The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition challenging the petitioner's failure to meet the Physical Standard Test requirements under the 2015 Rules, noting the petitioner waived the internal appeal and no provision existed for re-conduct.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3261 of 2019 (Roll No. 1321040045)
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Afzal Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Upadhyay, the learned Brief Holder for the State-respondents.
Undisputedly, the petitioner was subjected to the Physical Standard Test on 21 December 2018 in terms of which he was found not to comply with the requirements as statutorily placed. Although Rule 15 of the 2015 Rules envisaged an appeal being preferred against the said decision on the same date, the petitioner chose not to avail this opportunity. The 2015 Rules which governed the exercise carry no provision for the Physical Standard Test being re-conducted. The opinion of the Medical Board has also not been assailed as being arbitrary or on the grounds of malafides.
Accordingly and additionally bearing in mind the principles enunciated by a Division Bench in State of Uttar Pradesh & 2 Others Vs. Rahul, 2016(3) ADJ 327 , this Court finds no ground to issue the writs as prayed for.
The writ petition is consequently dismissed .
Order Date :- 28.2.2019 Arun K. Singh
(Yashwant Varma, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petitioner should be granted relief in terms of challenging the physical standard test decision despite waiver of internal appeal.
Whether principles enunciated in State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Rahul justify issuance of writs in this circumstance.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Uttar Pradesh & 2 Others Vs. RahulReferred¶7
State of Uttar Pradesh & 2 Others Vs. Rahul, 2016(3) ADJ 327
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amit Kumar
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
