- (1.) The Director General of Police, Punjab invited applications from amongst eligible candidates for recruiting 3726 male and 2000 female candidates as constables in district police cadres for which a district-wise break up of vacancies was advertised. Applications were invited by October 17, 2011. The petitioner applied in the female category. She was found eligible and was called for Physical Measurement Test (PMT) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) on November 10, 2011 at Faridkot. In all, 13,500 female candidates appeared for both the tests conducted on different dates for different districts in the State of Punjab. However, barely 365 female candidates were able to qualify the PET as per prescribed norms in District Police Cadre, Bathinda as against 600 posts allocated to the district. These 365 candidates including the petitioner were called for interviews which did not materialize as the viva voce test was cancelled. The petitioner was again called for interview on November 22, 2011 but it was again cancelled. It is the say of the petitioner that cancellation of the interview process had resulted from a severe shortfall of candidates in qualifying the PET as out of the 600 posts as few as 365 made it. It appears from the writ record that with a view to meet the shortfall a fresh PET was ordered after relaxing norms for female candidates laid down in the advertisement for PET which was named a golden chance. It is the say of the petitioner that no corrigendum was issued for relaxing norms in PET and candidates were informed on their mobile phones, the numbers of which had been taken at the time of conducting of the earlier test. In the relaxed standard process, 2000 candidates qualified and were declared pass in the PET and their names were published in the Daily Ajit and other newspapers. A fresh date for interview was fixed on December 02, 2011. The petitioner appeared in the interview. The result was declared and a list of selected candidates was published and displayed on December 18, 2011 but the name of the petitioner did not find mention in the list of successful candidates. She made no complaint of her non-selection till she served a legal notice on the respondents dated 30th September 2014 and brought this petition on 1 st December 2014 which came up for hearing the next day when Mr. R. K. Chopra, learned senior advocate was heard on admission of the matter.
(2.) The learned senior counsel argues that once norms of PET were laid down in the advertisement the same could not be reduced in standards or changed to the detriment of the petitioner without issuing a corrigendum and inviting fresh applications to undergo the entire process of selection de novo after declaring the recruitment process infructuous. Candidates who had not made it in the test earlier came to flood the zone of consideration by relaxed standards vitiating the entire selection process of recruiting female Constables in the district concerned. It is contended that calling candidates on their telephone/mobiles was not permissible in law and the petitioner had a preferential right of consideration in appointment over and above the candidates who were unable to qualify the PET earlier but were called again after reducing the norms of PET only to accomodate them for extreaneous reasons. This clearly shows that the selection was made in a most illegal and arbitrary manner by ignoring the legitimate rights of the petitioner and other candidates who have qualified the PET in the first instance in terms of the advertisement. It is his further submission that qualifications prescribed in the advertisement cannot be relaxed and the fresh test ordered deserved to be confined to such candidates as had not qualified in the earlier tests. Enlarging the zone and dunking the petitioner to compete for the test again in a cesspool has effaced her earlier performance even though she had made it to the first 365 candidates to whom appointments could be offered as per merit. This repeat procedure has infracted her preserved rights in the first PET and unfairly disadvantaged her by putting her back in the fray of competition in a sea of applicants without just cause or legal justification.
(3.) It happens that the complaint made in this petition filed on December 01, 2014 forms subject matter of CWP No.773 of 2012 filed by two aggrieved candidates i.e. Baljeet Kaur and Balwinder Kaur who were similarly placed as the petitioner as they too had qualified the first PET but did not find their names mentioned in the Final Select List. The petition was disposed of on January 31, 2013 by this Court with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners therein for appointment as per the initial criteria which was advertised on October 03, 2011 and if the petitioners make the grade, as per the said criteria from amongst the candidates who had cleared the second stage, as per the then fixed criteria, appointment letters be issued to them within a period of one month, in which case they would be entitled to consequential benefits except financial. Since the directions were not complied with, COCP No.1691 of 2013 was filed and was pending when the respondent-State filed Review Application No.175 of 2014 in the main writ petition. The review application was filed on the premise that the assertion of the petitioner in the petition was factually incorrect that 365 candidates had qualified the PET whereas the correct position as mentioned in the written statement filed by the State in defence of the aforesaid writ petition was that out of 11162 eligible women candidates, 1190 had qualified and not just 365 as alleged by the petitioners. With the re-conduct PET a substantially larger number of women candidates qualified thereby raising the total number to 2517 candidates. Out of total 600 vacancies meant for women in district Bathinda district, only 300 vacancies were meant for the general category candidates to which the said two petitioners belonged and their claim was considered accordingly. The learned Single Judge who had issued the directions on January 31, 2013 while seized of the Contempt Petition where His Lordship clarified that his judgment was not based primarily on facts, but on the principle that after the selection process has been initiated, the rules of the game cannot be changed and this principle was based on the rulings of the Supreme Court in the cases; Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs. State of Assam and others, 2009 4 SLR 588, Rakhi Ray and others vs. The High Court of Delhi and others, 2010 2 SLR 193, Pramod K.Pankaj vs. State of Bihar and others, 2004 1 SCT 83, State of Orissa and another vs. Mamata Mohanty, 2011 3 SCC 436. In those circumstances, the review application was found misconceived and was dismissed on April 02, 2014. As an aftermath of the decision, an administrative order was passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda on July 16, 2014 offering appointment to Baljeet Kaur as lady Constable in District Police Cadre, Bathinda who was allotted a constabulary number but was ordered to be subject to Letters Patent Appeal No.1108 of 2014 titled State of Punjab and others vs. Baljit Kaur and another preferred against the basic order. The appointment order was also made subject to any other writ petition (s) pending in any Court in this regard.;