SATISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner had appeared in the B1 test conducted by Commandant, 3rd Battalion, Hisar with his batch-mates in the year 2010. On the basis of the merit prepared, the list of candidates who appeared in B1 test, was prepared by the Department Promotion Committee and was forwarded to I.G.P., Haryana, Armed Police, Madhuban, for approval. The list included the name of the petitioner, which was duly recommended by the Chairman, Department Promotion Committee. However, the petitioner did not find his name in the final select list declared for admission to the promotion list B1 issued on 20.4.2010. The petitioner applied for obtaining information under R.T.I. Act. On receipt of details of marks as well as the merit position of the selected candidates in B1 list, the petitioner found that he was shown to have secured 65.5 marks and was at Sr.No. 43 of the select list of the general category candidates. Respondent No. 5 had secured 65 marks and was at Sr.No. 44 whereas respondent No. 6, Pardeep Kumar with 63.75 marks was shown at Sr.No. 45. Similarly, Kiran Kumar (64 marks) and Jagdish Chander (51.5 marks) were shown at Sr.Nos. 46 and 47 of the select list. The petitioner represented on 6.1.2011. Respondent No. 3, however, rejected his representation by pointing out that the petitioner had been assigned 5 marks of education being M.A. whereas he had only shown M.A. previous qualification in his character roll. Thus, the marks obtained by the petitioner were 62.5 instead of 65 marks whereas last cut off marks in general category was 64. The petitioner has accordingly challenged this order on the ground that this is arbitrary and malafide and has accordingly prayed for quashing the same, whereby the Inspector General has reduced the marks of the petitioner from 65 to 62.5 without any justification.

(2.) In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4, it is stated that 55 seats were allocated to all HAP Battalion for selection of Constables for promotion to list B1 for the year 2010 under 55% quota. Department Promotion Committee, under the chairmanship of Commandant, 3rd Battalion, HAP, Hisar, was constituted and on line B1 test was conducted. The petitioner appeared in the general category under 55% quota. The name of the petitioner was recommended by the Chairman for approval to the Inspector General of Haryana Armed Police, Madhuban, as per Rule 13.7 (Amended) of the Punjab Police Rules. The petitioner was granted marks for higher education (M.A., History) by the Chairman. It was found that the petitioner did not inform the department about passing M.A. Final examination at the time of B1 test 2010. The petitioner, however, informed the department on 14.4.2010, when all the process of B1 test had been completed. The application of the petitioner regarding this information is annexed with the reply as Annexure R-1. The on line test was conducted on 10th and 11th April, 2010. As per Rule 13.7, educational qualifications are to be brought for evaluation of merit for list B1 as on 1st January of the year in which the selection is made. As per the record, the petitioner had only passed M.A. previous examination as on 1.1.2010 and accordingly, the Inspector General, HAP, Madhuban, disallowed 5 marks to the petitioner awarded to him by the Department Promotion Committee on account of his higher qualification. It is stated that recommendations of the Department Promotion Committee can not be considered final, until the same are approved by the Inspector General, who is the controlling Officer. It is also pointed out that the whole service record of the petitioner was scrutinized and thereafter it was found that he had only obtained 62.05 marks whereas cut off marks for general category candidate was 64 marks. Hence, the name of the petitioner was rightly rejected by Inspector General, HAP, Madhuban.

(3.) When the case came up for hearing before this Court on 28.7.2011, the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner was rightly assessed by the Department Promotion Committee and given 65.5 marks. As per the counsel, the marks awarded to the petitioner by Department Promotion Committee were wrongly and arbitrarily brought down to 62.05 by Inspector General. The justification given in the reply was noted. The stand was that the petitioner had shown his post-graduation degree after the assessment. However, it was noticed that the petitioner had in fact passed his post graduation degree in the year 2009 i.e. much before the date he was required to be considered for B1 list. The petitioner had produced the degree at the time of interview and that is how he was assessed by the Department Promotion Committee and awarded marks for post-graduation degree. In this factual background, the action of the Inspector General in reducing the marks of the petitioner was observed to be not well founded. The State counsel was given time to have instructions and the case was accordingly adjourned.