assertion should have been made in this regard which is absent. In the absence of such pleading there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in filing the writ petition.

28. We notice that in the relief clause of the writ petition vires of Rule 22 of the Rules, 2015 which provides the criteria for determining seniority of members of the service including Sub Inspector Civil Police, was under challenge, but, having gone 17 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 through the writ petition and the grounds therein, we do not find any such ground which could form the basis for a challenge to the said vires nor for declaring it as ultra vires. Therefore, the said relief also does not satisfy us in view of the decision reported in (2023) 11 SCC 432; Haji Abdul Gani Khan and another vs. Union of India and others. Para 20 of which reads as under: " 20. There cannot be any doubt that when a party wants to challenge the constitutional validity of a statute, he must plead in detail the grounds on which the validity of the statute is sought to be challenged. In absence of the specific pleadings to that effect, Court cannot go into the issue of the validity of statutory provisions. The Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the law made by the Legislature unless it is specifically challenged by incorporating specific grounds of challenge in the pleadings. The reason is that there is always a presumption of the constitutionality of laws. The burden is always on the person alleging unconstitutionality to prove it. For that purpose, the challenge has to be specifically pleaded by setting out the specific grounds on which the challenge is made. A Constitutional Court cannot casually interfere with legislation made by a competent Legislature only by drawing an inference from the pleadings that the challenge to the validity is implicit. The State gets a proper opportunity to defend the legislation only if the State is made aware of the grounds on which the legislation is sought to be challenged."

29. In fact, learned counsel for the appellants did not even address us on the vires of Rule 22 of the Rules, 2015, therefore, it appears that he did not want to press it.

30. For all the reasons, as discussed herein-above, so far as appellant nos.2 to 64 are concerned, they did not file any objection to the tentative seniority list dated 08.07.2017, therefore, their claim as raised in the writ petition is clearly barred by the law as declared by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad (Dead) By Lrs. and others (supra) and S.B. Dogra (supra). So far as appellant no.1 is concerned, though he filed objections but did not 18 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 approach the court within a reasonable time and in any case, in view of the grounds for claiming seniority as that is also highly belated and it is only in 2020 that the relief was claimed vide relief no.C, as already discussed herein-above, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, purely in the facts and circumstances of this case. The reasons which we have given are additional reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by the learned writ court.

31. For all the above reasons we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 27.07.2021.

32. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. November 17, 2025 Arnima (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

