Commissioner, Delhi Police & Anr vs Uttam Kumar

Dipankar Datta, J

Leave granted.

This appeal presents a classic example of how irresponsible an individual can be.

Public employment is scarce. The youth of the country eagerly await such  employment  opportunities,  as  and  when  the  same  are  thrown open, with fervent hopes for a brighter future. Here, we have a case where the respondent, despite having qualified in the first tier of the selection process for appointment as a Constable in the police force, has simply frittered away a golden opportunity by staying away from participating in the next tier of selection, i.e., the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test ‘PE&MT’ citing ill health  (suffering from cold, cough, fever, headache, body pain, and dizziness). Respondent should have been made to pay the price for his tardy and lethargic conduct; however, the successful invocation of jurisdiction by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi ‘Tribunal’ in directing the appellants to allow the respondent to take the PE&MT with the next batch of job aspirants, followed by refusal of the High Court of Delhi ‘High Court’ to interfere resulting in approval of the Tribunal’s aforesaid direction, has triggered this appeal.

The  reason  which  weighed  with  the  Tribunal  and  the  High  Court  is that the respondent had submitted at least 3 (three) representations seeking rescheduling of the date for his PE&MT, which went unheeded.

The advertisement dated 1st September, 2023 pursuant to which the respondent applied for consideration of his candidature, in no uncertain terms, stipulated that  the schedule for the PE&MT  is final and cannot be altered under any circumstances. We are informed that a little less than a lakh of job aspirants had registered themselves for participation in the selection process; however, it was the respondent alone who sought for rescheduling of the date for the PE&MT.

The record reveals that the respondent was scheduled to appear for the PE&MT on 14th January, 2024. He sought to submit three representations dated 13th, 14th and 25th January, 2024. Prayer in the first two representations was common: either the respondent be advised to take the PE&MT on the reserve day or 15 (fifteen)  days’time may be given to him to recover. Admittedly, the first representation “was not accepted by the concerned officer”. It was, therefore, not looked into. Insofar as the second and the third representations are concerned, we find absence of any statement in the original application that the same were received by the office of the respective addressees. Our query as to who submitted the said representations went unanswered. There being no endorsement acknowledging receipt of the said representations, it makes the claim of the respondent that his representations were not considered doubtful.

Be that as it may, assuming that the representations were received and did deserve a look, there is a clear statement in the third representation  (dated  25th January,  2024)  that “onthe  morning  of 13th January, 2024 the applicant reported to the Delhi Police Recruitment 2023 for the Posts of Constable/ Executive Male ...”. By his own admission, the respondent was able to move around on 13th January, 2024 but unable to move on 14th January, 2024. Such being the position, at least, an effort should have been made by the respondent to remain physically present on the scheduled date of the PE&MT. He, however, abstained and was, in our opinion, rightly marked “ABSENT”.

Even  otherwise,  notwithstanding  that  the  representations  were  not answered, bearing in mind the clear stipulation in the advertisement, noted above, the request of the respondent could not have been favourably  considered  unless,  of  course,  an  exceptional  case  for  its acceptance were set up. Nature of the respondent’s ill health on the date he was scheduled to appear for the PE&MT (14th  January, 2024) was not  such  so  as  to  deserve an exceptional  treatment.  We, thus, see no  reason  to  hold  that  the omission,  neglect  or  failure  of  the appellants to even respond to the respondent’s representations, assuming that they were received, conferred on him the enforceable right to seek a rescheduling of the examination date. Most certainly, non-communication of any decision on any of the representations, on facts  and  in  the circumstances,  did not clothe  the Tribunal to  make the  order  it did while disposing of  the original application, throwing the process asunder.

The stakes are high, when it comes to public employment and opportunities like these can be life changing for young people. When chances are rare, one needs to grab them with both hands. The ailment from which the respondent was suffering was not such that he was even unable to move, and the minimum that one could expect of him was to report for the PE&MT, cite his inability to take the same and to request rescheduling to enable him participate. This could have, at least, given an opportunity to the appellants or the authorities in charge of holding the examination to decide whether or not the respondent was in genuine need for an accommodation. Not showing up and expecting a second chance, clearly demonstrates a lack of drive and initiative on the part of the respondent.

Given that the respondent aspired to join the police force as a Constable, his conduct leaves a lot to be desired.

We  are  also  not  persuaded  to  accept the  argument  that  since  the respondent belongs to the backward community, the Tribunal and the High Court were right in exercising discretion in his favour and against the appellants. Merely because one belongs to the backward community  cannot  be  the  decisive  factor  for  tilting  the  scales.  The boundaries for exercise of discretion are well carved out beyond which  the  adjudicatory  fora  ought  not  to  trench.  Grace,  charity  or compassion ought to stay at a distance in matters of public employment, if a fair level playing field is to be secured.

There is, thus, no other option before us but to set aside the judgment and  order  of  the  Tribunal  dated  7th July,  2025,  since  upheld  by  the High Court vide  the  judgment and order dated 3rd September 2025 under challenge. It is ordered accordingly.

The appeal stands allowed.

Parties shall bear their own costs.