JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. By this common order the instant petitions are disposed of since issues involved in the captioned petitions and prayer sought are common. With the consent of parties and for the sake of brevity, facts are borrowed from CWP-18175-2010.

2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of result dated 08.05.2010 declared by respondents whereby they have not been declared successful in the merit list of B-I Test.

3. The petitioners belong to Punjab Police Force and they had joined service as Constables. The respondents in 2009 conducted written test and parade test of Constables for deputing them to promotional course i.e. Lower School Course. The respondent declared result on 16.02.2009 wherein they were declared successful. Few unsuccessful Constables preferred CWP-2891-2009 and CWP-6935-2009 assailing aforesaid result. This Court vide order dated 27.04.2010 disposed of both the petitions with a direction to respondent to conduct parade test and interview afresh. The respondents conducted parade test and interview as per directions of this Court and declared result on 08.05.2010. The petitioners were declared unsuccessful. They were awarded marks less than awarded in previous round.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that visual examination of CD of the parade test reveals that there is one Constable who was limping still was awarded marks more than petitioners and declared successful in the B-I Test. This fact was brought in the knowledge of this Court by way of an application. This Court vide order dated 25.08.2011 directed the State counsel to have instructions as to why the matter be not sent to some independent agency for investigation.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that fresh parade test and interview was conducted. The process was video-graphed. The petitioners are relying upon result/marks of one constable who was little limping. He was suffering from fracture at that point of time. The marks were not awarded for walking whereas marks were awarded for performing different activities. The Officers found him fit for all purposes and awarded marks. There was no illegality in the entire selection process. No officer had vested or implied interest. A team of senior IPS Officers conducted the test.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. This is second round of litigation. On the earlier occasion, few unsuccessful candidates preferred CWP-2891-2009 and CWP-6935- 2009 which were disposed of vide order dated 27.04.2010. The respondent was directed to constitute an Officers’ Committee comprising IPS Officers to conduct fresh parade test and interview of all candidates. The operative portion of order dated 27.04.2010 reads as:-

“Consequently and in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, it is directed that there shall be an Officer's Committee comprising Shri Paramjit Singh Gill, IPS, Inspector General of Police, Patiala Zone along with the SSPs of Sangrur and Fatehgarh Sahib districts, who shall take the Parade Test and interview of the petitioners and all other candidates, who have qualified the written test as per the rectified/corrected result of the written examination. The Committee is directed to notify the criteria to be followed while awarding marks to the candidates in the Parade Test and/or interview. Let the Parade Test and interview be held and final results be declared by the Officers' Committee within a period of two weeks from the date a copy of this order is received.

Disposed of.”

8. In compliance of aforesaid order, the respondent conducted parade test and interview afresh. All the eligible candidates were permitted to participate in parade test and interview. The petitioners are claiming that they were awarded lesser marks than awarded in previous round. They are further claiming that there was one candidate who was limping still was declared successful.

9. During the co