IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 209 CWP-620-2018 Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 RAJENDER KUMAR ... Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY. **** Present: Mr. Amit Mehta and Mr. Joydeep Garg, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has been granted three chances to clear the B-1 test, but he failed and has not even earned 31 qualifying benchmark service points fixed for fitness to be considered under 35% seniority-cum-fitness quota as per instructions by the Director General of Police, Haryana vide memo No.1600-37/T-2 dated 13.02.2007 issued in terms of the directions by this Court in CWP No.7952 of 2004 titled as Naresh Kumar Versus State of Haryana, regarding which, paragraph No.4 in the reply filed by the State is referred. 2. The above could neither be rebutted during the course of hearing nor any replication had been filed in this regard. 3. Dismissed. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JULY 07, 2026. JUDGE Rajender Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.07 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH 209 CWP-620-2018 Date of Decision: 07.07.2026 RAJENDER KUMAR ... Petitioner VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY. **** Present: Mr. Amit Mehta and Mr. Joydeep Garg, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. The petitioner has been granted three chances to clear the B-1 test, but he failed and has not even earned 31 qualifying benchmark service points fixed for fitness to be considered under 35% seniority-cum-fitness quota as per instructions by the Director General of Police, Haryana vide memo No.1600-37/T-2 dated 13.02.2007 issued in terms of the directions by this Court in CWP No.7952 of 2004 titled as Naresh Kumar Versus State of Haryana, regarding which, paragraph No.4 in the reply filed by the State is referred. 2. The above could neither be rebutted during the course of hearing nor any replication had been filed in this regard. 3. Dismissed. (AMAN CHAUDHARY) JULY 07, 2026. JUDGE Rajender Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RAJENDER KUMAR 2026.07.07 16:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order