NARINDER SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 687 · Decided: 27-09-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

NARINDER SINGH 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARY ANA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 27, 2006 
[ARIJIT PASA Y AT AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.) 
B 
Judgment: 
Pleas raised by parties-Non-consideration of-Effect-High Court C 
·arriving at a decision without considering the various pleas raised by the 
petitioner-Held: Not proper-Matter remitted back for fresh disposal. 
The challenge in these appeals is to the decision of High Court 
dismissing the writ petition so far it related to the present appellants while 
issuing notice to the other writ petitioners. The grievance of appellants is D 
that they had made various submissions before the High Court which were 
not noticed and the writ petition was dismissed only on the ground that no 
benefit was available under Rule 3.8 of the Police Training College Manual. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD:.The High Court's order shows that it had not considered the 
various stands of the appellants. It also did not mention that no other point 
except that relating to Rule 3.8 of the Police Training ·college Manual was 
pressed into service. Had it been so, the grievance of the appellants would 
have been without any basis. It was open to the High Court to discard the plea. F 
But to restrict consideration to one point and not to others was certainly not 
a permissible course. It may be, 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, the order of the High Court is set aside and the case 
remanded to it for a fresh disposal in accordance with law.1689-D-Fl 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4282 of2006. 
From the Final Judgment/Order dated 4.7.2005 of the High Court of 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 9808/2005. 
687 
G 
H 
688 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
WITH 
C.A. No. 4283/2006. 
L.N. Rao, Abhisth Kumar and K.N. Tripathy for the Appellant in C.A. 
No. 428212006. 
B 
Radha Shyam Jena for the Appellant in C.A. No. 4283/2006. 
Ajay Siwach and T.V. George for the Respondents. 
c 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
" 
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 
D 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 ' 
E 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 
F 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 
G 
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 training as per Rules. Rather first examination was conducted 
H 
when they have only completed 9 months training. 
...
NARINDERSINGHv. STATEOFHARYANA[PASAYAT,J.] 
689 
(iii) That even sufficient time was not granted to the petitioners when A 
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 B 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.