http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4282 of 2006

PETITIONER: Narinder Singh                                           

RESPONDENT: State of Haryana and Ors.                                        

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/09/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising Out of S.L.P. (C) No.18642 of 2005)

With  

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4283 of  2006 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.22044 of 2005)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

       Leave granted.

       Challenge in these appeals is to the judgment rendered  by a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court  dismissing the writ petition so far as it related to the present  appellants while issuing notice to the other two writ  petitioners.  

       The High Court held that the present appellants are not  entitled to the benefit in terms of Rule 3.8 of Police Training  College Manual (in short the ’Manual’) and thus not entitled to  grant of grace marks. As noted supra, in the case of co-writ  petitioners notice was issued by the High Court. According to  learned counsel for the appellants various submissions were  made before the High Court which it did not notice and only  on the ground that no benefit was available under Rule 3.8 of  the Manual the writ petition was dismissed.

       Learned counsel for the respondent-State, however,  supported the order of the High Court.  

So far as claim of different submissions made by the  appellants as is clear from a bare reading of the writ petition  they were essentially as follows:

"(i)    That action of the respondents is contrary  to the Police Training College Manual  wherein four chances have been provided  and services of the petitioners are being  terminated only after granting two  chances.

(ii)    That the petitioners were not even  allowed to complete their one year

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

training as per Rules. Rather first  examination was conducted when they  have only completed 9 months training.

(iii)   That even sufficient time was not granted  to the petitioners when 2nd time  examination was conducted.

(iv)    That earlier also many chances have been  given to pass the examination. Even  opportunity was granted to pass the  training fresh to many candidates.  

(v)     That to discharge the petitioners only  after granting two opportunities is on the  face of it arbitrary and illegal.

(vi)    That the course was very lengthy and  there was no proper instructors to teach  the law subjects and even the  examinations were conducted without  completing the full, one year training."           The writ petition was dismissed so far as the present  appellants are concerned at the admission stage. No notice  had been issued and no counter affidavit had been filed. The  stand of learned counsel for the State is that various stands  highlighted by the appellant in the writ petition are clearly  unsustainable in law.  

       A bare reading of the High Court’s order shows that it did  not consider the various stands of the appellants. It also did  not mention that no other point except that relating to Rule  3.8 of the Manual was pressed into service. Had it been so, the  grievance of the appellants would have been without any  basis. But the High Court did not even refer to the various  stands taken by the appellants. It was open to the High Court  to discard the plea but to restrict consideration to one point  and not to others was certainly not a permissible course. It  may be, as contended by learned counsel for the State, that  different pleas as raised are without any substance. But that  should have been clearly indicated in the impugned order.   That having not done so, we set aside the order of the High  Court and remand the case to it for a fresh disposal in  accordance with law.  Since the counter affidavit has not been  filed by the respondents before the High Court, let them do so  within a period of four weeks. Since the matter is of some  urgency the High Court is requested to decide the writ  application as early as possible preferably by the end of  December, 2006. We make it clear that we have not expressed  any opinion so far as acceptability or otherwise of the stands  taken by the writ petitioner nos.1 and 2 and/or the  acceptability of various stands as noted above taken by  present appellants.           The appeals are allowed. There will be no order as to  costs.