State of Hp and Ors. Vs Amar Nath

¶1

( 2025:HHC:18368 )

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

LPA No. 129 of 2022

¶4

Reserved on: 29th May, 2025. Date of decision: 17th June, 2025

¶5

State of HP & others …Appellants

¶6

Versus Amar Nath …Respondent.

¶7

Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Appellants: Ms. Seema Sharma, Deputy Advocate General. For the Respondent: Respondent is proceeded ex-parte.

¶8

Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge

¶9

The appellant/State has filed this appeal against judgment dated 13.8.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition (Original Application) No. 6316 of 2019 titled Amar Nath vs. State of HP, whereby State/Department has been directed to revaluate the answer sheets of respondent of examination of Upper Class Course commenced from 16.4.2015 to 30.7.2015. 2 Respondent joined the Police Department as Constable on 31.7.1981. After successfully qualifying the Lower School Course, he was promoted to the post of Head Constable in the year 1992. On

¶10

2

¶11

( 2025:HHC:18368 )

¶12

passing of Intermediate School Course in the year 2007, he was promoted as Assistant Sub Inspector in February, 2007.

¶13

3 For next promotion from the post of Assistant Sub Inspector to Sub Inspector (SI), on the basis of seniority coupled with vacancy position of Sub Inspector, name of respondent was recommended for Upper Training Course scheduled from 16.4.2015, vide communication dated 1.4.2015.

¶14

4 The result of Upper Class Course ending in July, 2015 was declared vide communication dated 3.9.2015 wherein respondent was notified as ‘fail’ in two papers i.e. Local and Special.

¶15

5 Departmental examination of Lower, Intermediate and Upper School Course etc. are governed by Chapter 8 of the Police Training College Manual. The relevant provisions regarding failure in training provided under Chapter 8 read as under:-

¶16

“Failure in Training

¶17

“In case of failure of a trainee in up-to two written papers, he will be asked to appear in the next course for the said papers. However, the chance shall be given once only. In case of failure in more than two written papers, a trainee will to retake the entire course in the next time.

¶18

Similarly, in case of failure in two groups in outdoor examination, a trainee will have to reappear in the next course for the said groups. However, in case of failure in more than two

¶19

3

¶20

( 2025:HHC:18368 )

¶21

groups, a trainee will have to attend the next full course.”

¶22

6 Regarding procedure of Departmental Examination of Lower, Intermediate and Upper School Training Course, Department vide communication dated 29^th August, 2006 has framed Standing Order No. 1 of 2006 wherein provisions regarding failure in training are as under:-

¶23

“ 2. Failure in Training

¶24

“(a) In case of failure of a trainee in up-to two written papers, he will be asked to come in the next course to write these papers only. This chance will be given only once. However, in case of failure in more than 2 written papers, a trainee will have to come again and attend the next full course without TA/DA.

¶25

(b) In outdoor, in case of failure in 2 groups, a trainee will come in next course to clear only the said groups. This chance will be given only once. However, in case of failure in more than 2 groups, a trainee will have to attend the next full course afresh without TA/DA.

¶26

(c) In firing, a trainee will be given 2 more chances on departmental expenses in case of failure. If he again fails, one more than can be given at his cost. Thereafter, no chance will be given.”

¶27

4

¶28

( 2025:HHC:18368 )

¶29

7 Admittedly, in aforesaid provisions, on failure in training/papers, there is no provision for re-checking or revaluation of the paper(s).

¶30

8 Respondent, for revaluation of his papers, had approached the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 3523 of 2015 titled Amar Nath vs. State of HP which was disposed of vide order dated 5.10.2015 with direction to appellant to extend the benefit to respondent of the judgment passed in CWP No.2174 of 2015 titled Ashwani Kumar vs. State of HP.

¶31

9 In sequel to aforesaid direction passed by the Erstwhile Tribunal, claim of respondent to revaluate his papers was refused and rejected by Director General of Police which was communicated vide Office Order dated 31.10.2015, Annexure A-7.

¶32

10 Being aggrieved by aforesaid Office Order dated 31.10.2015, the respondent approached the Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal by filing OA No. 5303 of 2015.

¶33

11 On abolition of Erstwhile H.P. State Administrative Tribunal, the said Original Application was transmitted to this High Court and was registered as CWPOA No. 6316 of 2019, which has been allowed by learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment dated 13.8.2021 which is under challenge in present appeal.

¶34

12 Non-existence of provisions for revaluation/re-checking of papers of the Course, in reference in present matter, is an admitted

¶35

5

¶36

( 2025:HHC:18368 )

¶37

fact. However, plea has been taken by respondent that provisions for revaluation have been provided by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in H.P. Departmental Examination Rules, 1997, whereas examination i.e. Lower, Intermediate and Upper School Training Course are also examinations being undertaken by the Police Department for promotion of Police Officers/Officials, and therefore, silence of provisions in Police Training Manual and in Standing Order regarding revaluation/re-checking of paper, the provisions of H.P. Departmental Examination Rules, 1997 deserve to be invoked in present matter to provide opportunity of revaluation/re-checking of papers of respondent.

