SANDEEP KUMAR SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Appellant was one of the candidates before the Punjab Public Service Commission for selection to the cadre of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He was found fit in all respects except the height factor for which he was found deficient by 1. 20 cms. However, he was selected as Government of Punjab relaxed the requirement of physical fitness as for him in special consideration of the meritorious service rendered by his brother (one Satish Kumar Sharma, IPS) during the time when State Government was involved in a massive exercise for containing terrorism in Punjab. Third respondent challenged the said selection as he could secure only a post of Deputy Superintendent of Jail. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashed the selection of the appellant as Deputy Superintendent of Police and directed the Government to make appointment in the consequential vacancy from among the candidates who have been included in the merit list if petitioner had not been selected. The said judgment is now under challenge before us.

(3.) Some more facts are necessary to decide the question raised before us. Punjab Public Service Commission published an advertisement on 12-6-1993, as follow up of a requisition made by the Government of Punjab, inviting applications for 20 posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police and 6 posts of Deputy Superintendents of Jail/District Probation Officer. Appellant and third respondent were among the various candidates who submitted applications for the aforesaid posts. In the written test conducted on 25-2-1994 appellant came out successful, but in the physical measurement (fitness) test conducted on 6-5-1994, appellant was found short in height by 1. 20 cms. In the meanwhile Government formulated a policy on 6-5-1994 to show special consideration towards "relatives of those who have either suffered due to terrorism or have faced terrorism boldly and have contributed towards overcoming it". It appears that Government felt that "on account of their background and circumstances such individuals are bound to be more dedicated and committed". When appellant was found deficient to fit in with the requirements very marginally he moved the Government for relaxation of the specification regarding height in his case. Government passed an order on 14-5-1994, the operative part of which reads thus: