JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pradeep Kant, J.—These are three special appeals arising out of a common judgement and order and, therefore, the same are being decided by a common order. 2. These special appeals challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 16.1.2004, dismissing the writ petitions preferred by the appellants against their non-selection in the selection held for the post of Sub-Inspector of Civil Police/Platoon Commander P.A.C. The writ petitions were dismissed alongwith other connected matters. 3. The appellants in the present special appeals are those candidates who could not qualify in either of the five events of the Physical Efficiency Test and were thus, knocked out at that level itself e.g. Manendra Nath Rai, could not qualify in Cricket ball throw, which was one of the five events of the Physical Efficiency Test. 4. An advertisement was published in the newspaper for recruitment on the posts of Civil Police/Platoon Commander P.A.C. The vacancies notified were 1634, out of which 2% vacancies were reserved for outstanding sportsperson. The recruitment was to be made as per the terms and conditions enumerated in Government order dated 19.5.98 and the subsequent Government orders dated 8.6.98, 10.8.98 and 26.4.99. The process for selection was in four steps as follows: (i) qualifying written examination in which at least 50% marks were to be obtained; (ii) physical efficiency test consisting of five items requiring a candidate to secure 50% or above in all the events of physical efficiency test; (iii) main written examination with maximum 600 marks with General Hindi, General Knowledge and Mental Aptitude Test; and (iv) interview of maximum 75 marks. 5. A candidate thus, had to appear in the preliminary written examination and if he qualified the same by obtaining 50% marks or more, then he was to appear in Physical Efficiency Test. Those who could be successful in the Physical Efficiency Test, were to appear in the main written examination and on being successful in the same, lastly they were to be interviewed. 6. The preliminary written examination as well as Physical Efficiency Test were qualifying examinations and, therefore, for competing in the main written examinations and for appearing in the interview, a candidate was necessarily to qualify in the aforesaid two events. The merit list was to be prepared by adding the marks of the main written examination and interview. 7. 6. The preliminary written examination as well as Physical Efficiency Test were qualifying examinations and, therefore, for competing in the main written examinations and for appearing in the interview, a candidate was necessarily to qualify in the aforesaid two events. The merit list was to be prepared by adding the marks of the main written examination and interview. 7. The instant appeals raise only a single question, namely, Physical Efficiency Test, which was for the purpose of short-listing and was only a qualifying test, was not held in accordance with settled norms as they were existing since before the present selection and that the norms were though changed by the Selection Board, which could not have been done, but even such change was not notified to the prospective candidates, so as to prepare themselves for meeting the standards and norms fixed for the events, which they have to qualify for proving their physical efficiency. 8. In order to qualify in Physical Efficiency Test, a candidate had to secure 50% or above marks in all the events, which were five in number, (i) long jump; (ii) Cricket ball throw; (iii) 100 meters race; (iv) chinning up; and (v) sit ups. 9. For qualifying the Physical Efficiency Test, principle of knock out was adopted, meaning thereby that if a candidate succeeds in the first event for example, long jump, then he will be eligible to attempt for the second event, namely, Cricket ball throw but if a candidate could not qualify in the first event i.e. long jump then he would be knocked out and he would not be allowed to undertake subsequent events. 10. Likewise, if a candidate clears first three events of the Physical Efficiency Test, then he will be allowed to appear in the fourth event and if he fails in the fourth event, he will not be allowed to undertake fifth event and he will be ousted from the selection. 11. The appellant of special appeal No. 129 of 2004, though qualified in the first event i.e. long jump but failed in the second event i.e. Cricket ball throw. According to him, he could throw the ball to a distance of about 56 meters, whereas the throw should have been 61 meters for obtaining 50% marks of the total marks, which was the minimum requirement. According to him, he could throw the ball to a distance of about 56 meters, whereas the throw should have been 61 meters for obtaining 50% marks of the total marks, which was the minimum requirement. The appellant was thus, knocked out after the first event of Physical Efficiency Test. 12. The appellant of special appeal No. 129 of 2004, Manendra Nath Rai, who appeared in person, and appeared as counsel in the other special appeals, namely, Special Appeals No. 504 of 2006 and 126 of 2004, challenged the aforesaid ouster mainly on the ground that the criteria laid down for qualifying the Physical Efficiency Test was arbitrarily changed by the Selection Board, though there was no Government order changing the norms already set up and that the changed norms were not notified either in the advertisement or in the information brochure before the date of event, besides, the norms being very stringent and impractical. 