NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO(S).1242-1243/2016

MAHENDRA PRATAP SINGH  & ORS.                      APPELLANT(S)

                               VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.                      RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

C.A. NO. 1874-1875/2016

C.A. NO. 3808/2016

J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1. Applications  for  impleadment/intervention  are

dismissed.

2. The appellants are candidates who participated in

the  selection  process  of  Ranker  Sub-Inspector

conducted during 2011.  According to them, they were

not  physically  fit  to  participate  in  the  physical

efficiency  test  and  yet  they  were  compelled  to

participate.  It is further submitted that for those

who have not thus participated in the selection on

account  of  the  physical  illness,  the  Competent

Authority had issued a circular permitting them to

participate on a subsequent date. Therefore,  it  is

submitted that the candidates who have been compelled

to  undergo  physical  efficiency  test  despite  their

1

illness could not have been put in a worse condition.

3. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, learned Additional Advocate

General,  appearing  for  the  respondents  points  out

that  the  State  had  taken  a  stand  before  the  High

Court that in the case of those who have participated

without any objection could not be given  a second

chance.

4. We  find  from  the  penultimate  paragraph  of  the

impugned judgment that the Division Bench of the High

Court has permitted for re-test in the case of those

candidates who had informed about the ailment on the

date of the physical efficiency test or earlier.  The

relevant  paragraph  of  the  impugned  judgment  is

extracted below:-

“In view of the aforesaid discussions,

we find no infirmity or illegality in the

impugned judgment, which is hereby approved.

However, it is provided that in respect of

Category  III  and  Category  IV  candidates,

benefit of the above judgment shall not be

extended  to  the  candidates,  who  have  not

informed about the ailment on the date of

Physical Efficiency Test or earlier.”

5. In  case,  the  appellants  had  actually  informed

prior to the test or at the time of test regarding

their  ailment  they  are  otherwise  protected  by  the

High Court.   Such of the appellants are permitted to

approach  the  competent  authority  with  supporting

material, in which case the needful in the light of

the judgment as extracted herein above will be done

within another one month.

6. Therefore,  no  further  orders  are  required  in

these  appeals.   The  appeals  are,  accordingly,

disposed of.

2

7. Pending  applications,  if  any,  shall  stand

disposed of.

8. There shall be no orders as to costs.

.......................J.               [KURIAN JOSEPH]  

.......................J.               [DEEPAK GUPTA]  

.......................J.               [HEMANT GUPTA]  

NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 15, 2018.

3