Can courts examine if questions are too hard? Punjab and Haryana High Court junks 2016 constable exam candidate’s plea

Findings

• Following the disqualification after the court’s order on their plea, the petitioners claimed that, as per public notices, questions could be of 10+2 standard, whereas the respondent asked questions of a graduation level.
• The court cannot return findings with respect to the standard of questions.
• It was the prerogative of the recruitment board to set the question paper.
• The court has no mechanism to determine whether questions were of the 10+2 standard or the graduation level.
• The petitioners are claiming that they were awarded minimum marks in interview-cum-personality test and the physical measurement test.
• The marks were awarded by the recruitment board.
• The court has no mechanism or yardstick to determine the veracity of marks awarded by the recruitment board.
• It was within the realm of the Recruitment Board.
• There is another aspect of the matter. The selection process commenced in 2015 and was completed in 2017.
• A period of more than eight years from the date of completion of the selection process has passed.
• The post of Constable is a public post to which a lot of responsibilities are attached.
• Physical and mental fitness are of paramount consideration in the police force.
• The petitioners cannot be expected to have fitness as postulated for a constable at the time of initial selection.
• The petitioners, who fought the case in court, were rejected. These eight candidates were permitted to participate in the special knowledge test and were ultimately selected.
• All the petitioners were finally rejected, and only the eight candidates were selected. This shows undue favour in favour of the aforesaid candidates.
• The eight candidates are unrepresented; thus, no adverse order can be passed against them.
• It is appropriate to direct director general of police, Haryana, as well as the chairman, haryana staff selection commission, to look into the matter and take appropriate action.

Background

• The dispute originated from a 2015 advertisement for the post of constable, which initiated a four-stage selection process: a Physical Screening Test (PST), a knowledge test, a Physical Measurement Test (PMT), and an interview-cum-personality test.
• The petitioners were initially declared unsuccessful in the PST held in mid-2016.
• Following the disqualification, the petitioners preferred various pleas before the high court, alleging that they had actually qualified for the Physical Screening Test, however, have wrongly declared unsuccessful.
• In August 2016, the single judge dismissed all pleas, and then the petitioners preferred various intra-court pleas.
• During those proceedings, the state reconsidered the matter as a “special case,” agreeing to treat the petitioners as having qualified for the physical test and allowing them to sit for a written knowledge test on June 8, 2017
• However, when the final results were declared on June 23, 2017, the petitioners’ names did not appear, leading to the current plea.