SANTOSH KUMAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this bunch of writ petitions centres on the validity of the result of physical test held at various centres for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspectors in U.P. Civil Police. Concededly, the process of selection for the post of Sub-Inspector of Civil Police comprises several stages such as preliminary written examination, physical efficiency test of candidates successful in the preliminary examination, main written examination, interview and medical fitness. The preliminary written examination was notified to be held on 16.2.2000. On the basis of the result of the preliminary written examination the petitioners herein were short-listed to appear in the physical efficiency test. The physical efficiency test, it brooks no dispute, was conducted at various centres. The candidates in the physical test were subjected to the grind of cricket ball throw, long jump, chinnig up, three miles run and push ups. The aforesaid tests were qualified with a proviso that if a candidate flunked in one of such tests, he would be reckoned out of the test of the physical tests. The grievance as distilled from some of the writ petitions e.g. Civil Misc. Petition No. 48821 of 2000 is that instead of cricket ball, cork ball was provided at Jhansi Centre whereas at some other centres, old and worn-out cricket balls were supplied while at some other centres new cricket balls were provided. The petitioner therein, it transpires, fell short of prescribed distance in throwing the cricket ball and therefore, he lost out in the race to participate further in other physical tests i.e. long jump, chinning up, three miles run and push ups etc. The grievance in some other set of petitioners appertains to irregularity in long jump while in similar some other petitions, it relates to alleged irregularity in three mile run. Various petitioners in this bunch of writ petitions flunked in one or the other physical tests and therefore, they skittled out for other physical tests. In substance it has been alleged that candidates were not subjected to uniform physical efficiency tests and failure to do so has resulted in infringement of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In writ petition No. 1225 of 2001 it has been pleaded in addition to the above points, that "minimum criteria for passing out physical test i.e. 'qualifyingV'minimum requirement" was not provided in the advertisement and the candidates were arbitrarily knocked out of the physical efficiency test.

(2.) I have heard Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri P.M.N. Singh, learned Additional Advocate General representing the State Authorities. Sri Vijai Bahadur Singh learned Senior Advocate and Sri V. K. Shukla were also heard in opposition of the writ petitions on the basis of caveats filed in some of the writ petitions.

(3.) This Court by means of order dated 5.12.2000 passed in writ petition No. 52455 of 2000 had directed an enquiry to be set a foot into the imputations of irregularities alleged in this bunch of writ petition. Dr. Ram Lal Ram, Inspector General of Police, Gorakhpur Zone, U.P. conducted enquiry and submitted his report dated 12.2.2001 which has been annexed to the Supplementary Affidavit filed by Sri Jagmohan Yadav, Dy. Inspector General of Police (Establishment), Police Headquarters, Allahabad. The enquiry officer has dwelt upon various allegations of irregularities in the conduct of physical tests as made in various writ petitions recorded statements of those candidates who appeared before him as also the statements of the departmental officers who were involved in conducting physical efficiency tests and after considerations of the submissions and facts and circumstances of the case, recorded following conclusions : ..(VERNACULAR MATTER OMMITED).. It would be evident from the report aforestated that the petitioners were not able to drive home any irregularity in the physical test. Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Advocate, appearing in one of the writ petitions, and attempted to assail the finding of the enquiry officer by pointing out that the enquiry officer with respect to the alleged irregularities at 33rd Battalion P.A.C. Jhansi Centre has placed credence upon the statement of petitioners Kunwar Kailash Singh Lodhi and Sushil Kumar Kushwaha in respect of irregularities committed at the said Centre whereas these witnesses had appeared for physical test at Moradabad centre. Sri Ashok Khare also tried to assail the enquiry report citing the alleged irregularity committed at dhanst Centre on the basis of the statement made in para 7 of the counter filed by Ram Prakash, Asstt. Commandant 33rd P.A.C. Battalion Jhansi pointed to the alleged dichotomy in the statement made therein in that at once place it has been stated that the Police Headquarter at Alld. had provided cricket balls to every examination centre under the prescribed rules including Jhanst centre but in the same paragraph, he has stated that Sri Ravindra Dubey Physical Instructor had sent a letter to the Commandant articulating the necessity of purchasing eight cricket balls for ball throw test held at Jhansi and as a consequence of the recommendations, eight cricket balls were purchased on 28.10.2000 from Vandana Stores, Jhansi. In the report categories finding has been recorded the cricket balls were supplied to the candidates at Jhansi for the physical test involving cricket balls throw. Receipt filed alongwith the counter affidavit is a manifestation of the fact that eight cricket balls were purchased at Jhansi and in this view of the matter, the statement that the cricket balls for the ball throw were supplied to every examination centre by the police headquarters Alld. as made in para 7 of the counter-affidavit field by Ram Prakash, Asstt. Commandant 33rd Battalion P.A.C Jhansi would not vitiate the enquiry report. In other words, the source from which the cricket balls were supplied whether the police head-quarters or local purchase will not vitiate the finding that cricket balls were supplied to the candidates. The conclusion? arrived at by the enquiry officer are conclusions of fact based on appraisal of material collected by the enquiry officer through enquiry, this Court is not sitting in appeal over the report of the enquiry officer. In view of clear cut conclusion that no irregularity was committed and cricket balls were supplied to the candidates at every centre no interference is permissible by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of alleged irregularity in relation to ball throw. Similarly, allegations regarding irregularity in three-mile run, long jump and/or other physical efficiency tests made in some of the writ petitions have been found to be without any substance by the enquiry officer. In the absence of any plea of mala fides, it is not possible to hold that the enquiry report is impaired.