JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

By this common order, the above-noted petitions are hereby adjudicated as issues involved and prayer sought in all the petitions are common. For the sake of convenience and with the consent of parties, the facts are borrowed from CWP-13414-2011.

2. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of selection of private respondents to the post of Inspector of Police (Male).

3. The petitioner pursuant to advertisement No.5/2008 dated 22.07.2008 applied for the post of Inspector of Police (Male). The said advertisement was issued by Haiyana Staff Selection Commission (for short, 'HSSC'), Panchkula whereby 20 posts of Inspector of Police (Male) were advertised. 09 posts were earmarked for General Category and remaining were meant for reserved category. Essential qualification for the post was graduation from a recognized University with Hindi and Sanskrit up to matric level.

4. The respondent pursuant to aforesaid advertisement conducted written test comprising of two papers of 100 marks each. The exam was conducted in two sessions i.e. morning and evening. A candidate was required to secure 45% marks in each paper and 50% in aggregate to be eligible to participate in physical test and interview. The petitioner secured minimum marks in the written test and successfully passed physical test. He was called for interview on 02.07.2009. He appeared for interview and was very hopeful to be selected. The respondent declared final result on 08.09.2010. The name of petitioner figured at serial No.l in the waiting list. He secured 145 marks in the written test and 7 marks in interview. In this way, he secured 152 marks out of 225 marks (200 for written test + 25 for interview). The petitioner was of the opinion that he has been awarded lesser marks in interview and candidates who were close relatives of ruling political Party have been awarded higher marks. Hence, this petition.

5. Teamed counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to direction of this Court, a three members Committee vide its report dated 24.02.2023 has cleared the mystery of selection of private respondents. The report has made it clear that despite specific instructions of booklet and answer sheet, many candidates used fluid/whitener still their papers were evaluated and they came to be selected. There are many candidates whose OMR sheets are having scratch marks still their answer sheets were evaluated and they came to be selected. Arjun Rathee and Deepak are two candidates who actually did not appear in the written test still they were selected. The Committee in its report has pointed out that truth can be unearthed by forensic examination of signature/handwriting of these candidates. There is need to compare actual signatures/handwriting of these candidates with signature/handwriting on the OMR sheets. Hardeep Singh is one of the selected candidate who did not mention date of examination in OMR sheet of first session. Vijay Kumar, who is also a selected candidate, did not put his signature on OMR sheet of first session and he further mentioned wrong roll number/date of exam.

The report of Committee makes it clear that few candidates used fluid or scratched OMR sheet still their answer-sheets were evaluated and they came to be selected. As per instructions, the respondent-Commission was bound to outrightly reject their answersheets. Intention of the Commission was mala fide, thus, instead of rejecting candidature of such candidates, the sheets were not only evaluated but also candidates came to be selected. The action of respondent is palpably mala fide and amounts to misuse of process of law. Any appointment which is tainted cannot stand on the touchstone of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court time and again has held that every selection process which is tainted or contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India should be decl