A candidate is not entitled to a second opportunity for a physical efficiency test if the tests for multiple applied posts are identical and conducted simultaneously, and the recruitment advertisement explicitly limits the opportunity to one.

NAFR

BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR

Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR

Date: 2026.04.23 17:40:10 +0530

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. Heard Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. P.K. Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondents/State.

2. This writ appeal is presented against the order dated 26.02.2026 (Yogendra Kumar Patel vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No. 10537 of 2025, whereby, the writ petition filed by appellant herein was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

3. The facts of the case according the appellant is that the appellant applied for the posts of Driver (Light Motor Vehicle) and Driver (Heavy Motor Vehicle) pursuant to the advertisement dated 18.05.2023 and fulfilled all eligibility criteria, subsequently appearing in the practical examination on 09.04.2025 wherein he secured first position in the merit list for both posts; thereafter, he was called for the walking test on 24.06.2025 for the post of Driver (HMV), however, since the walking tests for both LMV and HMV were conducted on the same day, he could not appear for the LMV walking test and also could not complete the HMV walking test within the prescribed time, following which he promptly submitted an application dated 26.06.2025 seeking an opportunity to undertake the LMV walking test, and although respondent No. 2 directed respondent No. 3 to act in terms of Clause-6 of the instructions dated 26.07.2023, no such opportunity was granted; further, no separate call letter for the LMV walking test had been issued to the appellant, yet the Single Judge, by order dated 26.02.2026, without considering these material facts and the departmental inclination to consider the appellant’s case, held that the appellant may have been marked absent for not informing the authorities of his candidature for both posts. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed writ petition being WPS No.10537 of 2025, whereby the petition filed by the appellant herein / writ appellant was dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2026. Hence, this writ appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities is wholly illegal, arbitrary and malafide. The appellant, being fully eligible, applied for both the posts of Driver (LMV) and Driver (HMV), was called for the practical examination on 09.04.2025, and secured first position in the merit list for both posts. He further submits that pursuant thereto, the appellant was called for the walking test on 24.06.2025 for the post of Driver (HMV). However, as the walking tests for both LMV and HMV were conducted on the same day, the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to appear in the LMV walking test and further could not complete the HMV walking test within the prescribed time. He also submits that the appellant submitted an application seeking conduct of the walking test for the post of Driver (LMV), and though respondent No. 2 acknowledged the appellant’s absence in the LMV walk test and directed respondent No. 3 to act in accordance with Clause-6 of the instructions dated 26.07.2023, no such opportunity has been granted till date, rendering the action of the respondents unjust and unsustainable in law. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents / State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of