Dismissed

P.Saravanan v. the Chairman

Madras HC29 Aug 2017WP(MD)/16219/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 challenging a disqualification slip for failing a Long Jump test, the Madurai Bench dismissed the petitioner's plea for a chance to complete remaining physical tests. The court held the petitioner was not entitled to the writ as he admitted twisting his own ankle while warming up.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition stood dismissed with no costs awarded.

P.Saravanan Vs the Chairman — Service and Employment | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 29.08.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJA

¶6

W.P.(MD)No.16219 of 2017

¶7

P.Saravanan : Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The Chairman, Sub-Committee, The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai. : Respondents

¶10

PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to participate in the remaining tests of both Long Jump and Running Test.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.L.Prabhu For Respondent : Mr.B.Pugazhendhi Additional Advocate General Assisted by Mr.A.K.Baskara Pandian, Special Government Pleader.

¶12

O R D E R

¶13

By consent of both parties, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal.

¶14

2.The petitioner, having passed S.S.L.C, applied for the post of Grade - II Police Constables / Grade-II Jail Warders / Fireman – 2017, when applications were called for by the respondent Police Department. Subsequently, after passing the written examination, the petitioner was called for the Physical Endurance Test.

¶15

3.Now, the grievance of the petitioner appears to be that he has been issued with the impugned disqualification slip with the reason that he failed in the Long Jump event.

¶16

4.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner successfully completed the rope climbing test and secured two stars on 03.08.2017, which shows that the petitioner is a fittest candidate for police selection. However, before

¶17

¶18

participating in the Long Jump test, the petitioner was warming up by doing some exercises. Unfortunately, while participating in the Long Jump test, the petitioner's left ankle got twisted. As a result, he suffered severe pain and swelling. Therefore, he was forced to keep away from the test.

¶19

5.Later, the petitioner made a representation on 09.08.2017 to the respondent, requesting a chance to complete the Long Jump test. But, the respondent did not come forward to consider the genuine request made by the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner is unable to take part in the Long Jump test and also in the subsequent physical tests. Since, the petitioner has already secured two stars in the rope climbing test, a direction may be issued to give him a chance to participate in the remaining tests.

¶20

6.This Court is unable to entertain the writ petition. The reason is that the petitioner himself admitted the fact that while participating in the long jump event, his left ankle got twisted and he suffered pain and swelling. Admittedly, when the petitioner himself became unwell, nobody can be blamed.

¶21

7.This Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly. No

¶22

costs.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(C.O.)

¶24

/True Copy/

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar.

¶26

¶27

The Chairman, Sub-Committee, The Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,

¶28

Old Commissioner of Police Office Campus, Pantheon Road, Egmore, Chennai.

¶29

+1CC to Mr.L.Prabhu, Advocate, SR.No. 74975

¶30

W.P.(MD)No.16219 of 2017 29.08.2017

¶31

MR/MRN AM/SV MMS/SAR 4/29.08.2017/2P/3C

¶32

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

P.Saravanan v. the Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Saravanan v. the Chairman

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

K.Pasumpon, Vs the Assistant Engineer

K.Savadammal Vs the District Collector

S.Ravichandran, Vs State of Tamilnadu Represented

K. Ramalingam Vs the Principal Secretary to

G.Peter Arul Selvan Vs the Commissioner of

P.Karthik, S/O.v.Pandi, Vs the Chairman