Pankaj Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109120

Court No. - 4

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8328 of 2025

Petitioner :- Pankaj Yadav Respondent :- State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sher Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Sher Bahadur Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶7

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding respondent no.3 to fix a date to hold his physical efficiency test.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Clause 12 of the important instructions given to the candidates, where it is provided that if the date on which physical efficiency test is schedule a candidate is not in a position to appear, he/she will file his/her objections before the Examination Committee which is to take physical efficiency test and any other mode of objection, would not be entertained.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary submits that the Police Constable Recruitment, 2023 has already stood finalized with the declaration of results on 13.03.2023 and now the appointment process is under way. There is no evidence on record which can suggest that petitioner had ever lodged his protest/objection on the date when the physical efficiency test was scheduled.

¶10

Upon a pointed query being raised, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the physical efficiency test was scheduled to be held on 18.02.2025 but on account of his accident, he being admitted in a hospital, could not report himself at the center where the test was scheduled. However, since the accident had taken place earlier, he had sent an intimation to the authorities that he would not be able to attend the physical efficiency test and, therefore, his test might be rescheduled. Sri Yadav could not demonstrate either from the pleadings raised in the writ petition or

¶11

from the document by which he got his objections registered on the date before the physical efficiency test conducting authority when the scheduled physical efficiency test was held.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the records and having examined the relevant Clause of the instructions, which has been relied upon, I find that the process of selection has already stood concluded by declaration of results on 13.03.2025 and the petitioner may be for unavoidable circumstances, failed to get his objections or protest registered on the scheduled date of the physical efficiency test. In the circumstances, therefore, where the examination conducting body is to conclude the selection process in the scheduled time under the relevant rules, every candidate is required to follow the mandatory instructions which are issued to protect their own interest. Any laxity or any casual approach by a candidate in not following the instructions strictly may not in any manner hold him for any equitable consideration subsequently. I, further, find that the petitioner approached this Court only in the month of June, 2025, whereas, he could have approached this Court earlier also when the selection process was under way. It is, therefore, too late in day to ask the Recruitment Board to re-schedule any such physical efficiency test even if sympathetic consideration is accorded to the petitioner.

¶13

In view of the above, therefore, I decline to grant indulgence in the matter at this stage. Petition is hence devoid of merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 9.7.2025 S.A.

¶15

Digitally signed by :- SALMAN AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pankaj Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Nitesh Pathak vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Shahid Imam vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Satish Chand Dhama vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajendra Prasad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Archana Srivastava vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Shiv Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others