JUDGMENT :

Vivek Chaudhary, J.

1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra assisted by Sri Naveen Shukla as well as Sri Birendra Pratap Singh and Sri Manish Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Praful Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for the Commission.

2. The petitioners have challenged the physical efficiency test as prescribed by order dated 8.7.2019 for appearing in the physical efficiency test scheduled to be held between 9.9.2019 to 11.9.2019 for the post of Platoon Commander, Home Guards and on 12.9.2019 and 13.9.2019 for the post of Block Organizer, Home Guards at Lucknow. They claim that they may not be subjected to such physical efficiency test. In the alternative, the petitioners have sought a relief of certiorari for quashing Clause 12(2) of the Advertisement No.02-Examination/2016 so far as it prescribes for holding a physical efficiency test for selection to the post of Platoon Commander and Block Organizer in the Home Guards Department.

3. The facts of the case are that in the year 2016, Advertisement No.02-Examination/2016 was issued for combined subordinate services selection by which, large number of vacancies of different departments were advertised. Under the said advertisement, vacancy for the post of Platoon Commander and Block Organizer of the Home Guards Department was also advertised. For the said post, selection process included written and interview tests and further, physical efficiency test as well as physical measurements. The physical measurements were prescribed in the advertisement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that appointments on the aforesaid posts are to be made under the U.P. Home Guards Department Subordinate Service Rules, 1982 (for short 'the Rules of 1982') read with U.P. Subordinate Services Selection Commission Act, 2014 (for short 'the Act of 2014') and its Regulations.

5. Challenging the said selection, learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the Rules of 1982 do not provide for a physical efficiency test and the said Rules only provide for physical measurements. It is further submitted that the physical efficiency test could not have been provided in midway of the selection process after the advertisement is made. Learned counsel further submit that even otherwise, physical efficiency test, as provided by the impugned order, is too stringent. Learned counsel for the petitioners have tried to drawn comparison with the physical efficiency test held for the post of Sub Inspector of Police and Police Constable and submit that the physical efficiency test imposed for the Home Guards is much more stringent than that of Sub-Inspector of Police and Police Constables. Thus, the conditions are arbitrarily stringent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that the marks fixed in the physical efficiency test are competitive in nature as the same provide increasing marks for better efficiency. Learned counsel further submit that such marking system cannot be imposed during the process of selection and the same ought to have been provided at the time of advertisement. It is further submitted that at a later stage, only a criteria for clearing the physical efficiency test could be provided and not competitive marking. For the said purpose, learned counsel for the petitioners rely upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ramjit Singh Kardam and others vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others (2020) 20 SCC 209 and K. Manjusree vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and another (2008) 3 SCC 512.

7. Opposing the contention of learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for the Commission and Sri Praful Yadav, learned Standing Counsel, submit that a bare perusal of Clause 12(2) of the said advertisement shows that physical efficiency test as well as physical measurements was provided in the advertisement