Assembly not a court, says Hooda on police recruitment discussion

Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini today announced in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha that the government would seek the Advocate General’s opinion on the Punjab and Haryana High Court's ruling regarding the recruitment of 20 police inspectors during former CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda’s tenure. He added that if the Haryana Staff Selection Commission (HSSC) is permitted to investigate through a specialised agency as per the court’s decision, the government is prepared to facilitate the process.

Advertisement

Hiring under BJP’s rule also challenged

The Legislative Assembly is not a court of law. Recruitment cases under BJP’s tenure have also been challenged in courts. — Bhupinder Singh Hooda, former chief minister

Prejudice against selected candidates

The high court’s final judgment has come. Discussing it in the House amounts to prejudice against the selected candidates. — BB Batra, cong mla

However, responding to the discussion, Hooda told journalists, “The Legislative Assembly is not a court of law,” emphasising that recruitment issues under BJP-led governments had also been challenged in court. Congress MLA BB Batra backed Hooda, stating, “The high court’s final judgment has come. You can’t discuss court proceedings in the House. We are not a court here. Saini’s statement amounts to prejudice against the selected candidates.”

Recruitment of 20 police inspectors

In July 2008, the HSSC issued an advertisement to recruit 20 male police inspectors. The selection process involved two written papers of 100 marks each, with 360 candidates clearing the exam. The final selection also included a 25-mark interview, and results were declared in September 2010.

A candidate from the waiting list, who scored just seven marks in the interview, moved court, alleging that relatives of ruling Congress leaders received high interview scores unfairly. Several other petitioners also joined the case, claiming irregularities in the selection process.

Court-appointed committee’s findings

A committee appointed by the high court found multiple irregularities: Four selected candidates used fluid/whitener on their OMR sheets, while two scratched their answers, two candidates had questionable handwriting or signatures, one candidate did not mention the exam date on the OMR sheet and another candidate wrote an incorrect roll number and did not sign the OMR sheet.

HSSC failed to provide attendance sheets and offered OMR sheets for only 18 selected candidates and four petitioners.

No clear guidelines were issued regarding the use of whitener in the exam.

High court’s judgment

In its March 11 ruling, the court noted, “…there was procedural infirmity or irregularity on the part of the Commission, however, there is nothing on record to establish fraud, suppression of facts, or connivance on the part of candidates or the Selection Commission.”

The court acknowledged irregularities but ruled that they did not amount to illegalities serious enough to nullify the selection. The judgment concluded, “In the absence of illegalities, this court cannot set aside the selection of candidates who have been serving in the police force for the past 15 years and have since been promoted to Deputy Superintendent of Police.”