"Heard Mr. L.P. Mishra, Mr. Manish Kumar, Mr. K.S. Pawar, Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Mr. Amit Bose and others for the petitioners. Mr. I.P. Singh learned Chief Standing Counsel and Mr. Badrul Hasan Addl. Chief Standing Counsel for State of U.P., Mr. J.N. Mathur, Senior Advocate, Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, Senior Advocate, , Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, Mr. R.C. Tiwari, Mr. Mr. Manjeev Shukla, Mr. Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Mr. Ashish Chaturvedi, Mr. Shyam Kinkar Pandey, Mr. Prakhar Mishra, Mr. S.C. Yadav and Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman for the respondents. The petitioners are aggrieved with the process of selection of U.P. Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Ranker Examination, 2000- 2008 on various grounds, therefore, they have prayed to quash the result of the written examination of the said selection. 4 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 Simultaneously they have also prayed to provide full marks for the questions of mathematics which have been cancelled for the reason of multiple correct answers shown against them. At this stage State Government as well as the candidates who have qualified in the written examination are interested to be sent for training on the premise that against 5389 vacancies as advertised by means of notification dated 12th June, 2012 (Annexure no.-3 to the writ petition) only 3358 candidates have qualified in the written examination. In result 2031 vacancies are still available the qualified candidates. In order to qualify in the written examination the cut off marks have been fixed as 50% minimum marks of the total marks of the written examination. Total 300 marks were fixed for written examination which were classified into 4 subjects (1) Hindi Essay --100 marks (2) Substantive Law --100 marks (3) Numerical and Mental Ability Test --50 Marks and (4) Mental Aptitude and Reasoning Test --50 Marks. from amongst for selection The Selection Board published the model question paper and its answers in its website whereby the third and fourth subject were proposed separately with the 50 marks each but at the time of examination instead of indicating the separate subject of third and fourth, the Selection Board provided only one paper for both the subject containing Part-A and Part-B. In Part-A there was only Numerical question and in Part-B the question of Mental Aptitude and Reasoning etc. were given. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that some candidates had been expecting to be successful on the basis of the Mental Ability test in comparison to the Numerical question, however, since the Numerical Aptitude questions were missing they could not be successful. It is pertinent to mention here that in the whole examination total 18 questions were cancelled due to multiple correct answers shown against them. However, the petitioners' case is that, it is not their fault as they have answered those questions correctly. Ultimately after the argument at length keeping in view the facts that 2031 vacancies are still available for selection from amongst the qualified candidates as has been pointed out by the State Government through its affidavit filed on 25.05.2012, the petitioners instead of pressing their relief to quash the whole selection confined their alternative relief to award them the marks against the cancelled questions in general as those have 5 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 been cancelled not at their fault but at the fault of the Selection Board. The petitioners are working as Constables and Head Constables. The matter of petitioners promotion are governed under the U.P. Sub Inspectors and Inspectors (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008. Rule -16 of the said rules provides the procedure for recruitment by promotion to the post of Sub Inspector. The marks awarded in the written test are also relevant for preparation of the final merit list. Since the petitioners are not at fault in cancellation of the question papers, I feel it appropriate to issue direction to award the respective full marks against those 18 questions to all the petitioners for preparation of the eligibility list for the next stage of the selection process so that they should not be put to be disadvantaged for their correct answers. Since it is difficult to verify those question correctly, in the interest of justice I feel it appropriate to issue direction to the respondents to award the full marks of all those questions rational manner without discriminating any body. Since these marks are relevant for preparation of the final merit list I hereby also provide that simultaneously the candidates who have qualified the written examination shall also be added with the marks as is asked to award the petitioners to judge their final merit in the examination save with their qualified status. State shall proceed for next step forthwith. the candidates who have answered favour Since the petitioners have to cross several stages to reach the stage of training and the qualified candidates after going through those stages are waiting for training, I hereby permit the respondents to sent the candidates, who have qualified the written examination, for training but those shall have no claim to be placed over and above to the petitioners in the merit list, as the placement in the merit list of all the candidates shall be on the basis of marks awarded finally in accordance with rules and the promotion orders shall be issued accordingly. It is also clarified that the unsuccessful candidates who are not before this Court shall have no right to claim the benefit of order passed by this Court. Since nothing remains for further adjudication, the writ petitions stand disposed of finally with the consent of the parties except the State."

5. In nutshell what the learned Single Judge ordered was that full 6 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 marks be awarded in respect of 18 questions to the writ petitioners as also to the qualified candidates, meaning thereby the respondents herein. As the benefit of the said order was restricted to the petitioners before the writ court and not to others who may have been similarly situated, therefore, some persons filed an appeal bearing Special Appeal No.577 of 2012; Ranvijai Pratap Singh and ors. vs. State of U.P. and ors., wherein an interim order was passed on 30.08.2012 which reads as under :- "9. Till 3.9.2012, further operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 3.8.2012 shall remain suspended and, no person shall be sent for training in pursuance of the order dated 3.8.2012. Those candidates, who have already been sent for training in pursuance of the result declared originally, shall continue with the training which shall be subject to further orders of this Court."

6. By the above quoted order operation of the impugned order dated

03.08.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge was suspended and it was further observed that no person shall be sent for training in pursuance to the said order, however, those candidates who had already been sent for training in pursuance to the result declared originally would continue with the training which shall be subject to further orders of the division bench. It is not out of place to mention that in the interregnum that is on 17.07.2012, 3241 candidates were ordered to undergo training. On 07.01.2013, a further interim order was passed in above mentioned Special Appeal No.577 of 2012, staying the order dated 27.07.2012, by which posting was provided to trainee officers. The order dated 07.01.2013 reads as under :- "We have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the pleadings of Special Appeal. 7 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 Looking to the background of the case which seems to be shrouded with confusion on sending of Police Personnels to training centre towards promotion on the post of the Sub Inspectors without following changed rules in respect of old vacancies, we have no option but to stay the order dated 27.12.2012 providing postings to such trainee officers. List the matter on 23.01.2013 for final disposal as Item No.1."

