AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Chandru, J.—The petitioners were all the applicants to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The said selection was conducted by the first
respondent Board constituted by the State Government.
When the petitioners went for the selection in Madurai District, they were asked to undertake as per the notification of the first respondent viz.,
physical measurement test, then endurance test and thereafter, physical efficiency test. After getting through these tests, there will be a written test
and after qualifying in the written test, there will also be an interview on the basis of the communal roster. The petitioners having accepted these
conditions, went to participate in the selection process.
Except in W.P.(MD) No. 4026 of 2007, in all these case, the petitioners have failed in the rope climbing test. In the case of W.P.(MD) No.
4026 of 2007, the petitioner B. Suresh Kumar, he did not got through jump event.
The ground raised in the Writ Petitions is that marks were entered wrongly because of the negligence of the irresponsible persons in the field and
therefore, they must be given opportunity once again to re-do the exercise.
In all these Writ Petitions, their request to write the examination pending consideration in the Writ Petitions were rejected by an order dated
26.4.2007.
Now, when the matter came up for further orders, with the consent of parties, the main Writ Petition themselves taken up for final hearing.
Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Mrs. V. Chellammal, learned Special Government pleader appearing for the respondents and
have perused the records.
It must be stated that the petitioners want to get into a Uniformed Service, which is supposed to be a disciplined force. Therefore, there was
nothing wrong in prescribing Endurance test, Physical Efficiency Test before the candidates are called for written test followed by an interview.
When there are overwhelming applicants, shortlisting has to be done on a rational basis and considering the fitness of the candidates is most
relevant, there was nothing wrong in the first respondent prescribing a series of elimination process. This question has already been dealt with
extensively in the interim order dated 26.4.2007. The Supreme Court in a recent decision relating to policeman vide I.G. (Karmik) and Ors. v.
Prahlad Mani Tripathi reported in AIR 2007 SCW 3305 held that even superior officers cannot waive or relax those conditions. The relevant
passage found in para 13 of the said judgment is worth quoting.
A person cannot be appointed unless he fulfils the eligibility criteria. Physical fitness being an essential eligibility criteria, the Superintendent of
Police could not have made any recommendation in violation of the rules.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to go into the relevancy of the test. The further submission that the authorities in the field were not properly
discharging their duties, excepting a bald statement in the affidavits, none of the names of the officers are mentioned and they were also not made
parties. Therefore, the mere assertion that they had done test very well cannot be accepted by this Court in the absence of any relevant materials
being forthcoming from the hands of the petitioners.
Powers of the Court in ordering second opportunities to the petitioners to once again go through the test is very limited and can never be
exercised except in the rarest of rare cases. If the contention raised by the petitioners are accepted, then it will result in Court becoming a super
selecting authority overlooking the exercise done by the first respondent and their subordinates.
When a question came whether the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution can exercise power in the matter of re-evaluation of the tests
already held by the public authorities, the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the said issue in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and
Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth (1984) 4 SCC 57. The following passage found in paragraph 28 and 29 are
relevant:
Para 28. As pointed out by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Fatehchand Himmatlal and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, ""the test of
reasonableness is not applied in vacuum but in the context of life''s realities"". If the principle laid down by the High Court is to be regarded as
correct, its applicability cannot be restricted to examinations conducted by School Education Boards alone but would extend even to all
competitive examinations conducted by the Union and State Public Service Commissions. The resultant legal position emerging from the High
Court judgment is that every candidate who has appeared for any such examination land who is dissatisfied with his results would, as an inherent
part of his right to ''fair play'' be entitled to demand a disclosure and personal inspection of his answer scripts; and would have a further right to ask
for revaluation of his answer papers. The inevitable consequence would be that there will be no certainty at all regarding the results f the
competitive examination for an indefinite period of time until all such requests have been complied with and the results of the verification and
revaluation have been brought into account.
Para 29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be
wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views
as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical
expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong
for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root
problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealist view as opposed to a
pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of
a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this
principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.
Therefore, in the absence of any mala fides being attributed to any of the respondents, the request made by the petitioners for having a second
opportunity can never be countenanced by this Court in view of the settled legal position. The Writ Petitions are misconceived. Hence, the Writ
Petitions will stand dismissed. No costs.