LAWS(P&H)-2026-2-55

SEEMA RANI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On February 03, 2026
SEEMA RANI Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking direction to respondent to promote her as Head Constable w.e.f. 28/12/2014 and refix her seniority from the said date.

(2.) The petitioner was recruited as Constable in Haryana Police on 7/3/2007. She in 2014 participated in Lower School Course competition conducted by respondent under 55% quota. She scored 55 out of 60 marks in the written test. She stood first in the written test. As per procedure prescribed under Rule 13.7 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana) (for short 'PPR'), she participated in the second stage test i.e. parade test. As per Rule 13.7(3) of PPR, she was supposed to secure at least 50% marks in parade test. She scored 7.5 out of 20 marks, thus, she was not called for interview. It is apt to notice here that 86 lady constables appeared in online B-1 test held on 27/12/2014 and 30 qualified the same. Out of aforesaid 30 Constables, 22 could qualify parade test and 7 were finally selected for Lower School Course.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that out of selected candidates, there were two Constables who were pregnant at the time of parade test. Their pregnancy was at advance stage, thus, it was impossible for them to participate in the parade test. Nevertheless, they were shown as having participated and were awarded requisite marks. The petitioner repeatedly requested for copy of video prepared at the time of parade test. She was not supplied copy of video because it would have exposed that private respondents even did not participate in the parade test still were awarded requisite marks and were finally selected. Discrimination is writ large. The petitioner again participated in the competition held in 2017. She again topped in the written test and was finally selected in Lower School Course. These facts collectively indicate that petitioner was discriminated and undue advantage was given to private respondents.