Petitioner, a Constable, challenged his failure in a promotion test due to low marks in the parade drill. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no material to suggest malafides or justify interference.
null
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P.NO.8558 of 2007 DATE OF ORDER: 5.2.2008
Dharambir
....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
.....Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
Present: Mr. Sat Narain Yadav, Advocate.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
JASBIR SINGH,J (ORAL)
Petitioner is a Constable. He appeared in the test, which was conducted to bring him Constables on promotion list B-1. It is an admitted fact that to pass the above said test, one has to undergo written examination and also get 50% marks in the parade. Petitioner passed the written examination. When he was put to drill test, he could get only 9 marks out of 20. In view of that, he was declared fail.
It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that as the petitioner, when he was put to the parade test, was working as Drill Instructor, it could not be believed that he would have failed in the parade, especially the endurance test in 1500 meters race, which was to be completed in seven minutes.
Be that as it may, it is not possible for us to say anything in that regard simply on the basis of averments made by the petitioner. There is no material on the basis of which, it can be said that the petitioner was declared failed on account of some malafide on the part of some senior official. Reliance upon the judgment (Annexure P.7) placed by counsel for the petitioner is also not justified. In that case, the candidate, who was working as Drill Instructor, was declared fail in a race, which he had earlier completed, when selected for Drill Instructor Course, in a lesser time. By
C.W.P.NO.8558 of 2007 #2#
taking note of that, benefit was given to that candidate. Situation is not the same in this case. When the petitioner was sent for Drill Instructor Course, he was not asked to run race of 1500 meters and to complete the same within seven minutes.
It is also apparent from the record that the petitioner was sent to Drill Instructor Course seven years back. May be during this period, he may have become lethargic and failed to pass the test.
No case for interference is made out.
Dismissed.
( JASBIR SINGH ) JUDGE
February 05, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the decision declaring the petitioner as failed in the promotion test.
Whether there is any material to show that the petitioner was declared failed on account of malafide.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
(Annexure P.7)Referred¶14
Dharambir
State of Haryana
Jasbir Singh
Jaswant Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
