Priti Devi vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:105748

Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8257 of 2025

Petitioner :- Priti Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ambuj Maurya,Ayush Kumar Shukla,Madhaw Pandey,Shashank Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Madhaw Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

In compliance of the earlier order of this Court learned Standing Counsel has obtained instruction in the matter and as per instruction physical efficiency test was held from 20.05.2025 to 28.05.2025 and thereafter the process has been undertaken for final result. He has also relied upon authority of this Court in the case of Sangita Baghel v. State of U.P. and others:Writ A No.8620 of 2020 decided vide order dated 18.11.2020 in which it was observed that only matter of physical efficiency test itself cannot be adjourned for personal convenience of the candidates. The background of the case is that the petitioner was earlier having pregnancy and gave birth to caesarean baby on 12.04.2025. Resultantly, she was not fit to undergo exercise of any kind which may be required in the physical efficiency test conducted by the respondents between the period running from 20.05.2025 to 28.05.2025. She was advised rest of three months and accordingly, she moved an application seeking extension of time and yet no order was passed upon the said application and petitioner could not participate in the physical efficiency test on account of her physical condition due to delivery through cesarean on 12.04.2025.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in such special facts and circumstances therefore, a sympathetical consideration ought to have been

¶9

awarded to the petitioner's candidature by fixing a date after a period of atleast two months of delivery. It is submitted that the respondents were not justified in not passing the order upon application moved by the petitioner and simply asking the petitioner that no extension of time can be given to her giving her request beyond 28.05.2025. He has further relied upon authority of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Preeti Malik v. State of U.P. and 4 others dated 06.05.2022 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.16580 of 2021 in which in special facts and circumstances of the medical case the Bench relied upon the authority of the Supreme Court in the State of U.P. vs. District Judge, Unnao and others :AIR 1984 SC 1401 and Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and others v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and others : (1980) 2 SCC 593 in which it was held that the exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India can be carried out and therefore, in such cases sympathetic consideration should be accorded and accordingly, the Court directed for fresh Physical Efficiency Test to be held between a particular period of time and as per procedure in accordance with law. The relevant paragraph nos.10, 11 and 12 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

¶10

" 10. It is apt to mention here that power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is to advance justice and not to thwart it (State of Uttar Pradesh vs. District Judge Unnao and others; AIR 1984 SC 1401). The very purpose of such Constitutional powers being conferred on the High Court is that no person should be subjected to injustice by violating the law.

¶11

11. In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. and others vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha and others; (1980) 2 SCC 593, the Supreme Court has held that Article 226 is a sparing surgery but lancet operates where injustice suppurates. The wide words of Article 226 are designed for service of the lowly numbers in their grievances if the subject belongs to the Court's province and the remedy is appropriate to the judicial process.

¶12

12. In view of above analysis on fact and law, I am of the considered opinion that facts and circumstances of present case warrants for interference and to pass appropriate order and direction to impart justice to the petitioner by exercising

¶13

powers granted to Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, this writ petition stands disposed of with following directions :-

¶14

i) The respondents' authorities are directed to fix a date between 16.5.2022 to 20.5.2022 for conducting Physical Efficiency Test of petitioner providing prior information to her.

¶15

ii) On the basis of outcome of Test referred above, merit of petitioner shall be declared and in case, she got more than cut off marks, she shall be appointed on the post of Jail Warder. However, if process is already completed, petitioner shall put at the bottom of merit list and her candidature will be considered if a vacancy arose due to non-joining of a selected candidate or otherwise ".

¶16

In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondents to hold a fresh physical efficiency test, only if the final results have not been declared on or before 20.07.2025 and then proceed with the outcome of the physical efficiency test and in the event final results have been declared, the physical efficiency test shall be held if vacancies are available.

¶17

Order Date :- 7.7.2025 Deepika

¶18

Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Priti Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priti Devi v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Anshu Mishra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Krishna Kant Pandey vs Union of India and 4 Others

Raj Kumar Singh vs the State of Up and Another

Km. Pinki vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Kedarnath vs Badri Prasad Gupta

Gauri Agarwal and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others