The Delhi High Court dismissed a petition by Delhi Police challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order that allowed a meritorious candidate who missed his Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PE&MT) due to illness to appear for the test with the next batch. The Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain upheld the CAT’s direction while modifying it to specify that once the new date is communicated, it shall be sacrosanct and not extended for any reason.
The respondent had participated in the selection process for the post of Constable (Executive) Male pursuant to advertisement issued by the petitioner on September 1, 2023 for Delhi Police Examination-2023. Having successfully cleared the written examination with 67.88 marks against the cut-off of 66.81 for OBC category, the respondent was called upon to appear for the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test on January 14, 2024. However, a representation was submitted by the respondent to the petitioner on January 13, 2024, one day prior to his scheduled date for the PE&MT, stating that he was unwell and requesting postponement of the PE&MT, which remained unanswered. A similar representation was again submitted by the respondent on January 14, 2024, which also remained unanswered.
It was stated in the recruitment notice under Clause 11 that the date, time & venue of PE&MT was FINAL and no request for change shall be entertained. In case a candidate fails to attend the PE&MT on the scheduled date & time, he shall be treated as ABSENT, and no request in any form for an alternative date through post/by-hand/e-mail etc. shall be entertained under any circumstances. The results were finalized by the petitioner on January 24, 2024, after which a representation was once again submitted by the respondent, seeking an opportunity to appear for the PE&MT. Upon receiving no reply, he approached the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The CAT allowed the original application observing that the applicant was otherwise meritorious, having secured 67.88 marks, which exceeded the 66.81 marks obtained by the last selected candidate under the OBC category. The Tribunal held that he deserved to be given another opportunity to appear in the PE&MT which he sadly missed due to his illness, and that the respondents had been unduly harsh and grossly unsympathetic in not giving him another opportunity which violated Article 14 – Right to equality and Article 16 – Equality of opportunity in matters of Public employment.
The Petitioner contended that the mandate of Clause 11 of the recruitment notice, which barred any change in the date or time of the PE&MT, was not appreciated by the Tribunal, and the rejection of the respondent’s candidature was justified given the large number of vacancies and candidates involved. On the contrary, the respondent submitted that no dispute existed regarding his medical condition, and that he had submitted representations dated 13th and 14th January, 2024, by hand through his mother, which remained unanswered. It was submitted that as the PE&MT exercise continued until January 20, 2024, there was no reason why reschedulement could not have been granted for reasons beyond the control of the respondent.
The Court observed that while the stipulation in Clause 11 of the notice would, and should, ordinarily be strictly applied, in matters of recruitment, a certain discretion still vests with the employer, particularly when unforeseen circumstances are faced either by the employer or by a candidate. It was held that a meritorious candidate should not lose an opportunity to government employment only because of ‘act of God’ or circumstances beyond the control of such a candidate, and rigidly applying rules in such cases would do injustice to such a candidate.
The bench noted that the PE&MT exercise was scheduled to continue until January 20, 2024, and it was not disputed that a meritorious position had been secured by the respondent in the written examination. It was observed that recruitment to a Government position is not easy, and it was specifically stated by the respondent that he belongs to a lower stratum of society. In these peculiar facts, the least that could have been expected was that a response to the representations dated January 13 and 14, 2024, submitted by the respondent, be given so that a decision could have been made as to whether he, despite his ill health, wished to appear for the PE&MT on January 14, 2024. The Court held that by not responding to the said representation, the petitioner effectively denied him the opportunity to appear on that date. Accordingly, the Court refused to intervene with the impugned order and hence the petition was dismissed.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mr. Ankur Mittal, CGSC with Mr. Aviraj Pandey, Adv.
Respondent: Mr. Shivanshu Bhardwaj & Mr. Himanshu Bhardwaj, Advs.
