IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

206 (3 cases) CWP-10512-2012 Date of Decision: 09.09.2025 Randhir Singh and others …Petitioners Versus The State of Punjab and others …Respondents With Sr. Case No. Petitioner(s) Respondent(s)

No.

2. CWP-13879- Manjeet Kaur The State of Punjab

2012 and others

3. CWP-19586- Sunil and others The State of Punjab

2012 and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present: - Mr. K.G. Chaudhary, Advocate and Ms. Sakshi Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Aman Dhir, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab ***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. As common issues are involved in the captioned petitions, with the consent of both sides, the same are hereby disposed of by this common order. For the sake of brevity and convenience, facts are borrowed from CWP-10512-2012.

2. The petitioners through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of orders (Annexure P- 8 to P-27) passed by respondents whereby they have been discharged from service.

3. The petitioners, pursuant to Advertisement dated 29.07.2007, applied for the post of Constable (Sports) in Punjab Armed Police. They were subjected to multiple tests including Physical Measurement Test. In the Physical Measurement Test, the respondent found that height of few petitioners was less than prescribed under Rule 15.17 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (for short ‘PPR’). The matter came up for consideration before Director General of Police (‘DGP’), Punjab who vide order dated 20.03.2008 granted relaxation to the petitioners in height or age. There were few persons who were granted relaxation in educational qualifications also. Two unsuccessful candidates preferred CWP No.2564 of 2008, Gurveer Singh and another v. State of Punjab and others before this Court assailing appointment of two candidates on the ground that they have been wrongly granted relaxation. The matter came up for consideration before the Coordinate Bench of this Court which vide order dated 02.02.2010 allowed the petition and directed the official respondents to consider case of all selected candidates. The Court formed an opinion that relaxation in height could not be granted without recording reasons. The relaxation was in special circumstances and respondent was bound to record reasons for invoking power under Rule 12.15 of PPR while granting relaxation.

4. The respondent in compliance of aforesaid order withdrew exemption granted to the petitioners and thereafter, issued show cause notice calling upon them to show cause as to why they should not be discharged from service. They filed reply to show cause notice, however, the competent authority by impugned orders discharged them from service.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners are sportspersons and the posts were specifically advertised for sportspersons. They completed all parameters and had brought glory to the nation through their achievements, thus, they were granted slight relaxation in height. A candidate may not be granted relaxation in educational qualifications, however, relaxation in height and age could be granted. The petitioners form a special class i.e. sportspersons and they could be granted relaxation by general order or special order. In case of general sanction, there is no requirement to record reasons, however, in case of special sanction, the reasons are required to be recorded. The DGP granted sanction and it was withdrawn after passing order dated 02.02.2010 by this Court. They were not granted opportunity of hearing before passing said order. Hearing was only granted for the name’s sake and that too after withdrawing the relaxation. Once relaxation was withdrawn, the show cause notice and consequent order was a mere formality.

6. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that petitioners have been discharged pursuant to order dated 02.02.2010 passed by this Court in Gurveer Singh (Supra). The petitioners were granted relaxation by