In a significant ruling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed an unusual petition filed by a candidate for the post of sub-inspector, who sought to overturn his disqualification after performing poorly in a mandatory swimming test, which he attributed to the severe cold of a December day.
The Unusual Plea and the Court's Firm Stand
The case was heard by Justice Jagmohan Bansal. The petitioner, belonging to the backward class category, had applied for a single post of sub-inspector in the aquatic (swimming and water polo) discipline following an advertisement issued in November 2016. After failing to secure the minimum required marks in the physical trial held on December 31, he approached the court.
He requested the court to set aside the final result that declared him disqualified and to direct the state to issue him an appointment letter. His core argument was that the trial was conducted on what he claimed was "the coldest day of the year," adversely affecting his performance.
Arguments Presented and the Principle of Fair Play
Representing the candidate, Advocate Lalit Rishi argued before the court that the petitioner's performance was very close to the required standard. The prescribed benchmark required completing a 50-meter breaststroke within 28.25 seconds, while the petitioner finished in 30.30 seconds.
The counsel highlighted that the benchmark was based on standards for all-weather swimming pools, like those used in the South Asian Games (SAG), whereas the petitioner was made to perform in an open pool in peak winter. He contended that due to the extreme weather, his client's performance could not be correctly assessed.
However, the court was not convinced by this line of reasoning. In a clear and decisive order, Justice Bansal observed that all candidates were required to pass the test in the same swimming pool under identical conditions. The court famously remarked, "This court cannot change the rules of the game after it has been played."
Court's Verdict and Legal Rationale
The court firmly rejected the plea, stating that in the absence of any proven discrimination or violation of rules by the state authorities, a candidate cannot seek relaxation based on general weather conditions. The order emphasized that there was no arbitrariness on the part of the recruitment board.
It was noted from the records that the state had conducted trials for candidates in various disciplines. In the aquatic category, four candidates were tested, and none of them qualified as they all failed to score the minimum of 10 marks out of 20, which was the 50% eligibility threshold.
The High Court reiterated the settled legal position that it cannot interfere with the subjective satisfaction of a selection or interview board, which must be given free rein to assess relative merits, provided the procedure is fair. The power to award marks is coupled with the duty to select the best candidates, and the court found no reason to warrant interference in this case.
This ruling underscores the principle of a level playing field in competitive examinations and recruitment processes, where all aspirants are judged by the same set of rules and under the same conditions.
