Rahul Chaudhary vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 16082 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9615 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Rahul Chaudhary
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Durvesh Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

Heard the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, the learned Standing Counsel.

The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had appeared for recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspector (Civil Police) in terms of the advertisement issued for recruitment dated 24.02.2021.

It is stated that the petitioner was informed that the physical efficiency test was scheduled on 24.05.2022 at Bareilly, however, the petitioner had suffered a legament injury in his right knee on 18.05.2022. The petitioner claims that he has moved an application for rescheduling the physical efficiency test in view of the injury sustained by him. However, without considering the same, the petitioner is not being permitted to undergo the physical efficiency test and thus, the present writ petition.

This court had called for the instructions, the Standing Counsel on the basis of the instructions states that the entire result of the selection process has been notified on 12.06.2022. He further argues that no application, as said to be filed by the petitioner for rescheduling the efficient test, exists on the records of the department and even in the application filed by the petitioner, it cannot be deciphered as to who was given the said application. He thus, argues that in the light of the decision given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.1924 of 2010 (Shanker Mandal vs. State of West Bengal) decided on 15.02.2022 as well as in Civil Appeal No.6860 of 2021 (State of U.P. and others vs. Pankaj Kumar) decided on 18.11.2021, the law is reasonably settled that selection process cannot be recalled once it is completed. In the light of the said, he argues that the relief as claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted.

Considering the issue, the decision given by the Supreme Court coupled with the fact that the result has been notified on 12.06.2022, the relief as prayed for cannot be granted.

At this stage, the counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sudhar Pandey vs. State of U.P. decided on 01.02.2013 in Service Single No.5254 of 2011 wherein this court had granted indulgence of taking the physical efficient test once again in respect of certain categories of the students.

Although the ratio in the said judgment would apply but the relief in the present case cannot be granted solely on the ground that the result has been notified on 12.06.2022.

The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 4.11.2022

VNP/-