Dismissal Order Quashed — Police Constables’ Petition for PSI Promotion Eligibility Restored by Division Bench
Fifteen police constables (Unarmed) appointed in the batch of 2011 had applied for selection to the post of Police Sub-Inspector (Unarmed), Class-III under the Special Competitive Examination Rules, 2024. Despite having served for 13 to 14 years, they were disqualified on the ground that they had not completed the minimum requisite service period of 15 years as stipulated under Rule 5(a) of the advertisement. Their petition before the learned Single Judge was dismissed vide order dated 02.09.2025.
- 2011: Appellants appointed as Constables (Unarmed) in the same selection batch.
- 2024: PSI (Unarmed) Class-III Special Competitive Examination Rules, 2024 announced — requiring 15 years of service for eligibility.
- 2025: Appellants applied but were denied permission to appear in the physical test — having completed only 13–14 years of service.
- 02.09.2025: SCA No. 10177 of 2025 dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
- 07.11.2025: Division Bench issues notice in LPA No. 1193 of 2025 and directs listing alongside SCA No. 10904 of 2025 (similarly situated petitioners).
- 11.11.2025: Division Bench quashes the dismissal order and restores the petition.
- The appellants were identically situated to petitioners in SCA No. 10904 of 2025, who had been permitted to appear in the physical test by order dated 11.09.2025 — creating a direct and indefensible discrimination between two sets of similarly placed constables.
- Colleagues appointed through the same selection process and at the same time in different districts had been promoted to Head Constable and Assistant Sub-Inspector — making them eligible under Rule 5(a) — while the appellants were denied the same progression, solely due to district-level administrative differences beyond their control.
- Dismissing the appellants’ petition while the identical issue remained alive and pending before the Single Judge in SCA No. 10904 of 2025 would cause irreversible prejudice and permanently shut out the appellants from the examination cycle.
The Division Bench found that both sets of petitioners — in SCA No. 10177 of 2025 and SCA No. 10904 of 2025 — were “sailing in the same boat.” With the merits of the question already pending consideration before the Single Judge in the connected matter, allowing the dismissal order to stand would cause manifest injustice to the appellants.
The Court accordingly:
- Quashed and set aside the dismissal order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in SCA No. 10177 of 2025.
- Restored SCA No. 10177 of 2025 to file as if it had never been dismissed.
- Directed that SCA No. 10177 of 2025 be heard together with SCA No. 10904 of 2025 and all other allied matters before the learned Single Judge.
- The Letters Patent Appeal was disposed of accordingly, with full relief to the appellants.