7. The matter went up to the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (C) No.34100 of 2013 and after being converted into Civil Appeal No.9688 of 2013 it was allowed on 07.01.2013 with a direction to decide the special appeal within six months. The said special appeal was not decided as was ordered by the Supreme Court. Certain persons filed Special Leave Petition (C) No.2702 of 2014 which was converted into Civil Appeal No.6547 of 2014 and as informed, these were persons who did not get the benefit of the interim order passed by the learned Single Judge as they had not approached the Court earlier. Their Special Leave Petition was finally disposed of on 18.07.2014 in the following terms :- "Applications for impleadment are allowed. Leave granted. Heard Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the applicant and Mr. Mehrotra, learned counsel for the State. The appellants, along with many others, appeared in U.P. Sub Inspector (Civil Police) Ranker Examination under U.P. Civil Police Service Rules, 2008 for the post of Sub Inspectors. It is not in dispute that in question papers 18 questions were set in an erroneous manner. The learned Single Judge being approached by some of the candidates in a writ petition, directed that the petitioners who have knocked at the doors of the High Court shall be granted full marks in respect of the 18 questions, who have attempted the said erroneous questions. The said order was assailed by some of the candidates before the Division Bench of the High Court, which is subjudice. Be it stated, an interim order was passed by the High Court in the Special Appeal No. 577/2012. 8 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 Questioning the correctness of the said interim order, State of U.P. and its functionaries came before this Court and on 7.10.2013 in C.A. No. 9688/2013, this Court vacated the order of stay and permitted the selected candidates to go for training and join the posts. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the convinced opinion, the controversy should be put to rest from all spectrums and accordingly we following directions:- (a) The posts that have been filled up by successful candidates, as has been apprised to us at the Bar, are 3358 and the candidates who have joined in the said posts and presently working shall not be disturbed. (b) The U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow shall scrutinise the papers of all the candidates, namely, the persons who had approached the writ court and the candidates who had not approached the writ court and if they have attempted and answered the 18 questions, which were wrongly set out, they will be awarded full marks for said 18 questions. (c) If a candidate has not answered any erroneous question, the same shall be proportionately reduced. To clarify, the candidate shall only get full marks for the questions answered. (d) A fresh select list shall be drawn up taking into account the aforesaid marks in respect of 2031 posts which are available in presenti pertaining to the year 2008. (e) The aforesaid exercise shall completed within a period of three months hence and the successful candidates shall be duly intimated and subsequent action shall be taken by the State. By virtue of our order, any matter pending in the Writ Court or before the Division Bench shall be deemed to have been disposed of. The appeal stands disposed of on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs."

8. As would be evident from a reading of the aforesaid judgment dated 18.07.2014, the Supreme Court of India categorically provided that - the posts that have been filled up by successful candidates which are 3358 and the candidates who have joined the said post and at presently are working shall not be disturbed. The private opposite parties herein were part of these 3358 candidates, therefore, their 9 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 candidature was not to be disturbed.

9. The select list in respect to them (respondents) had already been issued earlier and the appellants before us did not challenge the said select list nor sought any relief for themselves regarding their inclusion in the select list on the ground that they had secured more marks than the private respondents herein.

10. As regards others, the Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 18.07.2014 directed the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow to scrutinize the papers of all the candidates namely the persons who had approached the writ court and the candidates who had not approached the writ court and if they had attempted and answered the 18 questions, which were wrongly set out, they would be awarded full marks for said 18 questions. If a candidate had not answered any erroneous question the same shall be proportionally reduced. It was clarified that the candidate shall only get full marks for the questions answered. Accordingly it directed that a fresh select list shall be drawn up taking into account the aforesaid marks in respect of 2031 posts which are available in the present pertaining to the year 2008. Any other matter pending in writ court or before the division bench was deemed to have been disposed of by the said judgment.

