Failure to pursue mandatory appeal after disqualification leads to dismissal of writ petition.

Ms. Atmaja Bandyopadhyay Heard on : 07.07.2025 Judgment on : 07.07.2025 Aniruddha Roy, J.:

The petitioner was aspirant for the post of Constable (GD) in Central Armed Police Forces, NIA and SSF and Riflemen (GD) in Assam Rifle Examination, 2024 (for short the said selection process).

The relevant averment of the petitioner from the writ petition is quoted below:

“The petitioner states that as such 1st November, 2024 the petitioner appeared for PST/PET. In PST the petitioner was declared not qualified and cannot participate in PET as her height was measured and she was found of cm cm in height, whereas the PST requirement indicated minimum 157 cm height.

A copy of the same is annexed hereto and marked as annexure ‘P-6’.”

The writ petition shows that the petitioner did not avail of the redressal appeal mechanism after the rejection of the candidature of the petitioner due to short of height rejected on November 1, 2024 annexure p-

7 at page 94 to the writ petition.

The petitioner has submitted a representation dated November 14, 2024 annexure p-9 at page 98 to the writ petition, the same has not been considered.

Opposing the writ petition Mr. Pramit Kumr Ray, learned senior advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the relevant medical guideline and the terms and conditions of the selection process provide that the petitioner first has to qualify the Physical Standard Test (PST) and then the candidate would have to face Physical Eligibility Test (PET) and only thereafter the relevant medical evaluation will happen (DME) before the duly constituted medical board. Since the petitioner has not taken any step after the said PST, the question of preceding any further with regard to the candidature of the petitioner did not arise. Hence, the rejection stands. No appeal was preferred by the petitioner in writing before the appellate authority on the same day of rejection, as mandatorily required under the terms and conditions of the selection process.

He further submits that there is no vacancy available for the said 2024 selection process and whatever vacancies were available have been carried forward for the next selection process of 2025. Learned senior counsel further submits that the final merit list has already been published on December 13, 2024. Hence, there is no question of entertaining this writ petition.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties upon perusal of the materials on record, it appears this court that, at the relevant point of time after being rejected during the PST, the petitioner did not pursue her right of appeal as provided under the terms and conditions of the selection process. The final merit list has already been published on December 13, 2024. The vacancy is not available. The vacancies, if any, for the year 2024 since have already been carried forward for the year 2025 selection process and such process has already commenced, as this court has informed, there is no scope for entertaining the claim of the petitioner at this stage. The petitioner has never pursued his right at right earnest.