Supreme Court Upholds Minimum Marks Criteria for Sub-Inspector Promotions: Arvind Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (26 July 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 26 July 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 481

Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J. and Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can candidates who fail to secure minimum qualifying marks in each subject of a promotional examination demand evaluation of their remaining papers? The Supreme Court of India addressed this question in a recent case concerning promotions to the post of Sub-Inspector in Uttar Pradesh Police. The Court upheld the requirement of securing minimum qualifying marks in each subject for candidates to be eligible for further evaluation, thereby dismissing the petitions of candidates who did not meet this criterion. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice Aniruddha Bose.

Case Background

The case involves several writ petitions filed by police constables and head constables in Uttar Pradesh who participated in the “Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) Ranker’s Examination 2000-2008”. These petitioners sought promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. The Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board (the Board) had issued a notification on 12 June 2010, for filling 5389 posts of Sub-Inspectors through a departmental examination. The vacancies were for the years 2000-2008. Eligibility criteria included completion of three years of service and being below 40 years of age.

The examination was conducted on 13 March 2011. Subsequently, the Board cancelled 26 questions across two notifications (8 on 20 April 2011, and 18 on 26 May 2011) due to errors. The results were declared on 11 June 2011, with 3891 candidates initially selected, out of which 3351 qualified after physical tests and group discussions. Some unsuccessful candidates challenged the results in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, citing irregularities and the cancellation of questions. A single judge directed the Board to award full marks for the cancelled questions. However, this was stayed by a Division Bench, which was later set aside by the Supreme Court on 7 October 2013.

The Supreme Court, on 18 July 2014, directed the Board to scrutinize the papers of all candidates, awarding full marks for the 18 cancelled questions to those who had attempted them. A fresh select list was to be drawn up for 2031 available posts for the year 2008. Some candidates who were initially not selected approached the Supreme Court, seeking similar benefits as those given in a previous case, Raghuraj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. They argued that they should also be considered for promotion if they met the qualifying marks. However, the State contended that these petitioners had not qualified in the initial written examination as they had failed to secure minimum marks in each subject.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

Some unsuccessful candidates filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, challenging the written examination results, citing irregularities and the cancellation of 18 questions. A single judge of the High Court directed the Board to award full marks for the cancelled questions. However, a Division Bench of the High Court stayed this order. The Supreme Court then set aside the Division Bench’s order on 7 October 2013. Subsequently, the Supreme Court directed the Board to scrutinize the papers of all candidates and award full marks for the cancelled questions. Some candidates who were initially not selected approached the Supreme Court, seeking similar benefits as those given in a previous case, Raghuraj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. They argued that they should also be considered for promotion if they met the qualifying marks. However, the State contended that these petitioners had not qualified in the initial written examination as they had failed to secure minimum marks in each subject.

Legal Framework

The recruitment process for Sub-Inspectors is governed by the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008 (the Rules). Rule 5 of the Rules stipulates that 50% of the Sub-Inspector posts are to be filled by direct recruitment and the remaining 50% by promotion via a departmental examination. Rule 16 outlines the procedure for promotion, stating that the Board shall conduct a written examination carrying 300 marks. The examination includes:

• Hindi Essay (based on Law and Order case study and police functioning) – 100 marks
• Basic Law, Construction and Police Procedure (Indian Penal Code, Criminal Procedure Code, Evidence Act and Police Manual etc.) – 100 marks
• Numerical and Mental Ability Test – 50 marks
• Mental Aptitude Test/I.Q. Test/Responding – 50 marks

Rule 16(2), Note 2, specifies that a candidate must obtain a minimum of 50% marks in each subject to be eligible for promotion. The Court noted that the decision of the Board dated 22.02.2011 clarified that only those candidates who secure minimum 50% marks in the three objective type subjects would have their Hindi Essay paper evaluated.

The relevant provision is Note 2 of Rule 16(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008, which states: “a candidate who fails to obtain minimum 50% marks in each subject shall not be eligible for promotion.”