11. Now all the above directions were subject to the initial observation that those 3358 candidates, who have been selected earlier and posted, would not be disturbed.

12. It is not in dispute that the private respondents herein were selected and issued letters of training and posted on 16.08.2012. No 10 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 challenge to their selection, training or posting was raised by the appellants before us who were also candidates in the same selection.

13. The appellants before us were included in a subsequent select list which was issued in pursuance to the abovementioned judgment dated 18.07.2014, without filing any writ petition because of the directions issued by the Supreme Court which extended the benefit granted by it to all the candidates. But the fact of the matter is that so far as the marks obtained by the appellants as claimed in paragraph 19 of the writ petition and their alleged placement in the select list vis-a-vis placement of the private opposite parties in the earlier select list was never put to challenge nor was any claim raised that they having secured higher marks should be placed in first select list or should be offered posting, training, etc. with the private opposite parties in 2012 itself.

14. Learned counsel for the appellants informed that consequent to the aforesaid exercise, in pursuance judgment dated

18.07.2014, the names of the appellants figured in the select list which was formulated by the opposite parties and they were offered to be sent for training in 2015 and thereafter they were posted as Sub Inspector Civil Police in 2016.

15. It is not in dispute that on 08.07.2017 a tentative seniority list of Sub Inspectors was published wherein all the appellants were placed below the private respondents herein. Out of the 64 appellants before us, who were petitioners before the writ court, only one that is appellant no.1 filed objections to the tentative seniority list. Learned counsel for the appellants Shri Dhaka very fairly submitted that the other 63 appellants/ petitioners did not file any objection to the 11 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 tentative seniority list.

16. We have already stated that none of the appellants raised any challenge to the selection, training and posting of the private opposite parties in 2012 or thereafter. This is relevant because ultimately the claim for seniority is being based on the alleged marks secured by the appellants and the requirement of publishing one select list under the Rules, an aspect which we will consider herein- after.

17. As regards the objections to the tentative seniority list, the law is settled as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh and another vs. Rameshwar Prasad (Dead) By Lrs. and others; (1976) 2 SCC 37 and S.B. Dogra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others; (1992) 4 SCC 455 that one who does not object to a tentative seniority list cannot raise a challenge to the final seniority list. Therefore, so far as the claim of appellant nos.2 to 64 is concerned, the same is barred by the said law.

18. As regards the appellant no.1 is concerned, no doubt he filed objections to the tentative seniority list, which were rejected on

11.12.2017 when the final seniority list was issued. In the final seniority list in paragraph 2 rejection of such objections made to the tentative seniority list, has been mentioned. By the same order the final seniority list was published wherein all the appellants were placed before the private opposite parties herein.

19. Moreover, though in paragraph 19 of the writ petition the appellants have asserted that they had secured more marks than the private opposite parties, but they have not disclosed the basis on 12 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 which this assertion has been made, nor is there any documentary proof on record to establish that the appellants had secured higher marks than the private opposite parties. We may in this very context once again refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court dated

18.07.2014 according to which the select list already issued was not to be disturbed and the basis of seniority is the select list and the order of placement therein. The appellants have been appointed consequent to a subsequent select list being issued only in pursuance to the directions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court vide judgment dated

18.07.2014 which cannot have any adverse effect on the select list issued earlier in view of the stipulation contained in the same judgment, as already mentioned, therefore, contention that only one select list should have been prepared is not open to be asserted nor acceptable purely in the facts of this case. The assertion that appellants secured more marks apart from without being without any basis, is also irrelevant for the aforesaid reason.

20. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches because the writ petition was filed seeking the reliefs as quoted herein-above which included a challenge to the seniority list. The writ petition was filed on

24.07.2020, that is almost two and a half years after publication of the final seniority list dated 11.12.2017.

