After 15 yrs, 42 constables to become PSIs

The verdict draws the curtain on a legal battle that began in 1986 between the constables and the state government over appointment procedures for promotion to the post of sub-inspectors. Though the judgement was delivered in April, the state government got its copy only last week.

The 66 constables who filed writ petitions in the last two years sought the benefit of government resolution dated July 27, 1999 granting one per cent grace marks to candidates appearing in the selection process. The petitioners sought the benefit of the resolution saying they had failed to clear oral interviews because of shortfall of a few marks, though they had cleared the written and physical tests.

The court observed that of the list of 66 petitioner-candidates, 42 who secured between 35-38 marks in oral exams would have to be declared passed if they are given the benefit of one per cent by way of grace marks in the total 500-marks exam. The passing marks for orals are 40 out of 100. In view of the long pendency of the present dispute, the history of the earlier litigation and the fact that there are only about 42 candidates who would be entitled to this benefit with existence of sufficient vacancies, the court asked special counsel for the state and police, Nari Gursahani, if it would be possible to extend the GR’s benefit to these candidates.

Gursahani did not object, saying while a formal government concession may not be recorded, the court’s suggestion would subserve in the interest of justice and it would be left to the court to take an appropriate decision.

The judges said: “In arriving at the decision we have regard to the fact that there has been a history of litigation involving constables in the employment of the state government who had sought promotion as police sub-inspectors. The grant of grace marks would, we hope and trust, finally bring to an end the dispute on selection for admission for training course for police sub-inspectors at the Police Training College, Nashik.”

The first of these pleas dates to 1986. The selection procedures envisaged an written exam, an outdoor physical test and an interview. The petitioners who appeared for the 1998 exam cleared the first two exams but failed in orals. The resolution granting one per cent marks (i.e. 5 marks) to candidates who had appeared in the selection process came on July 27, 1999. But the court ordered benefit even to those candidates who appeared in fresh interviews in ’98.

The petition had also taken strong exception to the constitution of the Selection Board and said the procedure for giving marks was “arbitrary.” Earlier they had approached the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. The petitioners were represented by Y S Jahagirdar, P N Joshi, Ramrao Adik and Sanjiv Kadam.