13. Another argument has been raised that though it was said in the advertisement that ‘the candidate who secured 50% marks’ will be qualified but it was not disclosed as to what distance he should cover so as to make him eligible for 50% marks. 14. All five events carried 20 marks each, with a total of 100 marks. 15. In support of his plea that the standards so adopted by the Selection Board for clearing the Physical Efficiency Test were so harsh and stringent, he submitted that for 1634 vacancies, only 1452 candidates could be declared successful, though in the preliminary written examination, which was held on 6.2.2000, about 7500 candidates were declared successful. 16. The next plea is that norms set up by the previous Government orders were done away with by the Selection Board and new norms were adopted, as per the office order dated 20.10.2000 issued from the Police Headquarters during the midst of selection, which has the effect of amending the earlier norms, therefore, the entire selection is vitiated in law, since the Police Headquarters had no authority to determine such norms. 17. Elaborating the aforesaid plea, it has been urged that this office order was issued so close to the date of Physical Efficiency Test that it denied sufficient opportunity to the candidates, including the appellant to prepare themselves to reach the minimum standards set out in the aforesaid order and, therefore, the action was arbitrary. 17. Elaborating the aforesaid plea, it has been urged that this office order was issued so close to the date of Physical Efficiency Test that it denied sufficient opportunity to the candidates, including the appellant to prepare themselves to reach the minimum standards set out in the aforesaid order and, therefore, the action was arbitrary. Further it has been urged that the norms were never published or made known to the candidates, which again deprived them of having any opportunity to get themselves ready for the aforesaid test. 18. Sri Manendra Nath Rai argued at length and drew the attention of the Court to the various Government orders issued before the office order dated 20.10.2000 to emphasize that the norms earlier set up were reasonable and practicable, whereas the distance or to say, the norms fixed by the aforesaid office order, were wholly impractical and, in fact, so far the Cricket ball throw is concerned 61 meters distance was prescribed for having full marks in the earlier Government order, whereas under the amended office memorandum this distance was only made a qualifying distance, so as to secure 50% marks. 19. Learned counsel for the State responding to the aforesaid challenge, submitted that earlier in the writ petition filed at Allahabad during the course of ongoing recruitment, a plea was raised regarding the discrimination and arbitrariness in holding the Physical Efficiency Test, upon which the Court at Allahabad got an enquiry conducted, a reference of which has been made in the order of the learned Single Judge also, wherein it was found that a uniform criteria was adopted and there was no discrepancy or arbitrariness in holding the test. The relevant portion of the said report submitted by Dr. Ram Lal Ram in Writ Petition No. 52455 of 2000 at Allahabad reads as under : “It would transpire from the report that the candidates were subjected to uniform physical efficiency test on all counts and no hostile discrimination at any centre is made out. The fact that no minimum criterion qualification requirement of physical efficiency test was advertised would not be by itself, vitiate the test so as the physical efficiency of candidates was judged uniformly and on one and the same standard. It has not been urged by any counsel that different standards were adopted for judging the physical efficiency of candidates. The fact that no minimum criterion qualification requirement of physical efficiency test was advertised would not be by itself, vitiate the test so as the physical efficiency of candidates was judged uniformly and on one and the same standard. It has not been urged by any counsel that different standards were adopted for judging the physical efficiency of candidates. The part, it was mentioned in the advertisement that any special information in respect of the test could be obtained from the office of S.S.P.” 20. It was further submitted that there was an office order of 20.10.2000 and the norms were duly prescribed therein and that it is incorrect to say that the selection board prescribed its own norms. 21. This office order dated 20.10.2000, in fact, laid down same norms, as were given in the G.O. dated 29.4.99. The non-selection of the appellant has been defended by the learned State counsel. 22. There is no dispute that when a candidate is required to qualify a test, may be Physical Efficiency Test, certain minimum standards have to be prescribed, so that a candidate, if succeeds in reaching that mark, he stands qualified, for being considered in future events. The prescription of such standards have to be reasonable, rationale and practical. The criteria so adopted must be uniform and non-discriminatory. 