21. The other orders under challenge were the orders by which private opposite parties were directed to be sent for training for the next higher post of Inspector. The case of the appellants is that they filed the writ petition only on coming to know about the aforesaid seniority list based on the said orders by which the private opposite 13 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 parties were sought to be sent for training for the higher post of Inspector. However in the writ petition we do not find any explanation as to from what source and in what manner the final seniority list dated 11.12.2017, which was under challenge, was received or obtained by the appellants/ petitioners. In the order dated

11.12.2017 paragraph 4 very categorically states that the seniority list has been uploaded/published on the official website http://uppolice.gov.in, meaning thereby, the hard copy was issued thereafter. The same order reflects that a copy of the hard copy of the seniority list dated 11.12.2017 was sent to various officials such as Zonal Additional Police/ Additional Director of Police/ Inspector General of Police, U.P./ Inspector General of Police (Establishment) or Inspector General/ Deputy Inspector General of Ranges, U.P., etc. The contention of the appellant no.1 before us is that he did not come to know about the final seniority list dated 11.12.2017, however, we do not find any such assertion in the writ petition that the seniority list was not uploaded/published on the website aforesaid. What is being stated is that it was not communicated to the appellants. The number of persons whose name figures in the seniority list is more than nine thousand, therefore, at least in the facts of this case it was not possible to serve such a voluminous seniority list to every individual. Publication/ uploading on the website is sufficient compliance on the principles of natural justice.

22. We may point out, the order of the Supreme Court dated

18.07.2014 itself makes it very clear that the selection, training and posting of the 3358 candidates, which includes the private respondents herein, will not be disturbed. Even at the cost of 14 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 repetition it needs to be said that whether or not the select list was published and though it is difficult to accept that it was not so published, the fact is undisputed that the private respondents were posted and appointed in 2012. If the appellants herein were of the opinion that they had secured more marks, then they should have raised a challenge at that point of time itself, which was never done.

23. As regards the contention of Shri Dhaka, learned counsel for the appellants that the cause of action was a continuous one as repeated promotion orders to the post of Inspector are being issued, we are afraid this is an argument only to be rejected. Once the final seniority list was published on 11.04.2017 and prior to it the private opposite parties were not only selected but also sent for training and posted, then the cause of action, if any, occurred at that relevant time in 2012, if not, then in 2015 when the appellants themselves were selected and posted, at least so far as the challenge, if any, to the select list, etc. is concerned. So far as seniority matter is concerned, the seniority list was issued in 2017 itself, as already discussed, whereas the writ petition was filed in the year 2020.

24. Further, once the appellants were selected in 2015 and sent for training then at least at that time they could have raised this challenge. The appellants before us in fact never filed any writ petition prior to 2020 raising such grievance, therefore, it is not open for them now to say that they had secured more marks than the private respondents so as to claim seniority over them.

25. Of course the tentative seniority list was issued for the first time in 2017 but on merits the claim being raised by the appellants herein is that they had secured more marks in the selection than the private 15 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 opposite parties, for which the cause of action did not arise in 2017 but arose firstly in 2012, if not, then, certainly in 2015, when the appellants themselves were selected and posted as Sub Inspector Civil Police but did not raise any such challenge, therefore, the delay in this regard is apparent, inordinate and absolutely unexplained.

26. At this very stage it needs to be pointed out that merely because in some of the decisions relied upon by the appellants' counsel such as those reported in (2009) 7 Supreme Court Cases 424; and (2022) 12 Supreme Court Cases 579 it was observed a delay of three to four years in challenging a seniority list by itself would not defeat such challenge, it does not mean that no explanation for the delay is to be offered. It is neither the intent nor the ratio of the aforesaid judgments that without any explanation for delay of three or four years if a writ petition is filed challenging a seniority list, then the writ court is required to condone or ignore the delay mechanically. The fact that there is a delay which may be inordinate or not inordinate is one thing and the fact that there has to be an explanation to be offered is another thing.