Arguments

Petitioners’ Arguments:

• The petitioners argued that their marks should be declared, and they should be considered for promotion if found eligible, especially given the existence of unfilled vacancies.
• They contended that they are entitled to the same relief as granted in the Raghuraj Singh case, where candidates with certain marks were accommodated.
• Some petitioners raised an issue regarding the clubbing of subjects C and D (Numerical and Mental Ability Test, and Mental Aptitude Test/I.Q. Test/Responding) as one paper, while treating them as separate subjects for assessment of minimum marks.

State of Uttar Pradesh’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the petitioners did not qualify for promotion as they failed to secure the minimum 50% marks in each of the four subjects of the written examination.
• The State referred to the Board’s decision dated 22 February 2011, which specified that only candidates who obtained minimum 50% marks in each of the three objective type subjects would have their Hindi Essay paper evaluated.
• The State contended that the selection process was conducted in stages, with shortlisting of candidates based on the minimum qualifying marks in each subject, which is within the domain of the Board.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section, but the core issue was:

1. Whether the petitioners, who failed to obtain minimum 50% marks in each subject of the written examination, are entitled to have their Hindi Essay paper evaluated and be considered for promotion.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished the case of Raghuraj Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, stating that the petitioners in that case were qualified, unlike the present petitioners.
• The Court relied on Rule 16(2), Note 2 of the Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules, 2008, which mandates a minimum of 50% marks in each subject for eligibility.
• The Court also relied on the decision of the Board dated 22.02.2011, which clarified that only candidates who secured minimum 50% marks in the three objective type subjects would have their Hindi Essay paper evaluated.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the strict adherence to the rules and regulations governing the promotion process. The Court emphasized that the minimum qualifying marks criteria were clearly laid out in the rules and the Board’s decision, and that these criteria were applied uniformly to all candidates. The court also took into consideration the fact that the decision of the Board was taken prior to the date of the examination and no fault can be found with the same. The Court also noted that more than 50,000 candidates appeared for the examination and the short-listing of the candidates in stages is within the domain of the Board and cannot said to be arbitrary and discriminatory.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal interpretations and the application of rules, with a lesser emphasis on the factual aspects of the case.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court’s reasoning was based on the clear stipulations of the rules and the Board’s decision. The Court rejected the petitioners’ arguments for leniency or a re-evaluation, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed criteria.

The Court stated, “The scheme of the examination conducted for selection by promotion to the post of Sub-Inspectors of Police is in accordance with Rule 16 of the said Rules. There are three subjects which are categorized as objective type. Note 2 of Rule 16 provides that a candidate who fails to obtain minimum of 50% marks in each subject shall not be eligible for promotion.”

The Court further clarified, “The decision of the Board dated 22.02.2011 makes it clear that unless a candidate obtains minimum 50% marks in the objective type subjects, they shall not be entitled to seek evaluation of the Hindi Essay Subject. Such of those candidates who failed to secure 50% marks in the objective type subjects stood disqualified.”

The Court also noted, “It is clear from the sample papers circulated to the candidates much in advance that subjects C and D would be treated separately though both the subjects were clubbed for the purpose of holding examination.”

Key Takeaways

• Candidates must secure minimum qualifying marks in each subject of a promotional examination to be eligible for further evaluation.
• Rules and regulations governing recruitment and promotion processes must be strictly adhered to.
• The decisions of the Board regarding the conduct of examinations and evaluation criteria are valid and binding.
• The court will not provide relief to candidates who fail to meet the minimum qualifying criteria, even if vacancies exist.

Directions

No specific directions were issued by the Supreme Court in this case. The Court simply dismissed the writ petitions.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a candidate must secure minimum qualifying marks in each subject of a promotional examination to be eligible for further evaluation. This judgment reinforces the principle that recruitment and promotion processes must strictly adhere to the rules and regulations, and no leniency can be shown to candidates who fail to meet the minimum qualifying criteria. There is no change in the previous positions of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the decision of the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board that candidates must secure a minimum of 50% marks in each subject of the written examination to be eligible for promotion to the post of Sub-Inspector. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the rules and regulations governing the promotion process and clarified that candidates who fail to meet the minimum qualifying criteria cannot be considered for further evaluation or promotion.