SANDEEP KUMAR SHARMA versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [1997] 2 S.C.R. 405 · Decided: 24-02-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

-
SANDEEP KUMAR SHARMA · 
A 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 24, 1997 
[MADAN MOHAN PUNCHHI AND K.T. THOMAS, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law-Relaxation in recmitment mles-Recmitment of police 
personnel-Relaxation of physical fitness requirement on the basis of a policy 
decision of the Government to show ~pecial consideration towards families 
affected by terrorism-Appellant was the only be11eficia1y of relaxa-
C 
lion-Whether such a relaxation is vali~He/d : Yes. 
Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959-Rules 7 and 14. 
Appellant was the brother of an Indian Police Service ollicer posted 
in Punjab who had rendered ellicient and useful service in tackling D 
terrorists' menace in Punj.ab. The appellant qualified the written test 
conducted by the Punjab Public Service Commission for the post of Deputy 
Superintendent of Police/Deputy Superintendent of Jail/District Probation 
Officer along with respondent No. 3. The appellant was, however, short in 
height by 1.20 ems. from the minimum height of 167.5 ems. prescribed E 
under Rule 7(i)(iii) of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959. The Govern-
ment relaxed the criterion of minimum height in the case of the appellant 
in view of its policy dedsioa to show special consideration towards rela-
tives of those who had either suffered due to terrorism or had faced 
terrorism boldly and had contributed towards overcoming it. As a result 
of the relaxation given in favour ol' the appellant, the appellant was F 
appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, whereas respon-
dent No. 3 could be selected only for the post of Deputy Superintendent, 
Jail/District Probation Oflicer. The appellant, in fact, was the only can-
didate who could. avail the benefit of the relaxation given by the Govern-
ment pursuant to its policy decision. 
d 
As per the provisfons of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, the 
minimum physical standard prescribed in sub-clause (iii) of clause (i) of 
Rule 7 of Punjab Police Service Rules 1959 could not be relaxed except with 
special sanction of the Government in accordance with the second proviso 
to the said Rule 7 (i). 
H 
405 
406 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1997] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent No. 3 Challenged the appointment of the appellant in the 
B 
High Court and the High Court set aside the appointment holding that it 
was·an act of favouritism ofthe·Government as the appellant was the sole 
beneficiary of the relaxation. 
Allowing the appeal against the order of the High Court; this Court 
HELD : I.L High Court should not have upset the appointment made 
in marginal relaxation of the physical standards prescribed in the case of 
the appellant. [412-E] 
1.2. The worthiness in formulating a policy by the Government of 
C Punjab for showing recognition to the services rendered by those Police 
personnel who bravely faced the dastardly acts unleashed by the terrorists 
cannot be disputed. If so, there is nothing improper in giving special 
consideration to the kith and kin of such policemen and those who suffered 
on account of terrorists' activities.· [ 409-D·E] 
D 
E 
1.3. The power of relaxation even if generally included in the service 
rules could either be for the purpose of mitigating hardships or to meet 
special and deserving situations. The rule of relaxation must ge't ,a prag-. 
matic construction so as to achieve effective implementation of a good 
policy of the Government. Of course arbitrary exercise of such power innst 
be guarded against. But a narrow construction is likely to lfeny benefit to 
the really deserving cases. [411-G] 
J.C.· Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., [1990] 1 SCR 470, relied 
on. 
F 
District Collector & Chainnan, Vizianagaram v. Tripura Sundari Devi, 
JT (1990) 2 SC 169 and Hoshiar Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors., JT (1993) 
S SC 63, distinguished. 
2. Appellant cannot be blamed for being the only candidate available 
seeking relaxation of physical standards. The same benefit could also have 
G ensured to anyone else situated in the same position as the appellant, had 
there been any. Policy-wise it is not possible to think that appellant would 
have been the only kith and kin of those who suffered on account of the 
activities of the terrorists in Punjab or those who faced terrorism bravely. 
[410-G-H] 
H 
Atlas Cycle Industries Ltd. Sonepat v. Their Workmen, [1962] Supp. 3 
-
-
--
S.K. SHARMA v. STATE (THOMAS, J.] 
407 
SCR 89, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1586 of 
1997. 
Fr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.