Allowed

N.Vaithegi v. The Chairman and Director General of Police

Madras HC9 Sept 2021WP/19063/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged her disqualification from escalating to Grade-II Police Constable post due to alleged incorrect timing in the 100 metres race. Court directed respondents to let her view the video footage to verify the time and pass appropriate orders within 15 days, dismissing broader appointment relief.

What did the court decide?

Director to allow petitioner to view video footage of her 100 metres race and pass appropriate orders within 15 days.

N.Vaithegi Vs The Chairman and Director… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 09.09.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.No.19063 of 2021 and W.M.P.No.20334 of 2021 (Through Video Conferencing)

N.Vaithegi

... Petitioner

1.The Chairman and Director General of Police, Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, (TNUSRB) Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶10

2.The Chairperson & Addl. Superintendent of Police, Ilupuram Centre & Superintendent of Police, Salem District. ... Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records and quashing the rejection order dated 12.08.2021 of the 2^nd respondent vide bearing Enrolment No.6402791 with Chest No.1 of the petitioner and consequently direct the respondents to issue appointment order to the petitioner for the post of GradeII Police Constable for the year 2020 by sending her for statutory training to the Police Training School along with her batch mates.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Ravi Anantha Padmanaban

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal Government Advocate

¶14

ORDER

¶15

The petitioner successfully crossed the first two milestones in the selection process i.e, by qualifying in the Written Examination and Physical Measurement Test but has failed in the third stage of selection process during Physical Endurance Test. The petitioner was required to have completed 100 metres race in 17.50 seconds.

¶16

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

¶17

2.It is the case of the petitioner that though the petitioner completed the aforesaid 100 metres race in 17.33 seconds was later informed by the DSP (In Charge) that the petitioner had completed the 100 meters after 17.50 seconds and based on the aforesaid decision the second respondent police issued an impugned order/ disqualification slip dated 12.08.2021 to the petitioner.

¶18

3.The petitioner submits that the P.T.Master who was on the track confirmed that the petitioner completed 100 metres race in 17.33 seconds. It is the further case of the petitioner that though the petitioner requested the respondent for viewing the video footage, the respondents however, rejected the request of the petitioner.

¶19

It is the case of the petitioner that this is a last opportunity for the petitioner to participate in the recruitment called by the first respondent/ Tamilnadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board as in the next recruitment, she will be age barred.

¶20

The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that under similar circumstances, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 09.09.2015 in W.P.No.26086 of 2015 had rejected the request by upholding the relief cannot be granted. The said order reads as under:-

¶21

“1.The petitioner has unfortunately failed to make the cut off in 100 metre run in the Physical Efficiency Test having clocked 18.72 seconds as against the bench mark of 17.50 seconds.

¶22

2.It is, thus, not possible to give any relief to the petitioner.

¶23

3.The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is closed.”

¶24

He also referred to another decision rendered in W.A. (MD).No.29 of 2020 vide order dated 21.01.2020 wherein the Court held that the disputed question of fact cannot be decided in the writ petition under article 226 of Constitution of India and it is not a writ court. Despite the same, the petitioner therein had completed 200 metres running in 38 seconds or 40 seconds.

¶25

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

¶26

He further, referred to few decisions rendered in W.A. (MD)No.1386 of 2017 disposed vide order dated 17.07.2020 wherein the Division Bench of the Madurai Bench of this Court which held that this Court cannot exercise appellate jurisdiction under clause 15 of the letters patent as a super selection authority.

¶27

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate for the respondents and also perused the decision cited by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶28

The petitioner has asked for a wider relief for being appointed to the post of Grade-II Police Constable for the year 2020 by sending her for statutory training to the Police Training School along with her batch mates. However, such relief cannot be granted either based on the averments in the affidavit or submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶29

The petitioner successfully crossed the first two mile stone in the selection process i.e, by qualifying in the Written Examination and the Physical Measurement Test but has failed in the third stage of selection process during Physical Endurance Test.

¶30

It appears that there is strong possibility for wrongly noting down the minute ratio as the petitioner has completed 100 metres race in 17.69 seconds [i.e. 17 and 69 milli seconds] instead of 17.50 seconds. The respondents ought to have allowed the petitioner to view the video footage of the race then and there, and obtained an acknowledgement from the petitioner. If that exercise was carried out, there would be no scope for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by allowing a candidate to view the footage would have satisfied the petitioner. Since this was not done there is scope for interference. In the decision cited by the learned Government Advocate for the respondents, this court has declined to grant any relief by releasing the criteria for physical measurement Test.

¶31

The petitioner is at best entitled to have access the video footage. If the video footage was allowed to viewed, then and there and acknowledgement was obtained from the candidates, they cannot thereafter come to court and ask for further relief. In this case, the petitioner was not allowed to view the video footage of the 200 metres race.

¶32

Considering the same, this writ petition is ordered by directing the respondent to allow the petitioner to view the

¶33

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

¶34

video footage of 100 metres race of the petitioner. The respondent shall thereafter pass appropriate orders. Such exercise shall be completed within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶35