Sanjeev Kumar and Another vs State of Haryana and Others

Rajiv Narain Raina, J.—Heard. The Director General of Police, Haryana had allotted 27 seats for the Lower School Course (Male Cadre) for the year 2010 under 55% quota seats reserved for District Karnal vide office memo dated 14.01.2010. Resultantly, only 27 candidates could be approved for being deputed to the Lower School Course under the 55% quota. B-1 test was conducted in District Karnal. A total of 326 candidates both male and female Constables had initially appeared in the online written computer test. The Departmental Promotion Committee declared 58 male Constables as having passed the test and the list was sent for approval to the competent authority, since only 27 approved candidates in order or merit could be deputed/adjusted. The final list was published. Twenty seven candidates in the list had secured 73.25 or above marks whereas both the petitioners scored 72.5 and 72.75 marks in aggregate respectively which was less than the last candidate selected. The twenty seven successful candidates have been arrayed as respondent Nos. 6 to 33 to this petition.

The sole argument of Mrs. Ritam Aggarwal is that Constables Pawan Kumar, Baldev Singh, Jaswinder Singh and Sulakhan Singh have secured less marks than the petitioners in the B-1 Test for the year 2010 but have been approved for promotion list B-1 under amended Rule 13.7 of PPR under 55% quota male cadre of Karnal District. They have secured 67.25, 65.25, 63.75 and 63.25 respectively. This may be true but all the aforesaid Constables belong to the reserved category and have been deputed in the list on the basis of reserve roster points in terms of the Haryana Government Policy of Reservation for promotions dated 05.07.1976. It is settled that reserve roster points earmarked for schedule caste candidates can be occupied only by reserved category candidates, if available and suitable, to the exclusion of general category candidates although higher in merit. See Constitution Bench verdict in R.K. Sabharwal and others Vs. State of Punjab and others, The first argument fails and is rejected.

The learned counsel has then made a final attempt to urge that the interview marks were tailored so as to bring less meritorious candidates than the petitioners in the general category in the zone of selection.

I do not find sufficient grounds to intervene on this issue in absence of any tangible material showing any destructive thread of bias, mala fides or taint capable of vitiating the entire process of selection. It is not enough to urge as in paragraph 13 of the petition that selected candidates are very close to the high ups in the Police Department or connected with their political bosses who blatantly used their influence to get their favourites selected or that Constables posted in the office of the Superintendent of Police or the Inspector General of Police, Madhuban, Karnal had an unfair positional advantage through proximity with senior officers and therefore procured career advancement at the cost of the petitioners. No mala fides have been alleged in the selection against any one by name.

Therefore, no ground for interference is made out. The petition fails and is dismissed.