Monica Goswami vs Union Of India & Anr.
2012 Latest Caselaw 1319 Del

       *       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                     Date of Decision: 27.02.2012

+                          W.P.(C) No.1148/2012


Monica Goswami                              ...        Petitioner

                                   versus

Union of India & Anr.                        ...       Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Petitioner : Mr.P.S.Sharma and Mr.Harsh Vardhan Surana.
For Respondent : Mr.Ravinder Agarwal.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA

ANIL KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has sought a direction for holding an enquiry and

to verify the allegations made by the petitioner against the respondents

regarding changing her result about Physical Endurance Test and

disqualifying her after she was allegedly declared to have qualified the

Physical Endurance Test and directions to the respondents to conduct

the medical examination of the petitioner and to induct her in services.

2. Relevant facts to comprehend the disputes raised by the

petitioner are that the petitioner appeared in the Central Police

Organizations Examination, 2009 for appointment as Sub-Inspectors on

6th September, 2009.

3. The petitioner contended that she cleared the written test and

thereafter, she was required to appear in Physical Endurance Test (PET)

on 27th April, 2010 at Chandigarh. The petitioner alleged that she

cleared successfully all stages of Physical Endurance Test and she was

entitled to appear for medical examination.

4. The Physical Endurance Test comprised of 1.6 km race, long

jump, high jump and 100 meters race. According to the petitioner, any

candidate who failed in one of the task for Physical Endurance Test was

not allowed to participate in the next task.

5. The petitioner alleged that on the result sheet of the petitioner for

Physical Endurance Test, the officer incharge first wrote yes, however,

for the reasons neither disclosed to the petitioner and perhaps in order

to favour some other candidates, called the petitioner and divulged to

her that her candidature is being rejected and the result sheet of

Physical Endurance Test was also changed and she was declared not

qualified in Physical Endurance Test.

6. Petitioner pleaded that she requested the concerned officials not

to do so as she has already qualified all the activities of Physical

Endurance Test including high jump section, however, they did not

change her result and declared her as not qualified in Physical

Endurance Test.

7. The petitioner thereafter sent her complaint on 1st May, 2010 to

DIG, ITBP, Chandigarh and also sent the complaint by post on 7th June,

2010. By communication dated 9th September, 2010 from the Under

Secretary, Staff Selection Commission, the petitioner was intimated that

her grievance has been referred to Director General, CRPF.

8. The petitioner contended that she received a communication

dated 5th July, 2011 from the Director General informing the petitioner

that she failed in long jump and, therefore, she has been disqualified.

According to the petitioner this is not correct and she has challenged

her disqualification on the ground that the petitioner was failed on

account of bias attitude of the concerned officials who were incharge of

Physical Endurance Test. The petitioner has sought that the allegations

made by her be got verified and thereafter, the respondents be directed

to get her medically examined and she be inducted in Central Police

Organizations.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents, Mr.Ravinder Agarwal

who has appeared on advance notice has referred to the letter dated 5th

July, 2011 sent by Deputy Director General (Recruitment) stipulating

that even as far back as on 30th August, 2010 complete information was

sent to the petitioner that the petitioner was provided three

opportunities in the long jump and she had not succeeded in any of the

three chances provided to her. Since the petitioner could not qualify the

standards laid down for long jump, therefore, she was disqualified. The

letter dated 5th July, 2011 also reveals that the petitioner was given an

opportunity to lodge a complaint to the appellate officer, however, the

petitioner did not prefer any appeal and did not act in accordance with

para 7 of the instructions which were supplied to the petitioner with

regard to the result of the Physical Strength Evaluation Board.

10. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

perused the documents and the averments made by the petitioner. The

petitioner has not denied that for Physical Endurance Test she was

subjected to 1.6 km race, high jump, 100 meters race and long jump.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has not denied that the petitioner

had received the letter dated 30th August, 2010. The copy of the letter

dated 30th August, 2010 has not been produced by the petitioner. The

learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has not been able to deny

that by the said communication the petitioner was intimated that she

could not qualify the standards laid down for Physical Endurance Test

for long jump despite the fact that three opportunities were given to her.

11 Even in the writ petition filed by the petitioner, she has not

disclosed the fact that the petitioner had been intimated by letter dated

30th August, 2010 that she had been disqualified in Physical Endurance

Test on account of failing to qualify the long jump. The learned counsel

for the petitioner admitted that the said letter was received by the

petitioner, however, by inadvertence the copy of the same has not been

filed by him along with the writ petition. This has not been denied that

the said letter was not replied by the petitioner. In the circumstances, it

is to be inferred that by the said letter dated 30th August, 2010

instructions were communicated to the petitioner contemplating that if

she has any complained against the Physical Endurance Test, she

could file a complaint before the appellate officer.

12. No malafides have been imputed against the concerned officials

who had taken the Physical Endurance Test where the petitioner had

failed to qualify the long jump. No doubt in the PET result the word `No'

was scored off and it was also written in words `Yes' in the first row

regarding whether a candidate had qualified in PET or not. The word

`Yes' was later on scored off and in place the word No has been written.

In the section B it is again mentioned that the petitioner had not

qualified in the long jump by ticking in front of the appropriate item.

Consequently, on the basis of the PET result of 27th April, 2010 it

cannot be inferred that there had been any manipulation or that the

petitioner can be declared to have qualified the Physical Endurance

Test. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the result of Physical Endurance

Test, the petitioner ought to have filed the complaint before the

appellate officer in accordance with the procedure laid down in para 7

which admittedly has not been done by the petitioner.

13. Since the petitioner was intimated that she has been disqualified

in the Physical Endurance Test by communication dated 30th August,

2010, then why no complaint had been filed before the appellate

authority and why the petitioner has filed the writ petition on 13th

February, 2012 almost after 1½ year has not been explained.

14. In the totality of facts and circumstances and for the foregoing

reasons, the petitioner has failed to make out any grounds which will

entail any interference by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the decision of the

respondents declaring that the petitioner had not qualified the Physical

Endurance Test for the Central Police Organizations Examination, 2009

for the post of Sub Inspectors. The writ petition is without any merit

and it is, therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

FEBRUARY 27, 2012 'k'