PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners in this writ filed by them wider "Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seek a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to offer and post them as constables for which posts they were duly selected. Brief facts substantiated from pleadings of the parties are that the Government of Haryana invited applications for recruitment of constables in reespective district head quarters in the State of Haryana. The recruitment was to be done on 27th and 28th of September, 1991. Advertisement to this effect was given in almost all the major newspapers. The petitioners presented themselves for the purpose of recruitment before the Superintendents of Police to the selection committee, headed by the Inspector General of Police, Haryana (respondent No.3). The committee declared the names of the petitioners along with others in the list of successful candidates. Thereafter the petitioners wore sent for medical examination, as is clear from the proforma, which has been attached with the writ petition as Annexure P-1. The same reads as follows :-

(2.) In the written statement filed by the respondents through Shri S.H. Mohan, IPS, Inspector General of Police, Haryana, it has been stated that there was proposal to fill up the existing vacancies of constables in the Haryana Police through fresh recruitment and the Director General of Police, Haryana, vide letter dated September 9, 1991, had given directions for recruitment and had also constituted the Recruitment Board. It was made explicitly clear that the recruitment would be based purely on merits and no other consideration would be allowed to influence the selection process. The recruitments was conducted in' two stages, i.e. the eligibility tests and the physical tests. The eligibility tests were conducted by the District Superintendents of Police at district level where the candidates belonging to the same district were allowed to compete in the eligibility tests, which included educational qualifications, age, measurement of both height and chest, authentication of the title relating to reservation and the prospective candidates were also made to run 1500 meters in six minutes for general category and in 7.5 minutes in case of Scheduled Caste/Backward Class candidates. The candidates, who fulfilled the qualifications and the eligibility tests, were directed to report to the Board at Madhuban, which was specifically constituted for finalising the recruitment by conducting physical tests. At the time of recruitment on October 2,1991, many candidates appeared before the recruitment Board and complained that though they were physically fit and had qualified all the tests, they were ignored by the Superintendents of Police. The Board after discussion felt that all those candidates, who were physically fit should be given a chance to compete in all the physical tests, provided they were fit and eligible as per Punjab Police Rules. A letter was written to the Director General of Police regarding this decision on October 2, 1991 who allowed the eligible candidates to compete again. The Board was consisting of one Inspector General of Police, two Deputy Inspectors General of Police and three Superintendents of Police. Firstly, the height and chest were measured and those candidates were outrightly rejected who were found below specifications. Thereafter, the physical tests were conducted. The. physical tests included 800 meters race, broad jump, high jump, shot put and 100 meters race. The merit list was prepared on the basis of performance of the prospective candidates in the physical tests. It was admitted that the petitioners qualified the eligibility tests as well as the physical tests at Madhuban, but they were not found upto the prescribed specifications in the physical standard, so they were not- allotted constabulary numbers, because they were not eligible. It was, however, admitted that police verifications of the character and antecedents of the petitioners were also conducted, but before recruiting and issuing them constabulary numbers and finally selecting the candidates, they were once again measured to fully satisfy that only the candidates with prescribed specifications are selected. It is also pleaded in the written statement that even though the petitioners qualified the tests and were selected, but when they were measured again in height and chest, they were not found upto the prescribed specifications and so they were not allotted constabulary numbers. With regard to the specific assertion of the petitioners that persons lower in merit were given constabulary number and they were undergoing the training also, no reply has been given in the written statement. It appears (hat inasmuch as the contents of the written statement were somewhat confusing and it is not clear therefrom as to whether the petitioners competed successfully with regard to the physical tests that was conducted by the Board consisting of one Inspector General of Police, two Deputy Inspectors General of Police and three Superintendents of Police, the petitioners thought it expedient to file replication, wherein it has been specifically averred that all the petitioners underwent eligibility tests firstly at district headquarters and who fulfilled the qualifications and eligibility tests were directed to report to the Board at Madhuban, then the Board again conducted the eligibility tests. It is further averred that the Board did not find the petitioners deficient in the prescribed specifications of the physical standard and in fact it was only after the green signal of the Board that the candidates were sent for medical examination. It is further stated that the petitioners were sent for medical examination and were found fit. A reply to this replication has also been filed by the respondents, wherein it has been admitted that though the petitioners were recommended by the selection committee for recruitment as they had qualified the eligibility tests as well as the physical tests at Madhuban, but before recruiting and issuing them constabulary numbers, the finally selected candidates were once again measured to fully satisfy that only the candidates with prescribed specifications are selected and it is in this measurement etc. that the petitioners did not answer the prescribed specifications as some of them had less chest measurement and some had less height measurement than prescribed for the constables.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners rightly contends that once the petitioners had cleared all the tests and had come to the required specifications as laid down even by the Board constituted on that behalf, there was no question for the respondents thereafter to again put the petitioners to the same tests, which they had already cleared and in fact all this exercise was done again with a view to ignore them. Even though the pleadings are as mentioned above clearly demonstrate that the petitioners were successful in all the prescribed standards that were laid when they were examined by the Board, constituted for that purpose, yet on asking the counsel appearing for the State on the basis of the record, that he had with him, it not denied that the petitioners were successful in the tests that were gone into when the Board was constituted. If that be the position, we find no reason whatsoever for the respondents to have again put the petitioners and others to the same very tests, which they had already cleared. !f for some cogent reasons,, the Board was of the view that the process gone into by itself was amiss or some irregularities were committed, then in that case it is Board itself, which had to have taken such a decision as also itself examined the various candidates with regard to various items that were prescribed. But their action in putting the petitioners and others to the very tests in which the candidates had appeared before the Board and that too which was headed by the Superintendents of Police does not commend to us. Such action, in our considered view, was wholly unjustified. Judicial restraint guides us not to comment upon the motive with which the petitioner accuse the respondents and, therefore, it will be enough to say that the procedure adopted by the respondents to put the petitioners to a test, which they had cleared twice over, was not justified.