SANJAY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the present petition, the petitioner, who is an aspirant for appointment as a Male Constable (General Duty) in the Haryana Police, challenges sub-rule 16 of Rule 12.16 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') on the ground that it prescribes 15 marks for interview, out of a total of 35 marks, the remaining 20 marks being for Physical Efficiency Test. According to the petitioner, the percentage of marks being 43% of the total, renders the impugned Rule ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner says that the impugned Rule gives wide discretion to the respondents which would result in nepotism, favourtism, corrupt practices etc. during selection of Police Constables. According to the petitioner, there being 20 marks kept for Physical Efficiency Test, only 03 marks should be kept for interview and only if this is done, then the marks kept for interview would be within the permissible limit, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Hasia etc. vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and others, 1981 AIR(SC) 487 and Ashok Kumar Yadav vs. State of Haryana, 1987 AIR(SC) 454 The other ground raised by the petitioner is that the process of recruitment of Constables by keeping 43% marks for interview is not transparent and goes against the recommendations of the Ministry of Home Affairs.

(2.) The case set up by the petitioner, at first blush, appears to be attractive but does not stand closer scrutiny. A perusal of the advertisement issued by the Haryana Police Recruitment Board for recruitment of male/female Constables (General Duty) in the Haryana Police gives out the following eligibility :-

(3.) The other relevant clauses of the advertisement are clauses 9 and 10, which are also reproduced below for ready reference :-