27. In this very context we point out that the aforesaid decisions itself and certain other decisions such as the one reported in (2011) 5 SCC 394; Banda Development Authority, Banda vs. Moti Lal Agarwal and others provide that if for the same cause if first a suit is to be filed before the civil court then a writ petition would not be entertained beyond the limitation prescribed for filing of such a suit. In the case at hand, as the dispute pertained to seniority, that is, a service dispute, at least in the State of Uttar Pradesh the jurisdiction of the civil courts was substituted by the jurisdiction of a specially 16 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 constituted tribunal under the U.P. Public Services Tribunal Act, 1976 under which for raising any such dispute as has been raised herein, the limitation as prescribed is one year and the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable as it is applicable to a suit, meaning thereby, there is no provision for condonation of delay in filing a reference/ claim before the Tribunal. What it means is that if a claim petition was to be filed, which should have been filed instead of straightaway filing a writ petition in view of a catena of decisions in this regard such as State of U.P. and another vs. Labh Chand; AIR 1994 SC 754 where it has been held that where for adjudication of service disputes a special tribunal has been constituted, then first and foremost the said alternative statutory remedy should be available, any such claim or reference filed by the appellant before the Tribunal would be barred by limitation and apparently so, unless of course they are able to show that the final seniority list was never published. In this regard we have already stated that the pleadings in the writ petition are absolutely silent with regard to the uploading or non- uploading of the final seniority list on the portal referred herein- above. Mere assertion that the list was not communicated was not sufficient. A specific and categorical assertion should have been made in this regard which is absent. In the absence of such pleading there is no explanation whatsoever for the delay in filing the writ petition.

28. We notice that in the relief clause of the writ petition vires of Rule 22 of the Rules, 2015 which provides the criteria for determining seniority of members of the service including Sub Inspector Civil Police, was under challenge, but, having gone 17 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 through the writ petition and the grounds therein, we do not find any such ground which could form the basis for a challenge to the said vires nor for declaring it as ultra vires. Therefore, the said relief also does not satisfy us in view of the decision reported in (2023) 11 SCC 432; Haji Abdul Gani Khan and another vs. Union of India and others. Para 20 of which reads as under: " 20. There cannot be any doubt that when a party wants to challenge the constitutional validity of a statute, he must plead in detail the grounds on which the validity of the statute is sought to be challenged. In absence of the specific pleadings to that effect, Court cannot go into the issue of the validity of statutory provisions. The Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with the law made by the Legislature unless it is specifically challenged by incorporating specific grounds of challenge in the pleadings. The reason is that there is always a presumption of the constitutionality of laws. The burden is always on the person alleging unconstitutionality to prove it. For that purpose, the challenge has to be specifically pleaded by setting out the specific grounds on which the challenge is made. A Constitutional Court cannot casually interfere with legislation made by a competent Legislature only by drawing an inference from the pleadings that the challenge to the validity is implicit. The State gets a proper opportunity to defend the legislation only if the State is made aware of the grounds on which the legislation is sought to be challenged."

29. In fact, learned counsel for the appellants did not even address us on the vires of Rule 22 of the Rules, 2015, therefore, it appears that he did not want to press it.

30. For all the reasons, as discussed herein-above, so far as appellant nos.2 to 64 are concerned, they did not file any objection to the tentative seniority list dated 08.07.2017, therefore, their claim as raised in the writ petition is clearly barred by the law as declared by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwar Prasad (Dead) By Lrs. and others (supra) and S.B. Dogra (supra). So far as appellant no.1 is concerned, though he filed objections but did not 18 SPLA No. 300 of 2021 approach the court within a reasonable time and in any case, in view of the grounds for claiming seniority as that is also highly belated and it is only in 2020 that the relief was claimed vide relief no.C, as already discussed herein-above, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches, purely in the facts and circumstances of this case. The reasons which we have given are additional reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at by the learned writ court.

31. For all the above reasons we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment dated 27.07.2021.

32. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. November 17, 2025 Arnima (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ARNIMA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench