Delhi High Court
Ms. Utkarsha Lal vs Union Of India & Ors. on 10 January, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~44
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 10.01.2025
+ W.P.(C) 17236/2024, CM APPL. 73333/2024
MS. UTKARSHA LAL .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dilip Singh, Mr. Vikram
Aditya Singh, Adv.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sandeep Tyagi, SPC with
Mr. Kapil Dev Yadav, Adv. for
UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (Oral)
1. This petition has been filed by the petitioner, inter alia, praying
for a direction to respondents to allow her to participate in the
Physical Endurance Test (PET)/Physical Standard Test (PST) and to
conduct the same in a time bound manner.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to an Advertisement
issued by the Staff Selection Commission ('SSC'), the petitioner had
applied for the post of Sub-Inspector ('SI') in the Delhi Police and the
Central Armed Police Forces ('CAPFs'). She received a call letter on
03.10.2024, asking her to report to the 25th Battalion ('Bn'), BSF,
Chhawla, Delhi, on 17.10.2024 for the PET/PST.
3. Unfortunately, on 08.10.2024, she developed a sprain in her leg
during the preparation for the physical test and sought medical advice.
As she could not fully recover, she even went to the V.M.M.C. &
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi on 17.10.2024, where she was
advised to rest for five days. She, therefore, submitted a Letter dated
16.10.2024, requesting for an extension of time to appear for the
PET/PST. This request was acceded to by the Commandant, 36 Bn.,
BSF, and the petitioner was directed to appear for the PET/PST on
30.10.2024. The petitioner, however, still could not recover from her
injury, and by a Letter dated 30.10.2024, requested the respondents for
further extension of time to appear for the PET/PST. She also
informed the respondents that she was undergoing treatment at the
V.M.M.C. & Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, and submitted a
Medical Opinion dated 30.10.2024, which recommended further test
for the petitioner. The respondents, however, refused to grant such
extensions, stating that there is no policy for granting an extension
beyond the period for which the PET/PST has been scheduled.
Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present petition.
4. This Court, by its Order dated 13.12.2024, directed the learned
counsel for the respondents to seek instructions on whether the time
for undergoing the PET/PST could be extended beyond the period as
prescribed in the Selection process and whether such extensions had
been granted in any other case.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents today has handed over
a copy of the Affidavit dated 09.01.2025 inter alia stating that as per
the available record, no extension for undertaking the PET/PST has
been granted to any candidate beyond the scheduled date for the
conclusion of the PET/PST at the respective recruitment centre.
6. The learned counsel for the respondents further submits, on
instructions, that pursuant to the completion of the PET/PST, the list
of eligible candidates has already been supplied to the SSC for further
processing, and the Call Letters for the Paper-2 examination are also
likely to be issued by the SSC in the near future.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner, placing reliance on the
Judgment of this Court in Narmeta Manoj Kumar v. Union of India
& Ors., NC 2024:DHC:8275-DB, submits that as the petitioner was
unable to participate in the PET/PST due to reasons beyond her
control, as an exception, a chance should be given to the petitioner to
undertake the same. He submits that the PET/PST is neither a
competitive exam nor merit based. The candidate is simply to satisfy
the minimum requirements of the PET/PST standards as prescribed.
8. The learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the
submissions that the PET/PST is not a competitive test and the
candidate is merely to satisfy the minimum prescribed standards for
the same.
9. We have considered the submissions made by the learned
counsels for the parties.
10. In the present case, the petitioner was unable to participate in
the PET/PST due to circumstances beyond her control, as she suffered
an injury prior to the date on which she had to appear for the
PET/PST. She was undergoing treatment at the V.M.M.C &
Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, and the documents in proof thereof
have been filed by the petitioner with the petition.
11. As noted hereinabove, the PET/PST is not a competitive test,
and the candidate is merely to satisfy the minimum requirements
prescribed for the same. The Call Letters for the next stage of
examination, that is, Paper-2, are yet to be issued by the SSC.
12. In the peculiar facts of the present case, therefore, we direct the
respondents to grant the petitioner one final opportunity to participate
in the PET/PST within a period of two weeks from today. The
respondents shall communicate the time, date, and place to the
petitioner through her counsel to appear for the PET/PST, providing at
least two days' advance notice. It is clarified that if, for any reason,
the petitioner is unable to appear for the PET/PST on the scheduled
date that is fixed by the respondents, the candidature of the petitioner
shall be treated to be rejected. In case the petitioner does appear and
qualify in the PET/PST, the respondents shall further process the
application of the petitioner for appointment in accordance with the
applicable Rules and the Notification.
13. With the above directions, the petition, along with pending
application, is disposed of.
14. A copy of the order be given dasti under the signatures of the
Court Master to the learned counsels for the parties.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
RAVINDER DUDEJA, J
JANUARY 10, 2025/sds/DG
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
