(Dipak Misra and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ.)
Qamar Hasan Khan and Others ______________________ Petitioner(s);
v.
State of U.P. and Others __________________________ Respondent(s).
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 25377-25378/2014, decided on August 10, 2015
(With appln. (s) for directions and exemption from filing O.T. and impleadment and permission to file lengthy list of dates and interim relief and office report) With S.L.P.(C) Nos. 25413-25421/2014 (With appln.(s) for impleadment and appln.(s) for impleadment and appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for exemption from filing O.T. and appln.(s) for permission to file additional documents and appln.(s) for transposing respondents as petitioners and appln.(s) for impleadment as petitioner and interim relief and office report) S.L.P.(C) Nos. 25776-25779/2014 (With appln.(s) for directions and appln.(s) for permission to file synopsis and list of dates and appln.(s) for impleadment and interim relief and office report) S.L.P.(C)…CC 19942/2014 (With appln.(s) for permission to file SLP and interim relief and office report) S.L.P.(C)…CC 19945/2014 (With appln.(s) for permission to file SLP and interim relief and office report) S.L.P.(C)…CC 19948/2014 (With appln.(s) for permission to file SLP and interim relief and office report) Conmt. Pet.(C) No. 331/2015 In C.A. No. 6547/2014 (With Office Report)
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Permission to file the special leave petition is granted.
2. The interlocutory applications filed in the special leave petitions, including the applications for impleadment, are allowed.
3. In pursuance of our order dated 3-8-20151, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P., has circulated a note which indicates the list of dates. Learned counsel has given an overall picture, which reads as follows:
“3521 | Considered by Selection Committee (2008 vacancies) |
2033 | Selected – Sent for Training (23.7.2015) Cut-off 223.33334 marks |
252 | In Merit List, but overage, out of 324. |
1164 | Not selected on merit.” |
4. On a scrutiny of the same, we find that 252 candidates, who have got marks equal to or more than the candidates who have been sent for training, have not been sent because of age bar. It is submitted by Mr. Mehrotra that this Court had granted relaxation of age in respect of 110 candidates as one time measure and hence, no further relaxation of age can be granted.
5. When this Court granted relaxation of age by the order dated 9-3-20152, as a one time measure, the present fact situation was not before us. Be that as it may, without dwelling upon it, we direct the State to send 252 candidates for training by granting benefit of relaxation of age. The interlocutory applications for directions are, accordingly, disposed of.
6. In view of our order passed in the interlocutory applications for directions, the special leave petitions stand disposed of. No order as to costs.
7. It is hereby made clear that no court shall entertain any grievance relating to this particular selection. Our present order would not dislodge, if any candidate, who has already been selected or sent for training. Needless to emphasize, the present order has been passed regard being had to the special features of the case.
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 331 of 2015
8. Let the contempt petition be listed on 8th September, 2015, on which date Mr. Gaurav Bhatia, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State of U.P., shall produce the answer scripts of all the papers to show grant of proportionate marks in accordance of our order.
———
1 Qamar Hasan Khan v. State of U.P., IA Nos. 1 and 2 in SLP (C) No. 25377 of 2014, order dated 3-8-2015 (SC)
2 Qamar Hasan Khan v. State of U.P., SLP (C) No. 25377 of 2014, order dated 9-3-2015 (SC)
