High Court Imposes ₹3 Lakh Cost On Haryana Staff Selection Commission For Unjustly Rejecting Woman In Physical Test For Constable Post
The Punjab & Haryana High Court imposed a cost of Rs 3 Lakh on Haryana Staff Selection Commission (Commission) for unjustly denying a woman candidate for the post of Constable.
After qualifying the recruitment exam, the candidate was disqualified in physical test because the height was not properly measured and thereafter her claim was unjustly rejected by the Commission "on one pretext or the other."
Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu said, "Since action of the respondent(s) is found to be wholly illegal and petitioner is being dragged in the avoidable litigation for the last six years; therefore, in order to ameliorate her miseries, the Commission is burdened with exemplary costs of ` 3 Lakh, which shall be paid to the petitioner."
The Court noted that, "unfortunately, instead of redressing her grievance, now at this stage, the Commission has come up altogether with a new plea that on the cut- off date, petitioner was overage for the post in question."
These observations were made while hearing the plea under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing of the Physical Measurement Test (PMT) report issued in 2019, vide which petitioner was declared unqualified illegally, arbitrarily and without adopting proper procedure for measurement of her height in the PMT for the Post of Female Constable.
The Commission initially rejected the candidature on the ground that she is not fulfilling the criteria of height i.e. 156 cm. However it was found that the height was not measured properly and she was qualified the criteria. Instead of accepting her claim, the Commission keep rejecting her candidature "unjustly" for different reasons.
Later, the Commission took the stand that petitioner was born on 04.03.1987, the cut- off date for reckoning the age was fixed as 01.04.2018; thus, according to the respondents, on the cut-off date, she had attained the age of 31 years and 28 days; hence, her case was rejected.
The judge opined that, "the stand taken by respondents is wholly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory; thus, unacceptable."
The Court noted that the petitioner has cleared all three steps i.e. Knowledge Test, PST & PMT for selection to the post in question; but now at this belated stage, the Commission has rejected her candidature on the premise that she was overage on the cut-off date i.e. 01.04.2018, "which in the opinion of this Court is wholly illegal," it remarked.
Referring to the Haryana Police (Non Gazettted and Other Ranks) Service Rules, 2017, the Court observed that, "the Commission, even in the worst scenario, instead of rejecting the claim of petitioner on account of being overage, ought to have referred the matter for consideration of the Government being the competent authority; but it seems that Commission is bent upon to victimize the petitioner by hook or crook and/or made it as a prestige issue, to dislodge her claim by all means."
In light of the above, the Court concluded that, "the Commission has rejected the lawful claim of petitioner without any justification and determined to harass the poor lady, who belongs to ESM-SC Category."
It was also considered that she has been maintaining two minor children and fighting for the last six years.
Stating that, "objection raised by the Commission is totally frivolous and indefensible in law; hence, deserves to be deprecated in strongest words," the Court directed to treat the petitioner fully eligible and duly qualified for the post in question under ESM- SC Category as per her merit in response to the Advertisement issued in 2018 and to proceed, without any further delay.
Mr. Lalit Rishi, Mr. Aman Godara & Mr. Rohit Singh, Advocates along with petitioner.
Mr. Kiran Pal Singh, AAG, Haryanafor the respondents assisted by Mr. Abhijeet Kulkarni, M.D.-cum-C.E.O., HKCL, Mr. Abhishek Rai, Programme Manager, HKCL,
Ms. Sunita Arora, Company Secretary, HKCL,
Mr. Williampreet Singh, Assistant Manager, HKCL,
Mr. Kamal Kumar & Ms. Mehvish, Assistant District Attorneys, HSSC.
Title: Karishma v. State of Haryana and others