Dismissed

Mr Prashantha D v. the Deputy Inspector General of Police

Karnataka HC21 Sept 2024WP/24172/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the declaration of non-qualification for the Armed Police Constable post due to failure in Physical Endurance Test held during heavy rain. Bench dismissed the petition as petitioner's lower qualifying marks made selection unlikely despite assumption of physical test success.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no opportunity for retest granted.

Mr Prashantha D Vs the Deputy Inspector General of… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:39645 WP No. 24172 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.24172 OF 2024 (S-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MR. PRASHANTHA .D S/O DURGAPPA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/T NO.35, MALALLI VILLAGE CHAKRANGARA, HOSANAGARA - 577425 SHVIAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT SARASWATHI M, ADVOCATE FOR SRI DEVARAJ H.K., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MARKONAHALLI RAMU PRIYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE APPOINTMENT AND TRINING CO-ORDINATE OFFICER POLICE CONSTABLE SELECTION COMMITTEE CARTON BHAVAN, PALACE ROAD BANGALORE - 01.

¶15

THE CHAIRMAN P.C. RECRUITMENT COMMITTEE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI - 576101.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI: PRINCE ISAC, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:39645 WP No. 24172 of 2024

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROFOMA I AND II DTD.19.07.2024 VIDE ANNX-J DECLARING THE PETITIONER HAS NOT QUALIFIED AND WHICH WAS HELD AS PER THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO. 07(F)RECT-4/2022-23 DTD. 02.07.2024 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-D AND ETC.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has called in question profoma I and II dated 19.07.2024, declaring the petitioner as not qualified as per the notification bearing No.07(F)Rect-4/2022-23 dated 02.07.2024. The petitioner has also sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.1 to provide another opportunity to give the Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Endurance Test (PET).

¶23

The petitioner contends that respondent No.1 had issued a notification bearing No.07/Rect-04/2022-23 dated 12.09.2022, inviting applications from eligible candidates to the post of armed police constable. The eligible academic qualification for the said post was a pass in SSLC examination. The petitioner contends that since he possessed the required

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:39645 WP No. 24172 of 2024

¶25

qualification, he filed an application online, following which an admission ticket was issued. The respondent No.1 sent an e-mail on 02.07.2024 informing that the next stage of recruitment is scheduled between 08.07.2024 and 12.07.2024. The petitioner also received a message on 06.07.2024 to appear before respondent No.2 on 10.07.2024 to participate in the physical standard test and physical endurance test, that was organized at Mahathma Gandhi District Stadium, Ajjarkadu, Udupi District. Later, on 08.07.2024 another message was received by the petitioner by which the physical standard test and physical endurance test was postponed and that the next date would be communicated. The petitioner contends that on 15.07.2024, another message was received by him to attend that PST and PET on 19.07.2024. The petitioner contends that on 18.07.2024, the meteorology department had issued a red alert in Udupi district and as precautionary measure, the Deputy Commissioner had announced a holiday on 19.07.2024 for school, colleges and anganawadi etc.,. The petitioner contends that the respondent No.2 instead of postponing the test, compelled the petitioner to participate in PST and PET tests that were held in Mahathma Gandhi District Stadium, Ajjarkadu, Udupi on 19.07.2024. The

¶26

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:39645 WP No. 24172 of 2024

¶27

petitioner contends that the stadium was inundated with water and therefore, he was not able to perform his best. The respondent No.2 declared the petitioner as not qualified. He contends that as per the notification dated 02.07.2024, a similar test was to be conducted on the same day in Davangere district, but since the district administration declared orange alert due to heavy rain, the district police had issued a publication that the test was postponed. Likewise in Haveri district, the test was postponed. While in Karwar, the test was shifted to a stadium in Dharward. The petitioner therefore contends that, the respondent No.2 should not have conducted the test on 19.07.2024. He contends that respondent No.2 after conducting the physical standard test, had declared the petitioner as not qualified. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court seeking aforestated reliefs.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had qualified in the physical standard test but due to heavy rain, he could not perform to the best of his ability and therefore, he could not qualify in the physical endurance test.

¶29

He submitted that when a red alert was issued by district administration, the respondent No.2 must have postponed the

¶30

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:39645 WP No. 24172 of 2024

¶31

conduct of endurance test as was done in Haveri and Davangere district. She contended that alternatively the respondent No.2 must have conducted the test in another location. She therefore submitted that, the impugned profoma I and II issued by respondent No.2 declaring the petitioner as not qualified be set-aside and an opportunity be granted to the petitioner to undergo the PSG and PET test again.

¶32

Learned Additional Government Advocate was directed to secure the information whether the petitioner can be again subject to undergo physical endurance test to assess his suitability. The learned Additional Government Advocate after securing information submitted that the petitioner had applied under 3A category and had secured 63% marks in the qualifying SSLC examination. However, two candidates were selected under the 3A category who had secured 68.5% marks and 72% marks respectively and therefore, even if a physical endurance test was conducted on the petitioner, it is unlikely that he would be selected as there are more meritorious candidates who are provisionally selected. He therefore contends that the petitioner had qualified in the physical standard test, but he did not qualify in the physical endurance

¶33

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:39645 WP No. 24172 of 2024

¶34

test conducted on the same day. He contends that out of 152 persons who have qualified in the Physical Endurance Test, 58 of them failed and 94 of them had qualified. He therefore submits that the claim of the petitioner that he could not perform to his fullest ability cannot be accepted, as others who are qualified also faced the physical endurance test in similar conditions.

¶35

I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA.

¶36

It is not in dispute that the petitioner had applied under the 3A category and had secured 63% in the qualifying SSLC examination. There were two posts that were reserved for 3A category, one of which was earmarked for a rural candidate. The rural candidate, who is provisionally selected, secured 72% in the qualifying examination. While the other candidate had secured 68.5% marks in the qualifying examination. Therefore, even if it is assumed that the petitioner qualified in the physical endurance test, he having secured 63% marks in the qualifying examination, he stood no chance of being selected.

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:39645 WP No. 24172 of 2024

¶38

¶39

Under the circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief in this writ petition. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed . The learned Additional Government

¶40

Advocate is permitted to file a memo of appearance within ten days from today.

¶41

Sd/-

¶42

(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶43

THM

¶44

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3

Mr Prashantha D v. the Deputy Inspector General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Prashantha D v. the Deputy Inspector General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ranganatha T S Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ramaswamy D Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri v G Venkatesh Vs the District & Sessions Judge

Sri P Maruthi Vs the Mission Director

Dr.Suma B Sathenahalli Vs the Government Dental College

Sri Kakasaheb Narasgouda Patil @ K N Patil Vs Managing Director Karnataka State Tourism Corporation Ltd.