The court upheld the validity of a notification imposing physical test conditions, affirming that they were in accordance with the original recruitment advertisement and rules, not altering the selection process detrimentally.

JUDGMENT :

Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Utsav Mishra, learned counsel for U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission, respondent No.2.

2. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing impugned notification dated5.3.2025 (Annexure No.1).

A further prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to complete selection process by simplifying physical test in accordance with the original advertisement No.23 Pariksha-2016 ignoring the notification dated 5.3.2025 (supra) which has been issued after completion of written test and document verification, has also been made.

3.The facts of the case, in brief, are that in the year 2016, Advertisement No.23 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 Hawaldar Instructor along with other posts was 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. In Column 12(2) of the advertisement of 2016, it has been provided that the physical efficiency test shall be conducted for the post of Hawaldar Instructor but no details of the physical test have been prescribed in the advertisement. The petitioners appeared in the written examination and were declared successful as per result dated 11.3.2024. The document verification was also done and final result was declared on 23.1.2025, in which the petitioners were shown as successful. Now, the petitioners along with others have to undergo physical test/physical efficiency test, for which the impugned notification dated 5.3.2025 has been issued.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that by the impugned notification, very hard conditions for physical test have been made. He submits that the notification impugned has been issued post nine years of the advertisement, in which no detail to specify the type of physical test was given and now after a long period of around a decade, stringent conditions have been imposed for the physical test in an arbitrary and illegal manner and such hard conditions cannot be issued during the selection process which started as per the advertisement issued in the year 2016. It is further submitted that had the type of physical test been given in the advertisement, the petitioners could have chosen the post as per their ability.

It is further submitted that during the course of selection, the terms of advertisement cannot be changed while making recruitment. In this context, learned counsel has relied on a judgment of Supreme Court in Tej Prakash Pathak and others versus Rajasthan High Court and others Civil Appeal No.2634 of 2013. It is submitted that the petitioners should be permitted to participate strictly in accordance with the advertisement issued in the year 2016, in which the stringent condition as given in the impugned notification was not provided. Feeling aggrieved of so stated hard and tough conditions provided in the impugned notification, the petitioners have preferred a representation dated 11.3.2025 which is pending disposal before the Commission.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 while opposing the petition has submitted that Clause 12(2) read with clause 12(1) of advertisement No.23-Pariksha/2016 contained in Annexure No.2 to the petition provides