Failure to comply with specific instructions for conducting PST/PET and failure to inform the authorities about health issues in a timely manner may lead to dismissal of a petition seeking re-appearance in the examination process.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Jain, J. (Oral)

1. Petitioner, inter-alia, seeks direction that the respondents may allow her to participate in Physical Efficiency Test (PET) again to prove her eligibility for the written Examination for the post of Assistant Commandant (Civil/Engineer)-CRPF.

2. The Central Reserved Police Force (CRPF) had come up with an advertisement seeking recruitment of Assistant Commandant (Civil/Engineer) in CRPF Examination, 2021. The opening date of the application was 30.06.2021 and the closing date of application was 29.07.2021.

3. As per the recruitment process, any such candidate willing to participate in the aforesaid examination process, is required to undergo Physical Standard Test (PST), Physical Efficiency Test (PET), written examination, documentation followed by Detailed Medical Examination and interview.

4. Petitioner herein, being an aspirant for the aforesaid post of Assistant Commandant, participated in the process. On 08.11.2021, she reached at the examination centre located at NOIDA, U.P. for participation in PST and PET. After qualifying in PST, she participated in PET which comprised of three variations i.e., 100- meter race, 800-meter race and long jump, 3 meters in three chances. Petitioner qualified for the first two variants i.e., 100-meter race and 800-meter race but could not clear the long jump, despite availing all the given three chances. According to the petitioner, during the aforesaid particular point of time, she started feeling pain in her in lower abdomen with mild fever due to her menstrual cycle and, therefore, she was not able to give the desired performance. She contacted the concerned authority but she was directed to come again and explain her case to the higher authorities.

5. Eventually, she gave an application in writing and requested that she may be given one more chance to participate in the aforesaid event of long jump. According to petitioner, her representation was never decided and, therefore, being aggrieved by inaction on the part of the DIG (Recruitment), she is left with no option but to seek direction from the Court.

6. The factum of her participation in PST and PET is not disputed even by the respondents. However, accordingly to respondents, before her participation in PET on 08.11.2021, she never informed anyone about her alleged medical health or any medical issue. She rather on her own participated in the first two variations and if she is to be believed that she even topped the group in both the aforesaid races. It is contended that simply because she could not, eventually, clear the long jump, she has come up with a lame excuse that she was suffering from health issue. Therefore, according to respondents, she has no case and that her representation is nothing but an afterthought.

7. Admittedly, the PET took place on 08.11.2021. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had successfully participated in the first two event of 100-meter race and 800-meter race. It is not her case that before participating in any of the variants related to PET, she had informed anyone from the side of the respondents that she was suffering from any health issue and therefore, she was not able to participate in any such events.

8. If petitioner is to be believed, she contacted the higher authorities at NOIDA on 10.11.2021. Petitioner has, in this regard, relied upon her representation. Undoubtedly such representation is dated 10.11.2021 and in her such representation, she merely claimed that she could not attend the long-jump test properly due to mild fever with some health issue, being a lady candidate. In her entire representation, she, nowhere, claimed that she was having any issue related to menstrual cycle, on account of which, she was unable to clear the long-jump test.

9. According to respondents though such representation is dated 10.11.2021, but it was received in their office as late as on 07.12.2021. The contents thereof have also been disputed.

10. Acco