How often do NYPD higher-ups push dangerously unqualified applicants through the hiring process? The story of Michael Baror suggests it’s too often.

Baror stands charged with beating a motorist in an off-duty road-rage incident on New Year’s Day. The 11-count indictment has him pistol-whipping another driver and ramming his Jeep into that car.

Yet The Post’s Susan Edelman reported Saturday that he was hired despite an NYPD shrink’s 2014 warnings. Baror had “anger management” issues and “a tendency to behave in an impulsive, reckless and careless fashion,” the psychologist noted. Indeed, he’d already been in several altercations.

Yet nine days later, an NYPD supervisor, shrink Edward Fitzsimmons, gave Baror a thumbs-up all the same, claiming he’d be “an asset to the department.” And he also provided the “third” opinion that broke the tie.

Baror “never should have been hired,” an NYPD whistleblower lamented. “The whole appeals process is a mess,” as brass sometimes go to bat to push a friend or relative through, an insider claimed.

Joseph Giacolone, an ex-NYPD detective sergeant who teaches at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, also said Baror’s case isn’t the first of its kind he’s heard about. And several department shrinks reportedly wrote to the commissioner about the issue; some even quit over it. (NYPD spokesmen didn’t return our requests for comment by press time.)

Lowering the bar this way isn’t just unfair but dangerous. Cops have huge power and responsibility; bad ones can tarnish the whole department — and put lives at risk.

Letting insiders poke holes in your “rigorous” screening is an outrage.