RAJ PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment as constable in the service of Police Department of the Government Haryana on the basis of selection made in the Year 1992 is the sole question raised in the present writ petition.

(2.) In response to an advertisement for recruitment of constables in District Rohtak, the petitioner presented himself before the authorities and took part in the process of selection and qualified physical tests. The petitioner was examined by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the presence of the Superintendent of Police for chest and height measurement and was found to have possessed the requisite norms. According to allegations in the petition, a total of 60 candidates were selected and deputed for medical examination in accordance with rule 12.16 of the Punjab Police Rules (For short 'the Rules') on August 14, 1992 and thereafter the petitioner's name was entered in the list of recruits in accordance with rule 12.17 of the Rules. The petitioner filled certain proforma for verification of character antecedents and he along with others was shown to be medically fit. Report in that behalf, after verification was submitted to respondent No.3 and the petitioner was advised to report in the Police Lines, Rohtak in August 1992 for issue of constabulary number. It is further averred that according to the information of the petitioner, his name appeared in the selection list in the order of merit. Many candidates below the petitioner in the order of merit were given appointment but the petitioner was declined the same on the ground that the State Government had put ban on further recruitment. The petitioner in the situation has prayed that the respondents be directed to allot to him the constabulory number and enroll in the Haryana Police.

(3.) In the written statement, it is submitted that there were only 37 vacant posts and the first 37 candidates were appointed as Constables as per order of merit. The petitioner could not be appointed because his name did not figure in the merit of first 37 candidates. In para 5 of the written statement, it has been admitted that the petitioner was deputed for medical examination along with other candidates. In para 6 thereof, it is stated that character verification forms of the petitioner were sent for character antecedents verification only with a view that in case the posts am increased, he may be selected. Petitioner filed replication controverting the stand taken by the respondents and re-iterating the allegations set out in the writ petition.