SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 1452

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Anoop Kumar Mendiratta, JJ.
Vishesh – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Police & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.(C) 6085 of 2023, CM APPLs. 23889-23890 of 2023
Decided On : 09-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Ms. Esha Mazumdar, Mr. S. Niket and Ms. Josmy John, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat, SC GNCTD (Services) with Ms. Tania Ahlawat, Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Ms. Laavanya Kaushik and Ms. Aliza Alam, Advocates, for the Respondents.

The court emphasized the duty of the respondents to consider the petitioner's request to participate in the Physical Endurance Test (PET) in light of the injury and medical evidence.

Headnote:

Physical Endurance Test - Challenge to Tribunal's Order - O.A. 1331/2023 - The court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the Physical Endurance Test (PET) on a specified date, considering the petitioner's injury and medical prescriptions.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the rejection of his request to participate in the Physical Endurance Test (PET) due to an injury suffered during the previous test.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner's request to participate in the PET should have been considered, given the injury and medical evidence. The court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the PET on a specified date.

Issues: The main issue was the rejection of the petitioner's request to participate in the Physical Endurance Test (PET) due to an injury, and the subsequent challenge in O.A. 1331/2023.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the respondents should have considered the petitioner's request to participate in the PET, given the injury and medical evidence. The court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the PET on a specified date.

Final Decision: The court directed the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the Physical Endurance Test (PET) on a specified date, considering the petitioner's injury and medical prescriptions.

JUDGMENT

V. Kameswar Rao, J. (Oral)--This petition has been listed before the Court in terms of a supplementary list circulated in the post lunch session.

2. The challenge in this Petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short `Tribunal') dated May 04, 2023 in O.A. 1331/2023, whereby the Tribunal has stated as under:

    1. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant would suffer irreparable loss in case he is not allowed to appear for the Physical Endurance Test (PET) as his request has been rejected by the respondents vide impugned order dated 28.04.2023.

    2. Learned counsel for the respondents states that the PET for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) are already over and the current round of PET is for departmental candidates and the criteria for examination of this test is different from that for direct recruitment.

    3. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, we find that the main prayer as well as the interim relief are almost the same. Learned counsel for the respondents states that if the interim protection is allowed it will tantamount to allowing the O.A.

    4. At this stage, it is seen that the applicant has already completed certain rounds of the selection process and only the PET followed by a typing test remain to be cleared.

    5. Issue notice. Mr. Amit Yadav, learned counsel, who appears on advance service, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. He seeks and is granted two weeks' time to file reply. Applicant may file rejoinder, if any, within a week thereafter.

    6. As an interim measure, selection process for the post of Head Constable (Ministerial) shall be subject to outcome to this O.A. At this stage, this is the only interim relief that is feasible.

    7. List on 29.05.2023."

3. The grievance of the petitioner before the Tribunal is in respect of the petitioner not being allowed to participate in a Physical Endurance Test (PET). In terms of order dated May 04, 2023, the Tribunal has only issued notice to the respondent in the O.A. and stated that the selection process shall be subject to the outcome of the O.A.

4. The challenge in the Original Application is to an order dated April 28, 2023, whereby the respondents have, pursuant to the directions given by the Tribunal in earlier round of litigation, decided the request of the petitioner for allowing him to participate in the Physical Endurance Test (PET) to be held on April 28, 2023 by rejecting the request on the ground that the date and time of Physical Endurance Test (PET) is final and no request for a change shall be entertained.

5. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in a fresh O.A. being O.A. 1331/2023, wherein this impugned order has been passed.

    6. The grievance of the petitioner as urged by his counsel is that the Tribunal has only stated that the selection process to the post of Head Constable Ministerial shall be subject to the outcome of the O.A., but it had not considered the prayer of the petitioner to allow him to participate in the Physical Endurance Test (PET) as such a direction would meet the ends of justice inasmuch as in the eventuality the petitioner clears the same, he would go to the next round of selection. It is also her submission that the first round of Physical Endurance Test (PET) was held on March 15, 2023, on which date the petitioner had suffered an injury because of which his mother had sent a communication to the concerned authority requesting him to provide him a further opportunity to appear in the Physical Endurance Test (PET). She had enclosed therewith the medical prescriptions with regard to the medical advice rendered by the Doctor. Her submission is when after March 15, 2023, a further date of April 28, 2023 was fixed for the Physical Endurance Test (PET), the respondents could not have rejected the request of the petitioner for his participation in the Physical Endurance Test (PET). She also submits that the petitioner be granted one opportunit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top