The Himachal Pradesh High Court has directed the state police department to interview the candidates, who had qualified the physical efficiency and written tests of the constable recruitment exam, but were not interviewed as they did not have valid registration with the employment exchanges.
The court also vacated the interim order, whereby the police department was restrained from declaring the result without prior permission of the court and directed the state to declare the result of the petitioners.
The division bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia passed these orders on the petitions filed by different petitioners, who have alleged that they had applied for the post of constables after the office of director general of police (DGP) issued recruitment notice for the post of constables in the state’s police department. Being the eligible candidates, they were called for physical and other efficiency tests.
The petitioners have claimed that they had cleared the physical and written tests and were called for interview, but were disqualified without being interviewed on the ground that their names were not registered with the employment exchanges.
The high court said “the Supreme Court has held that the recruitment procedure of sponsorship by employment exchange is not mandatory and it was more than two decades ago that the apex court had held that selections cannot be restricted only to the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, rather names should also be called for by publication in newspapers having wide circulation and display on office notice boards or announcement on radio, television and employment news bulletins”.
{{/usCountry}}The high court said “the Supreme Court has held that the recruitment procedure of sponsorship by employment exchange is not mandatory and it was more than two decades ago that the apex court had held that selections cannot be restricted only to the candidates sponsored by the employment exchange, rather names should also be called for by publication in newspapers having wide circulation and display on office notice boards or announcement on radio, television and employment news bulletins”.
{{/usCountry}}The court observed that the petitioners have been driven to unwarranted and otherwise avoidable litigation only on account of sheer ignorance of respondents’ knowledge of the law, as the police department has a battery of lawyers/prosecutors.
The respondents have not bothered to take legal opinion and if the legal opinion was sought, then why the proposition of law settled by the larger bench of the Supreme Court has gone completely unnoticed, the court said.