JUDGMENT M.S. Ramachandra Rao, J. CM-5473-CW-2023 in CWP-2787-2018 The applicants herein were appointed as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State of Haryana in Sports Quota on different dates starting from 05.10.2007 to 17.08.2010. 2. Even after joining the services as Deputy Superintendent of Police in the State of Haryana, they continued to play the games in which they excelled and claim to be continuously representing the Country and the State, which aspect is not disputed by the respondents. 3. The question is "whether they can also be expected simultaneously to comply with the Rules which require completing of their probation within two years from the date of their appointment while simultaneously undergoing training for the games which they were playing and also participating in different tournaments?" 4. The applicants contend that Rule 10-A and 12, which prescribe the method of computation of seniority of the members of the service dependant on the date of completion of the period of probation prescribed therein, would be impossible for them to comply because while simultaneously undergoing training and participating in the sporting events, it would be impossible for them to complete probation within the period prescribed and in this circumstances, the respondents ought not to apply these Rules for counting their seniority and give benefit to the private respondents in this Writ Petition. 5. Mr.Akshay Bhan, Senior Counsel, appearing for the private respondents and Ms.Shruti Jain Goyal, DAG, Haryana have refuted these contentions and contend that as long as the Rules stand as they are, it is not possible to accept the contentions of the petitioners. 6. We are of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case and having regard to the undisputed fact that the petitioners had to participate in tournaments within and outside the country and had also to spend time training for the same, to expect them to complete the probation within the two years' period from the date of their appointment, would be a travesty of justice. 7. 7. The situation is clearly covered by maxim "lex non cogit ad impossiblia", meaning that "the law does not compel a man to do which he cannot perform" which is a settled principle of law by virtue of several decisions of the Supreme Court i.e. Raj Kumar Dey and others v. Tarapada Dey (1987) 4 SCC 398 and Hira Tikkoo v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others (2004) 6 SCC 765. 8. In this view of the matter, there shall be interim direction to the respondents to consider such of those petitioners who fall within the zone of consideration for the purpose of appointment to vacancies to the Haryana cadre of Indian Police Service for the select list for the years 2020 to 2022 as the case may be. Main Cases 9. At the request of counsel for the parties, adjourned to 21.08.2023. 10. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of the connected case.