138+303 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13414-2011 (O&M)

Date of Decision:11.03.2025 AMIT KUMAR ......... Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS ..... Respondent 2) CWP-22884-2010 (O&M) SANDEEP KUMAR ..…..Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS …..Respondents

3) CWP-2476-2011 (O&M)

JITENDER DAGAR …..Petitioner Versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS …..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - 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.

****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. 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 Haryana 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.1 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. Learn