Madras High Court
A. Moganavalli vs Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services ... on 22 August, 2023
W.P.No.16981 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 22.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD
W.P.No.16981 of 2021
and MP.No.17987 of 2021
A. Moganavalli ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Rep.by its Member Secretary,
Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
2. The Chairperson,
Sub-Committee
Kanchipuram Centre & Superintendent of Police
Kanchipuram District. ... Respondents
PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of
India, seeking Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith permit
the petitioner to run in the 200 metres run of Physical Endurance Test for
selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable (Men,Women and
Transgender) Grade II Jail Warder (Men, Women & Transgender) and Fireman
for the year 2020.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvaraj
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan
Additional Advocate General
Asst.by M/s.D.Sowmi Dattan
Standing Counsel
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1
W.P.No.16981 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioner has filed the above writ petition praying for a Writ of
Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith permit the petitioner to run in
the 200 metres run of Physical Endurance Test for selection to the post of
Grade-II Police Constable (Men,Women and Transgender) Grade II Jail Warder
(Men, Women & Transgender) and Fireman for the year 2020.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner
participated in the 200 metre run and started to run the 200 metre and the
subordinates of the 2nd respondent tied a Badge containing the Track Number
on the chest of the petitioner. However, the same was not tied tightly.
Therefore, when the petitioner started to run the 200 metre run, the badge
started to fall and the petitioner was constrained to tighten the badge while she
was running two times. Hence the petitioner was unable to concentrate fully in
200 metre run and she could not complete the 200 metre run within 38 seconds.
He further submitted that when the petitioner was able to run the 200 metres in
39.410 seconds, it is highly unbelievable that the petitioner could not run the
200 metres run within 38 seconds. Only because of the wrong tying of the track
badge by the subordinates of the 2nd respondent, she could not successfully
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16981 of 2021
complete the 200 metres run within the required time. Hence he prays that if the
petitioner is given an opportunity to run the 200 metre run again, she could run
and complete the same within 38 seconds.
4. Per contra, the learned Additional Advocate General drew the
attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble First Bench of this Court
in W.A.(MD).No.1706 of 2021 dated 26.10.2021, the relevant paragraphs of
which are extracted below:-
5. The writ petitioner submits that there are other instances
where similar considerations had been shown to persons, who may not have
fared well in the physical ability test. As a matter of principle, it cannot be
accepted as a legal proposition that merely because a person was unable to
perform upto his expectations on the date that the physical ability test was
scheduled, such person has to be afforded a subsequent opportunity to
demonstrate his physical ability or the extent of his fitness. Further, since
Article 14 of the Constitution does not operate in a negative sense, if a few
persons have been erroneously conferred a benefit that they may not have
been entitled to the same cannot be cited as an instance to perpetuate the
wrong.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, the judgment and order dated June
17, 2021 cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. W.P.(MD).No.19388
of 2020 is dismissed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16981 of 2021
5. At this juncture, it is relevant to extract the following paragraphs
from the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent:
5. It is submitted that the petitioner, A.Moganavalli was a
woman candidate to the said recruitment with Enrolment No.5301381.
Having cleared the written examination, she was allowed to participate in
the Physical Tests. She qualified the Physical Measurement Test and
Endurance Test. She appeared for the Physical Efficiency Test before the
Sub-Committee, Kanchipuram on 09.08.2021. The Physical Efficiency Test
for women candidates consists of 1) Long Jump, 2) Cricket Ball Throw or
Shot Put, 3) Running 100 metres or 200 metres. The norms of Physical
Efficiency Test for women given in para 17 of the information Brochure
are as below:
M) PHYSICAL EFFICIENCY TEST: Total marks for PET is 15.
The details of Physical Efficiency Test are as follows:-
(II) Women and Transgender candidates:
Sl.No Events One Star (2 marks) Two Stars (5 marks)
1 Long jump 3.0 metres 3.75 metres
2 Shotput Shotput (4 Kg) 4.25 metres 5.50 metres
(or) Cricket
ball throw
Cricket ball 17 metres 24 metres
throw
3 100 mts run 100 mts run 17.50 seconds 15.50 seconds
(or) 200 mts 200 mts run 38.00 seconds 33.00 seconds
run
i. Women/Transgender will be given 3 chances for long jump, shotput
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16981 of 2021
throw/cricket ball throw event. The highest score attained in the given three
chances will be considered for qualification.
ii. Only one chance will be given to the candidates in 100 metres
/ 200 metres run.
8. It is submitted that the petitioner appeared at TNUSRB along
with her counsel on 19.08.2021 and in compliance with the above order the
video recording of the 200 metres running event in which the petitioner
participated was shown to her in the presence of her counsel. The petitioner
had acknowledged the same through a letter, where she had stated that she
had viewed the video graph of the 200 metres running event which she had
not completed within the stipulated time of 38 seconds and that she had
completed the event with a delay of 1 second as the lace of the chest number
tied on her chest got stuck to her hands.
11. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Division Bench of
High Court of Madras had dismissed a writ appeal by an order dated
24.11.2021 in W.A.No.2743 of 2021 filed by Tr.S.Udhayaraj with the
following observation.
Para 8. “The First Bench of this Court in order, dated
26.10.2021 in W.A.(MD).No.1706 of 2021 in the Director General of
Police and another Vs. P.Jeyasundar in paragraph No.5 has held as
follows:- “As a matter of principle, it cannot be accepted as a legal
proposition that merely because a person was unable to perform upto
his expectations on the date that the physical ability test was
scheduled, such person has to be afforded a subsequent opportunity
to demonstrate his physical ability or the extent of his fitness”.
Para 9. “Hence, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble
First Bench, we were not inclined to accept the prayer seeking for the
second chance to run the 400 metres. Seen from any angle, the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16981 of 2021
of the learned single judge does not suffer from any illegality and we
were not inclined to interfere in the order of the learned single Judge
and the writ appeal stands dismissed. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed”.
6. In view of the above factual matrix of the case and the ratio laid
down by this Court in W.A.(MD).No.1706 of 2021 dated 26.10.2021, this
Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is liable to dismissed.
7. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.
Consequently connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.
22.08.2023
dpq
Index : Yes/No
Speaking Order : Yes/No
J. SATHYA NARAYANA PRASAD, J.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16981 of 2021
dpq
1. Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Rep.by its Member Secretary,
Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
2. The Chairperson,
Sub-Committee
Kanchipuram Centre & Superintendent of Police
Kanchipuram District.
W.P.No.16981 of 2021
22.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
