RAJVIR SINGH Vs. S S C AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is taken up for final hearing. This writ petition arises from the challenge to the letter dated 17th June 2003 issued by the Assistant Director, Staff Selection Commission, Northern Region before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Delhi in O.A. 2376/2003. The petitioner was appointed as Constable on 20th December, 1988 and applied for the post of Sub-Inspector in response to the advertisement published in the Employment News, as departmental candidate, for which 10% vacancies out of total vacancies, were reserved under Rule 7 of the Delhi Police (Appointment and Recruitment) Rules 1980. The relevant portion of the advertisement in so far as is concerned with the present writ petition is as follows:

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as Constable (Ex.) in Delhi Police on 20.12.1988. After qualifying the Combined Graduate Level Examination for the post of Sub Inspector, the petitioner was called for Physical Endurance Test on 14.07.2003 vide letter dated 17.06.2003, which admittedly, he could not clear. Aggrieved by the disqualification he filed an OA bearing No. 1843/2003 praying that the Physical Endurance Test be dispensed with in his case or some other date may be fixed keeping in view his ailment. The application was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider his case. The respondents considered his case and nothing was shown by him to support his claim of having informed the authorities to accommodate him because of his ailment prior to his appearing for the Physical Endurance Test. He also submitted that he was suffering from backache and stiffness, which fact was brought to the knowledge of the respondents for their consideration. In fact the records revealed that he was declared fit to resume duties 3 days before the Physical Endurance Test. It was only after his disqualification that he procured a certificate of illness that too from a private doctor. Keeping all this in view the petitioner s case was rejected by Staff Selection Commission on 25th August 2003.

(3.) The petitioner, upon being unsuccessful, moved another OA bearing No. 2376/2003 impugning the action of the respondents and sought to challenge the terms of the advertisement and sought to contend that he could not be called upon for physical endurance test because it is against the rules and judgments of this Hon ble Court. He contended that being a departmental candidate he was not required to undergo any such test, as he had cleared physical tests at the time of his initial appointment.