23. Normally there would be a presumption that when such criteria is fixed, it conforms to relevant Government orders and rules, unless proved otherwise by the aggrieved person. Merely because in his own assessment, a candidate, who fails in qualifying test, finds that the norms laid down were harsh or were excessive, that would not be sufficient for the intervention of the Court and to declare such norms impractical or arbitrary. 24. The appellants’ service is a service, where physical fitness and physical efficiency is the most required qualification of a candidate. The police personnel has to bear rough weather and face very hard duties, therefore, needless to state that physical fitness is one of the most important and essential conditions in recruitment to the police force. The Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander being the leader of the team, thus, require to be fully physically fit to meet the challenges and, therefore, they have to undergo more rigorous training and have to be of sound physical fitness. 25. The Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander being the leader of the team, thus, require to be fully physically fit to meet the challenges and, therefore, they have to undergo more rigorous training and have to be of sound physical fitness. 25. What should be the criteria and how this physical fitness is to be determined, lies fully within the domain of the State Government and concerned authority, who lays down such criteria and the Court would rarely interfere in such matters, unless, the criteria and the norms set up are found to be wholly unreasonable, impractical and arbitrary. 26. If against 1634 vacancies only 1452 candidates could be declared successful, it does not mean that norms set up were bad nor does it require that for filling up the vacancies, norms should be relaxed. 27. Lowering the norms for a particular selection would ordinarily mean compromising with the merit, which has been fixed for the purpose and making recruitment of those persons, who otherwise do not fall within the criteria prescribed. 28. The very fact that 1452 candidates could attain the target and were declared finally successful, apparently establishes that the standards fixed were not such, which could not be achieved by anyone. If 1452 candidates could achieve the targets, the appellant could have also done so, if he was so physically fit and, therefore, his failure to throw the Cricket ball to the minimum distance of 61 meters, could in no way be a ground for holding the said distance fixed for the purpose, to be arbitrary. 29. The legal plea of the appellants that earlier the Government order prescribed the norms but in the present selection, these norms were provided by the Police Headquarters, hardly a week before the Physical Efficiency Test and they having no statutory force or binding effect could not be adopted, which vitiates the selection, is also devoid of merit. 30. The appellants rely upon the Government order of 1978, in which 61 meters was the distance shown for having maximum marks i.e. 20 and 45 meters was shown as the distance for having 10 marks i.e. 50% of the total marks, which are the qualifying marks. 31. 30. The appellants rely upon the Government order of 1978, in which 61 meters was the distance shown for having maximum marks i.e. 20 and 45 meters was shown as the distance for having 10 marks i.e. 50% of the total marks, which are the qualifying marks. 31. However, there is another Government order of subsequent date i.e. 29.4.99, which prescribes the norms for selection/recruitment on the post in question, and shows that 61 meters has been fixed as qualifying distance for ten marks in the event of Cricket ball throw. This very distance has been prescribed in the office memorandum issued by the Police Headquarters on 20.10.2000, which is being objected to, by the appellant. 32. The appellants do not dispute that the memorandum of 29.4.99 is a Government order in which the same very norms have been prescribed and communicated to the Selection Board by the Police Headquarters on 20.10.2000. 33. It cannot, therefore, be said by any stretch of imagination that the Police Headquarters have changed the norms or that the norms which have been prescribed are not referable to any Government order or that in any way they are discriminatory and arbitrary. 34. The aforesaid question came up for consideration before a Division Bench at Allahabad in Special Appeal No. 414 of 2001, Santosh Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and others and other connected matters, decided on 2.8.2006, wherein also the Court found that there is no variation or difference in the two documents. The Court was referring to the Police Headquarters Office Order dated 20.10.2000 and the Government order dated 29.4.1999. 35. The Court observed ‘There is no variation or difference in two documents. Therefore, it is apparent that the required norms and standards in Physical Efficiency Test were laid down by the State Government vide G.O. dated 29.4.99 and the Police Head Quarter has circulated the same standards vide its Office Order dated 20.10.2000 for convenience and guidance of the Selection Boards at different centres. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that the standards and norms of Physical Efficiency Test were not laid down by the State Government, but by the Police Head Quarter is contrary to the material on record and, therefore, rejected.’ 36. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed at Allahabad in the aforesaid special appeal. 37. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed at Allahabad in the aforesaid special appeal. 37. The alternative plea of the appellants that these norms were not made known before hand, therefore, the appellants and like candidates, could not prepare themselves for the events, also does not carry any force. 38. The norms as prescribed by the Office Order dated 20.10.2000 and the events, which were to be qualified with the given prescription, were already provided in the Government order of 1999. The selection had taken place in the year 2000 and, therefore, it cannot be said that the standards or norms were abruptly introduced on the eve of the Physical Efficiency Test. If the appellants were ignorant about the same, they have to thank their own stars. 39. Apart from this, the appellants could not indicate that the prescribed minimum standard or efficiency were necessarily to be advertised sufficiently before the date of test, as no requirement of law could be pointed out by them in this regard. 40. This plea again became the subject matter of consideration in the aforesaid special appeal of Santosh Kumar Mishra, wherein the Court observed as under : “The second and third submissions can be considered together and in our view unsustainable for more than one reason. The prescribed minimum standards for Efficiency Test need not be advertised and there is no requirement of law that the minimum norms and standards for passing a test if not made known to the candidates, by itself would vitiate the selection.” 41. The plea of the appellants is that the selection should have been held on the criteria of Government order of 1978. If that is taken as correct, then one would easily assume that the argument of the appellants that the norms should have been prescribed or published, stands contradicted. If the appellant was preparing himself in pursuance of the Government order dated 25.7.78, without the said criteria being published or made known, then he ought to have taken care to see that whether any subsequent Government order has been issued or not and since there is a Government order of 1999, which has been followed in the present selection, it cannot be said that non-publication of said norms has in any way prejudiced the cause of the appellants. According to his own saying, the appellant prepared himself as per the terms of the Government order of 1978, after which the Government order dated 29.4.99 was issued. 42. In fact, the sole plea of the appellants that the Selection Board could not have laid down the criteria of selection of its own or that the Police Headquarters was not competent to issue any Office Memorandum laying down prescribed standards, stands rebutted by the fact that the Police Headquarters did not issue any norms of its own nor fixed any criteria, standard or qualification for Physical Efficiency Test and it was only a reiteration of the earlier Government order of 1999 in this regard. Apprising the aforesaid Government order and sending it to the Selection Board for their convenience and guidance, would not and cannot be taken to mean that the Police Headquarters or Selection Board adopted any criteria or norms, which were not fixed by the State Government. 43. As already observed, the State Government being fully competent to fix such norms, no exception can be taken, if the selection has been held in pursuance of the said Government order. 44. Reliance placed by the appellants on the case of Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa and others, (1987) 4 SCC 646 , wherein it has been held that the Commission cannot set its own norms for selection, is of no assistance. 45. In the case of Bhupendra Nath Tripathi and others v. State of U.P. and others, (2009) 1 UPLBEC 1, it has been held by the apex Court that recruitment in service can be made only according to relevant rules, irrespective of what was stated in the advertisement. 46. That again is a case which has no applicability in the instant appeal as recruitment has been made in accordance with the prescribed Government order and the advertisement does not show anything contrary to the said norms. 47. In the case of Col. A.S. Sangwan v. Union of India and others, 1980 (Supp) SCC 559, the apex Court observed that the change in the policy is the prerogative of the Government but the policy should not be arbitrary and capricious. 48. The policy thus, should conform to the principle of Article 14 and it should be non-discriminatory and should be applied uniformly. 49. A.S. Sangwan v. Union of India and others, 1980 (Supp) SCC 559, the apex Court observed that the change in the policy is the prerogative of the Government but the policy should not be arbitrary and capricious. 48. The policy thus, should conform to the principle of Article 14 and it should be non-discriminatory and should be applied uniformly. 49. The recruitment in question was made in accordance with prescribed norms by the State Government in a uniform manner and without discrimination. The criteria so adopted and the norms so fixed, cannot be said to be arbitrary or irrational. 50. We thus, do not find any force in the appeals, which are hereby dismissed. ————