Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 960 (HP)

SANJAY v. STATE OF H. P.

2013-11-15

RAJIV SHARMA, SANJAY KAROL

body2013
JUDGEMENT SANJAY KAROL, J.- 1. PETITIONER has prayed mainly for the following reliefs: "(i) That the act of respondents No.1 to 3 may kindly be declared as arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (ii) That the record of the case may kindly be called for and after perusing the record and analyzing the imbiguity and error committed by the respondents, the selection list Annexure P-10 may kindly be quashed and set-aside. (iii) That the respondents No.1 to 3 may kindly be directed to prepare a fresh selection list on the basis of merit of written test, ground test and after allotting proper marks for height etc. as per criteria of the selection thereby selecting the petitioner for the post of Constable." 2. ANNEXURE P-10 is the Merit List of the candidates provisionally selected for the post of Constables in the Police Department of the State of Himachal Pradesh. The challenge is on the ground that petitioner has been awarded less marks towards his height; written examination; and the personality test. According to the petitioner, private respondents No.4 and 5 are having lower educational qualification and lesser height than him and as such have been wrongly placed higher to him in the merit list. 3. HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the petition only merits rejection. 4. IT is not the case of the petitioner that the private respondents do not fulfill the essential educational qualification prescribed for appointment to the post of a Constable. Petitioner has done his Masters in Arts. Prescribed educational qualification is 10+2. Private respondents fulfill this criteria. It is seen that no additional marks are required to be awarded for candidates having higher education. We find that in the written test, petitioner has been awarded 49 marks, whereas private respondent No.4 Desh Raj and private respondent No.5 Mahesh Kumar stand awarded 46 and 48 marks, respectively. Significantly, it is not the case of petitioner, as set out in the petition, that the test was not conducted in a fair manner or that the checking/evaluation of the answer sheets was done in any wrong, arbitrary or illegal manner just to favour private respondents. 5. Significantly, it is not the case of petitioner, as set out in the petition, that the test was not conducted in a fair manner or that the checking/evaluation of the answer sheets was done in any wrong, arbitrary or illegal manner just to favour private respondents. 5. EVEN with regard to personality test, we find that petitioner is awarded 6.50, out of 10 marks and private respondents No.4 and 5 are awarded 9.50 and 7 marks, respectively. In the petition, allegations of favouritism are completely vague and unspecific and as such only merit rejection. No person, who favoured private respondents, stands impleaded. 6. COMING to the marks awarded for physical height of the candidates, we again find that petitioner has been awarded two marks, as per the criteria laid down in the advertisement (Annexure P-6). Petitioner stands awarded two marks, as his height is 5 feet 8.2 inches. Height of private respondents is more than that of the petitioner and as such they stand awarded three marks each. As such, it cannot be said that the selection process and preparation of the Merit List is illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, violative of Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India, warranting any interference by this Court. Hence, the petition, without any merit, is dismissed. With the aforesaid observations, writ petition stands disposed of, so also pending application(s), if any.