P&H High Court Directs Haryana DGP To Examine Videos Of Parade Test Amid Allegations Of Bias In Police Promotion Process

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Haryana, to examine whether the parade test conducted for promotion to Head Constable was videographed and to scrutinise the footage to determine if any irregularity occurred in the evaluation process.

It was alleged that two selected candidates  were in advanced stages of pregnancy at the time of the parade test and could not have participated in events such as the 1500-metre race. She contended that despite this, they were shown as having participated and were awarded qualifying marks.

Justice Jagmohan Bansal said, "In the absence of video, the Court cannot conclude that petitioner despite best performance was intentionally awarded marks less than qualifying or private respondents were awarded marks without participation. A candidate merely on the ground that he or she has scored maximum marks in written test cannot claim that he or she should be awarded minimum qualifying or maximum marks in the practical test."

Performance In Written Different From Practical

The Court said that the performance in written test is always different from performance in practical/physical test and it cannot conclude that petitioner despite her performance was awarded marks less than her entitlement, however, video needs to be examined by some higher officer to ascertain whether private respondents participated in the selection process or not.

"The authority further needs to examine whether petitioner was intentionally awarded lower marks than qualifying marks," it added.

The petitioner, Seema Rani, was recruited as a Constable in 2007 and participated in the 2014 Lower School Course competition under the 55% quota. She secured 55 out of 60 marks in the written examination and topped the test.

As per Rule 13.7 of the Punjab Police Rules, candidates were required to qualify a parade test by securing at least 50% marks. The petitioner scored 7.5 out of 20 marks and was not called for interview.

Out of 86 lady constables who appeared in the written test, 30 qualified. Of them, 22 cleared the parade test and 7 were finally selected.

The petitioner alleged that two selected candidates (private respondents) were in advanced stages of pregnancy at the time of the parade test and could not have participated in events such as the 1500-metre race. She contended that despite this, they were shown as having participated and were awarded qualifying marks. She further claimed that she was denied access to the videography of the parade test, which would have exposed the alleged irregularity.

She also pointed out that in 2017, she again topped the written test and was eventually selected, arguing that this demonstrated her competence and indicated discrimination in 2014.

The State submitted that the petitioner failed to secure the minimum 10 out of 20 marks required in the parade test, having obtained only 7.5 marks. In contrast, the private respondents scored 12 marks each and were therefore eligible to proceed to the interview stage.

When confronted with an affidavit dated April 25, 2025, filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gurugram, the State did not dispute that one private respondent was six months and nine days pregnant, while the other was four months and ten days pregnant at the time of the parade test.

The Court examined the marks awarded and noted that zero marks were given to the petitioner as well as the private respondents in the 1500-metre race component.

The private respondents, however, were awarded higher marks in other components such as turn-out, personal performance in rifle exercise, squad drill, and word of command.

In view of the fact that no marks were awarded in the race component to the private respondents, the Court held that it could not, at this stage, conclude that they had not participated in the parade test.

While refraining from granting direct relief, the Court held that the matter warranted scrutiny at a higher level.

The petition was disposed of with a direction to the Director General of Police, Haryana, to ascertain whether the parade test event was videographed and if videography exists, re-examine the footage to determine, whether the respondents actually participated in the parade test and whether the petitioner was intentionally awarded lesser marks than her entitlement.

Title: Seema Rani v. State of Haryana And Others

Mr. Rajiv Sharma (Hisarwale), Advocate with Mr. Shubham Chauhan, Advocate,

Ms. Indubala Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Amrit Kashyap, Advocate for petitioner

Mr. Akshit Pathania, AAG, Haryana

Click here to read order