Rajinder Singh Etc. v. State Of Hy.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH **** Date of Decision: 15.09.2025 RAJINDER SINGH AND ORS.
...Petitioners
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
...Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL Present:- Mr. Nitin Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Ravi Partap Singh, DAG Haryana Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate for respondents No.5 to 28 Mr. Kartik Mehla, Advocate for Mr. Anil Mehta, Advocate for respondent No.17 *** JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL) 1.
The petitioners through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking setting aside of decision of Departmental Promotion Committee (in short 'DPC') whereby respondents No.5 to 28 have been selected for admission to Lower School Course.
2.
The instant petition was filed in 2003 with respect to selection of Constables for Lower School Course which is a promotional course. As per Rule 13.7 of Punjab Police Rules, 1934 (as applicable to State of Haryana), B-I test was conducted in November' 2003 which was followed by parade held on 16.11.2003. In the written test more than 200 Constables participated, however, 35 could qualify. They were called for
-2parade test. 24 could qualify in the parade and they were called for interview held on 17.11.2003. The private respondents herein were selected and deputed for Lower School Course. Out of 24 candidates, 22 were deputed for Lower School Course.
3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were called for interview which indicates that they cleared parade test. The official respondent at a later stage manipulated facts and figures and declared petitioners fail in the parade. Majority of the selected candidates are Gunmen of members of DPC or politicians or senior officers. The petitioners have been discriminated.
4.
On the direction of this Court, record relating to parade was produced before this Court. The said record was seen and attached with the file.
5.
I have seen the original result, marks awarded to candidates who participated in the parade test and report prepared by the Officer. From the perusal of all these documents, it cannot be concluded that there was interpolation, scratching, cutting, overwriting etc. of marks awarded at the time of parade. There is remote possibility of change of marks of all the candidates. In the absence of concrete evidence, this Court at this stage cannot return any adverse findings against the respondents. There is one candidate namely Kapil Kumar who was facing criminal proceedings still was deputed for Lower School Course. He was convicted and awarded sentence of 7 years. His appeal was pending before this Court. He could not be deputed for Lower School Course. Learned State counsel concedes that it was a mistake on the part of
-3authorities. The said candidate would be deemed to be rejected for Lower School Course.
6.
In the wake of above discussion and findings, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no concrete evidence to conclude that there was manipulation on the part of the authorities warranting interference.
7.
There is another aspect of the matter. The matter relates to selection of Constables for Lower School Course. The test was conducted in 2003. The selected candidates were deputed for Lower School Course. They might have been further promoted. A period of 22 years has passed away and at this belated stage, it would not be in the interest of justice and fitness of things to disturb their promotion especially when there is no material on record indicating fraud, misrepresentation or suppression on their part. 8.
Dismissed.
9.
Before parting with the judgment, I deem it appropriate to direct authorities to find out a candidate who would have been selected for Lower School Course had afore-stated candidate namely Kapil not be selected in the 42nd Batch.
10.
Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (JAGMOHAN BANSAL) JUDGE 15.09.2025 Deepak DPA Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No