The Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a stern rebuke to the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) for unfairly disqualifying a female candidate, Karishma, from the recruitment process for the post of Female Constable (General Duty) under the ESM-SC category. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu not only ordered her reinstatement but also imposed a penalty of ₹3 lakh on the Commission for its arbitrary actions and prolonged harassment over six years.
Background of the Case
The case, Karishma v. State of Haryana & Others (CWP No. 9399 of 2019), centered on the petitioner’s candidacy for the position of Female Constable under Advertisement No. 3/2018 by HSSC. Despite clearing the written examination and Physical Screening Test (PST), Karishma was disqualified during the Physical Measurement Test (PMT), with her height recorded at 154.3 cm—short of the required 156 cm.
Disputing the accuracy of the PMT measurement, Karishma immediately underwent two independent height assessments at Civil Hospital, Panchkula, and Alchemist Hospital, Panchkula, both of which certified her height to be well above the required threshold. Despite presenting this evidence, the HSSC refused to reconsider her claim, forcing Karishma to approach the court.
Legal Issues
1. Accuracy of Height Measurement: Karishma contended that her height was improperly recorded during the PMT and supported her claim with medical certificates from reputable institutions.
2. Arbitrary Rejection Based on Age: In a shift from the original reason for rejection, HSSC later argued that Karishma was overage for the position, claiming she did not qualify for the advertised age relaxation criteria.
3. Non-Consideration of Evidence: The petitioner alleged that HSSC ignored evidence and violated principles of natural justice by not conducting a fair assessment of her height.
4. Exercise of Relaxation Powers: The court examined whether the Commission had failed to utilize its discretionary power under Rule 18 of the Haryana Police (Non-Gazetted and Other Ranks) Service Rules, 2017, to address such exceptional circumstances.
Observations by the Court
Justice Sindhu highlighted several flaws in the Commission’s handling of the case, calling its actions “arbitrary and discriminatory.” Key observations included:
1. Inconsistent and Arbitrary Actions: Initially, Karishma was disqualified for failing the height criteria. Later, the Commission introduced a new objection, citing her age as the disqualifying factor. The court found this tactic frivolous and indefensible.
2. Substantiated Evidence Ignored: The court noted that three independent height measurements—including one conducted under its direction by a Medical Board at GMCH, Chandigarh—confirmed Karishma’s height met the eligibility criteria.
3. Failure to Raise Age Issue During Recruitment Process: The court observed that HSSC did not raise the age issue during earlier stages of the recruitment process, including the written test and PST.
4. Use of Relaxation Powers: The court criticized the Commission for not referring the matter to the government under Rule 18, which allows for relaxation of eligibility criteria under exceptional circumstances.
Justice Sindhu remarked, “The Commission seems bent upon victimizing the petitioner, making this a prestige issue. Such arbitrary conduct deserves to be deprecated in the strongest terms.”
Court’s Decision
The court quashed the PMT disqualification report and directed the HSSC to consider Karishma fully eligible for the position under the ESM-SC category, based on her merit in Advertisement No. 3/2018. The Commission was ordered to complete all formalities within three months.
Additionally, the court imposed exemplary costs of ₹3 lakh on the HSSC, payable directly to Karishma, acknowledging the financial and emotional hardship she endured over six years of litigation. Justice Sindhu observed, “This penalty is essential to ameliorate the petitioner’s miseries and to ensure accountability.”