¶38

13 With aforesaid plea, respondent had approached the Court seeking following main reliefs:-

¶39

That the impugned Office Order dated 31.10.2015, whereby the claim of the Applicant has been rejected by respondent No.2 in an illegal and arbitrary manner may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶40

2 That the respondents may be directed to get the Local and Special paper of the applicant revaluated/rechecked from any independent agency or from higher authority on the analogy of the provisions contained in the Himachal Pradesh Departmental Examination Rules, 1997 and by importing the same provision in the Policy Training College Manual and Standing Order.

¶41

That the respondents may be further directed to consider the case for inserting the provision of

¶42

6

¶43

( 2025:HHC:18368 )

¶44

revaluation in Himachal Pradesh Police Training College Manual.

¶45

That in alternate, the respondents may be directed to consider the case of the applicant for grant of grace marks to the applicant, as past practice.

¶46

14 Learned Single Judge has not given any direction regarding prayer for inserting provisions of revaluation in H.P. Police Training College Manual or with respect to grant of grace marks to the respondent.

¶47

15 Further perusal of impugned judgment depicts that learned Single Judge has made clear observation that in absence of a specific and explicit provision with respect to revaluation of answer sheets of respondent in H.P. Police Training College Manual and Standing Order No. 1 of 2016, the Court cannot grant the respondent espoused relief.

¶48

16 Discussing the provisions of H.P. Departmental Examination Rules, it has also been observed by learned Single Judge that category of respondent is not covered under the categories to which H.P. Departmental Examination Rules are applicable.

¶49

17 Learned Single Judge by taking into consideration the non-existence of provisions of revaluation in Standing Order as well as in Himachal Pradesh Police Training College Manual has not found any illegality in the rejection order dated 31.10.2015.

¶50

7

¶51

( 2025:HHC:18368 )

¶52

18 Perusal of discussion contained in impugned judgment depicts that learned Single Judge has not accepted any of the grounds raised by petitioner for seeking directions referred supra to grant him relief claimed in the petition, rather learned Single Judge has rejected the plea of the respondent on each count including plea regarding illegality and arbitrariness of Office Order dated 31.10.2015 applicability of H.P. Departmental Examination Rules, 1997. Instead, Learned Single Judge has also observed that direction to provide provision for revaluation shall amount to enactment of relevant provision, which is not permissible. There is no discussion with respect to prayer to grant grace marks and therefore, such relief is also to be deemed to have been rejected.

¶53

19 From the record, it is apparent that Ashwani Kumar’s case was different than the present case as in that case, B-1 examination was conducted by the Police Department as per Standing Orders of 1993 and during that process, the Authority itself had invited applications for revaluation/re-checking within a time notified. However, Ashwani Kumar had failed to submit the application within the prescribed period and had submitted the application after expiry of time granted, and in those circumstances, for non-consideration of his application for revaluation, he had approached the Court seeking direction to respondent to consider his application for revaluation. In these circumstances, in Ashwani

¶54

8

¶55

( 2025:HHC:18368 )

¶56

Kumar’s case revaluation was permitted. Whereas in present case, there is no provision for revaluation nor any application has been invited by Authority for revaluation of the papers. Learned Single Judge has also observed that in absence of such provision, no such direction or provision can be enacted by the Court for revaluation of the papers. Thus, claim of respondent on the analogy of Ashwani Kumar’s case stands rightly rejected by Authority as well as by learned Single Judge.

¶57

20 However, in the last, with the observation that members of H.P. Police obviously render service in connection with affairs of the State of Himachal Pradesh and therefore, this fact eclipses the effect of non-existence of any Clause for revaluation in the Standing Order, direction has been issued to the appellants to revaluate the answer sheets of respondent and to disclose the result thereof to him within two weeks from the date of passing of judgment.

¶58

21 Feeling aggrieved by aforesaid direction, appellant/State has filed present appeal. Despite service, respondent did not opt to contest the appeal either for repelling the plea taken by State or for re-agitating his claim for insertion of provision of revaluation in the relevant Standing Order and Himachal Pradesh Police Training College Manual or granting him grace marks or for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31.10.2015 or with respect to his prayer to direct

¶59

9

¶60

( 2025:HHC:18368 )

¶61

revaluation on the analogy of provisions contained in H.P. Departmental Examination Rules, 1997.

¶62

22 In aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is apparent that though every plea raised by respondent was rejected by learned Single Judge, however direction to revaluate the answer sheets of respondent has been given which is not sustainable.

¶63

23 In view of above discussion, we are of considered opinion that direction passed by learned Single Judge to revaluate the answer sheets of respondent is unwarranted and is not sustainable and accordingly, said direction is quashed and set aside.

¶64

Appeal is disposed of in aforesaid terms. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶65

(Vivek Singh Thakur), Judge.

¶66

17^th June, 2025(ms) (Ranjan Sharma), Judge.

State of Hp and Ors. v. Amar Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Hp and Ors. v. Amar Nath

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Hp and Others Vs Gholi Ram

Vinod Kumar and Others Vs the State of Hp and Others

Sahil Kumar Vs Hpseb Ltd.

State of Hp and Others Vs Jeevan Lal

Harish Kaushal Vs Union of India and Others

Dr Subhash Thakur Vs State of Hp