The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a petitioner who failed a physical efficiency test. The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to a re-examination per the conditions and was estopped from complaining about venue changes after voluntarily participating.
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.
1
Court No. - 83
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1646 of 2020
Petitioner :- Durgesh Dubey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Seema Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
The petitioner has instituted this writ petition seeking the
following reliefs:
"To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents No.2 and 3 to re-examine physical efficiency examination to the petitioner under the aforesaid circumstances.
To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No.2 and 3 to decide the representation dated 16.01.2020 to the petitioner.
To issue any other writ order of direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
The facts relevant to the adjudication of the controversy, which are beyond the pale of any dispute, are these. According to the counter affidavit, the notification provides the following conditions for the physical efficiency test:
"The candidate found unsuccessful on the examination due to not fulfilling prescribed norms, will not be given another opportunity and no appeal could be filed either on the ground of health or any other reason."
The petitioner participated in the physical efficiency test at 33rd Battalion P.A.C. Jhansi on 11.01.2020, of his own free will. The petitioner failed in the physical efficiency test. The petitioner is not entitled to another opportunity to participate in the physical efficiency test, in light of the aforesaid condition governing the physical efficiency test.
The grievance that the petitioner failed in the physical efficiency test because of repeated changes in the avenue is not only misconceived but a mere excuse to justify his failure. It is not worthy of consideration. The earlier physical efficiency test scheduled on 09.01.2020 at Kanpur was cancelled due to weather conditions (which was beyond the
2
control of the examiners). The changed avenue was notified in the evening of 09.01.2020. The test was held on the appointed date and time at Jhansi.
Moreover, Sri Sharad Chandra Upadhyaya, learned Standing Counsel for the State - respondents points out that the petitioner had an opportunity to request for a postponement of the physical efficiency test. The relevant part of the notification is extracted hereunder:
" ¼N%½ & ;fn dksbZ vH;FkhZ 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk gsrq fu;r le; ,oa fnukad ij ijh{kk eas lfEefyr gksus esa vlQy jgrk gSa rks og ijh{kk gsrq lEcfU/kr tuin esa xfBr lfefr dks ijh{kk esa lfEefyr u gksus ds foLr`r dkj.kksa dk mYys[k djrs gq;s] fdlh vU; fnukad dks ijh{kk eas lfEefyr gksus ds fy;s ijh{kk fnol dks gh Lo;a ;k fdlh izfrfuf/k ds ek/;e ls izR;kosnu ns ldrk gSA Mkd vFkok vU; fdlh ek/;e ls izsf"kr izR;kosnu vFkok xfBr lfefr ds vfrfjDr vU; fdlh dks fn;s tkus okys izR;kosnu ij dksbZ fopkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA lfefr }kjk mlds izR;kosnu ij fopkj dj mls fdlh vU; fnukad ,oa le; ij ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus gsrq fu.kZ; fy;k tk ldrk gSA bl lEcU/k esa vH;FkhZ dks dsoy ,d vfrfjDr volj iznku fd;k tk;sxk ,oa vxj og iqufuZ/kkZfjr fnukad ,oa le; ij ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus esa foQy jgrk gS rks mls ijh{kk eas vlQy ekuk tk;sxkA vH;FkhZ dh 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk gsrq fu/kkZfjr frfFk ds ckn mlds }kjk fn;k x;k dksbZ Hkh izR;kosnu Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk;sxkA mijksDr ,sls lHkh izdj.kksa dks ftlesa lfefr }kjk ijh{kk dk fnukad ,oa le; iqufuZ/kkZfjr fd;k tk;sxk mlds lEcU/k esa cksMZ dks lwfpr fd;k tk;sxkA "
The petitioner did not avail of the said option. He willingly participated in the physical efficiency test. Having participated and failed in the test, he is estopped from raising all these issues.
No lawful ground to grant the prayers in the writ petition is made out.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.11.2020 Ashish Tripathi
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be given another opportunity to participate in the physical efficiency test after failing due to not fulfilling prescribed norms.
Whether the petitioner is estopped from raising objections regarding changes in the test venue after voluntarily participating in the test.
Durgesh Dubey
State Of U.P.
2 Others
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
