Physical & Mental Fitness Paramount For Police Force: P&H High Court Dismisses Plea Of 40-Yr Old Man Seeking Appointment To Post Issued 15 Yrs Ago

The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed the plea seeking appointment in Haryana Police alleging that he was awarded lesser marks in the interview to favour relatives of politicians in a recruitment exam conducted in 2008.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "The petitioners, at present, are more than 40 years. Physical/mental fitness is of paramount consideration in the Police Force. The petitioners cannot be expected of having fitness as postulated for an Inspector of Police at the time of initial appointment."

The Court noted that in the case in hand, the selected candidates whose appointment were challenged, are working for last 15 years and they must have achieved good experience of maintenance of law and order. "Substitution of their appointment by petitioners would not be in the interest of public at large."

The Court was hearing a batch of three writ petitions filed by the candidates who appeared in 2008 exam conducted by the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) for Inspector of Police.

It was alleged that petitioners secured well in written test but they were awarded lesser marks in interview and candidates who were close relatives of ruling political Party were awarded higher marks. 

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, pursuant to the direction of the Court, a three-member Committee in its 2023 report stated that despite specific instructions regarding the booklet and answer sheet, many candidates used whitener, yet their papers were evaluated, and they were selected

"There is need to compare actual signatures/handwriting of these candidates with signature/handwriting on the OMR sheets," he added.

After examining the submissions, the Court noted that the allegation against the selected candidates is that they have used fluid or scratched answer sheets. There are two candidates against whom there is allegation of impersonation and two candidates have not properly mentioned their roll number/date of exam.

The Court examined the cuts made and marks secured by the accused candidates and said, "it is evident that Gaurav Sharma initially selected correct answers whereas he finally selected incorrect answers. It conclusively indicates that it was not a case of connivance between Recruitment Board and the said candidate. One can understand if incorrect answers are substituted by correct answers by scratching or use of fluid."

Justice Bansal highlighted that it is highly improbable and difficult to believe that a candidate having connivance with Recruitment Board or access to illegal means would circle incorrect answers though he initially opted correct answers. "It is also apt to notice that he has not completely circled the option which was later on scratched," added the Court.

The Court pointed that there was no human intervention in the evaluation of answer sheets. The sheets were fed in the computer and marks were generated and only selected but also many unselected candidates used fluid or scratched their answer sheets.

"From the perusal of instructions, it is evident that candidate was duty bound to use ball point/ink pen to fill the circle of the OMR Sheet. It means use of any writing instrument other than ball point/ink pen to circle the correct option was not permissible," it added.

The Court found that there were procedural irregularities on part of the accused candidates but "there was neither fraud on their part nor connivance with Recruitment Board."

Justice Bansal opined that in the absence of illegalities, the Court cannot set aside selection of candidates who are working with State Police for last 15 years and they have been promoted from the post of Inspector to Deputy Superintendent of Police.

The Court concluded that in any case, on account of pendency of litigation before this Court, natural instincts and human tendency must have inhibited them from committing any misconduct. Cancellation of their selection would be worse than alleged irregularities.

Stating that "It is well-known that solution cannot be worse than problem," the Court dismissed the plea.

TITLE: AMIT KUMAR V. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 126

Click here to read/download the order

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sushant Kareer, Advocate, Mr. Akhilesh Barak, Advocate and Mr. Jagtej Singh Kang, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-22884-2010).

Mr. Lekhraj Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-13414-2011).

Ms. Palika Monga, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Gurminder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. J.S. Gill, Advocate,

Mr. G.S. Beniwal, Advocate and Mr. Nitish Bansal, Advocate for respondent Nos.4, 5, 7, 10, 12 and 13 to 16 in CWP-13414-2011.

Mr. Ram Niwas, Advocate for Mr. R.K. Doon, Advocate for respondent Nos.4 and 5 (in CWP-22884-2010).

Mr. Akshay Kumar Goel, Advocate for respondent No.11 (in CWP-22884-2010 & CWP-13414-2011).

Mr. Dinesh Arora, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Khatkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.13, 17, 18 & 19 in CWP-22884-2010 and for respondent No.18 in CWP- 13414-2011.

Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Premi, Advocate, Ms. Triyyambika Rao, Advocate

Ms. Nandita Verma, Advocate and for respondent No.19

in CWP-13414-2011 & respondent No.12 in CWP-22884-2010.

Mr. Mahipal S. Yadav, Advocate for respondent No.14 in CWP-22884-2010.

Mr. D.S. Patwalia, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sehar Navjeet Singh, Advocate for respondent Nos.22 (in CWP-13414-2011).

Mr. Govind Mor, Advocate for respondent No.15 (in CWP-22884-2010).

Mr. J.S. Ahlawat, Advocate and Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate for respondent No.21 in CWP-13414-2011, CWP-22884-2010 & CWP-2476-2011.

Mr. Ravinder Malik (Ravi), Advocate for respondent No.15 in CWP-22884-2010 & respondent No.22 in CWP-13414-2011.