Point of Law : candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted.

ORDER :

Office of Director-General of Police, Himachal Pradesh vide communication dated 5.7.2017 (Annexure A-1) addressed to various offices of the Police Department, informed that the Government have accorded approval for filling up 1200 posts of Police Constables (1005 male, 195 female) through direct recruitment in the pay band of Rs. 59010-20200+Rs.190 Grade Pay. Besides this, 1500 posts of Constables (1200 male and 300 female) were also sought to be filled in through this recruitment process, which could not be filled in earlier due to non-availability of candidates. Annexure ‘C’ of said communication contains the schedule of recruitment process, Another document annexed with the Annexure A-1 by the petitioner reveals that under Clause 12. “personality test’, it has been observed that the Government of Himachal Pradesh vide Notification No. Per(AP.B)(B)15)-5/2014 dated 17.4.2017 has discontinued/dispensed with the process of holding interviews in respect of direct recruitment for making recommendations for Class-III and IV posts/services under State Government with immediate effect. However, a note has been appended thereto stating that the conduct of personality test is subject to final decision of Himachal Pradesh Government and the candidates will be notified accordingly in due course.

2. Record reveals that the advertisement was issued on 1.7.2017 and last date for submission of applications was 21.7.2017 and in column No. 7, ‘suitability-cum-personality test (interviews), it has been mentioned that subject to final decision of Himachal Pradesh Government, the candidates will be notified accordingly, in due course.

3. The petitioner belongs to Una District and for Una District, 59 posts were allocated in the general category. It is undisputed that the petitioner qualified the ground test, participated in the written test and secured 62 marks in total, as is reflected in Annexure A-2 and as such, having qualified the initial process, was called for personality test vide call letter dated 5.4.2018 (Annexure A-3). Petitioner appeared in the personality test but could not make it to the final merit list, Annexure A-4. Though, the petitioner had secured 5th position, on the basis of ground and written tests, yet he was awarded 05 marks in the personality test with a view to accommodate some other person(s)., as such, he filed representation to the respondents Besides above, petitioner also claimed in the representation that it was brought to his notice that the personal interview has been dispensed with by the Government vide Notification dated 17.4.2017 (supra) (Annexure A-5). Since no heed, if any, was paid to the representation made by the petitioner and candidates selected in the final merit list were called for medical examination, petitioner approached the erstwhile Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal at the first instance by filing OA No. 2304 of 2018, which, after abolishment of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal, stands transferred to this Court and re-registered as CWPOA No. 4354 of 2020, praying therein for following main reliefs:

“i. That the selections and appointment of any after filing of OA of the respondent no. 6 to 20, against the post of constable on the basis of personal interview is liable to be quashed.

ii. That direction may be issued to the respondents re-draw the select on the basis of written as well as physical test not on the basis of personal interview.

iii. That the respondents may be directed to select the candidates on the basis of physical test and written test while adhering the notification of the state government Annexure A -5.

iv. That the respondents may very kindly be directed to consider the applicant for the post of constable keeping in view the merit of the applicant in the test.

v. That the respondent no. 1 to 5 may be directed to place on record the roster point maintained by them, after perusal if found more than reservation is 50% may be quashed and set aside.”

4. Precis