JUDGMENT : P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J. 1. The above Original Petition (KAT) is filed by the respondent in O.A.(EKM)1971 of 2016 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter mentioned as 'Tribunal'). The Original Application was filed by the respondents herein (hereinafter parties are mentioned according to their rank before the Tribunal). 2. The Kerala Public Service Commission (for short KPSC), invited applications from qualified candidates for the post of Women Sub Inspectors of Police (Trainee) as per Ext P1(A1) Notification. The method of appointment is mentioned in clause 5 of Ext P1(A1) Notification. There are 4 categories mentioned in the above clause namely, Category No.5/16 to Category No.8/16. Applicants applied for Category No.7/16 which is a recruitment from among the Women Graduate Police Constables, Head Constables, and officers of corresponding rank in Police and Vigilance Department, who have completed probation. 3. Applicants are presently working as Women Civil Police Officers under the Police Department. An OMR test was conducted on 28.5.2016 by the KPSC and thereafter a shortlist was published by the KPSC on 4.10.2016, which is Exts P1(A2). The applicants are included in Ext P1(A2) short list and accordingly, they were called for a Physical Efficiency Test on 30.11.2016. As per Ext P1(A1) Notification, the candidates should qualify in any of the five events out of the eight specified events of the National Physical Efficiency "One star Standard Test" shown below as per Ext P1(A1) Notification. Sl. No. Item Minimum Standards of Efficiency 1 100 Metres Run 17 Seconds 2 High Jump 1.06 Metres 3 Long Jump 3.05 Metres 4 Putting the Shot (4 Kg) 4.88 Metres 5 200 Metres Run 36 seconds 6 Throwing the Throw ball 14 Metres 7 Shuttle Race (25 x 4 Metres) 26 Seconds 8 Skipping (One minute) 80 times (As per G.O.(P) No.65/2009/Home dated 25.5.2009) Note: If accidents or injuries happen to a candidate while participating in the Physical Efficiency Test, he/she will not be given further chance to participate in the test. 4. In the note mentioned above, it is clearly stated that, if accidents or injuries happened to a candidate while participating in the Physical Efficiency Test, he/she will not be given further chance to participate in the test. The applicants were called for the Physical Efficiency Test and the venue was Government Medical College, Kozhikode at Centre-II. The applicants participated in the Physical Efficiency Test conducted on 30.11.2016. The applicants were called for the Physical Efficiency Test and the venue was Government Medical College, Kozhikode at Centre-II. The applicants participated in the Physical Efficiency Test conducted on 30.11.2016. After participating in the Physical Efficiency Test conducted on 30.11.22016, the applicants submitted a complaint before the respondent on 3.12.2016, alleging that, the ground was in a poor condition, affecting their very performance. Thereafter, when KPSC had not taken any decision in the complaint, the Original Application was filed by the applicants herein with the following prayers: (i) To direct the respondent to conduct a another Physical Efficiency for selection to the post of Women Sub Inspectors of Police(Trainee) for those candidates who participated on 30.11.2016 at Centre II in Government Medical College Ground, Kozhikode (ii) To declare that the Physical Efficiency Test conducted on 30.11.2016 at Centre II in Government Medical College Ground, Kozhikode was done in unsuitable conditions and hence arbitrary and illegal. (iii) To permit the applicants to participate in another Physical Efficiency Test before the interview and publication of ranked list for selection to the post of Women Sub Inspector of Police under Category 7/2016. (iv) To issue such other orders, or directions as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. 5. The main prayer in the Original Application is to issue a direction to conduct a re-test of physical efficiency to the applicants again for the reasons stated in the Original Application. The main grievance of the applicants is that the Government Medical College Ground, Kozhikode, where, the Physical Efficiency Test conducted was not in good condition to conduct the test. It is alleged that a test was conducted at an unused part of the ground, ridden with pits and thorny plants. The Tribunal as per an interim order dated 19.12.2016, appointed an Advocate Commissioner to inspect the ground namely, the Medical College Ground, Kozhikode, which was used as Centre II for the purpose of conducting Physical Efficiency Test on 30.11.2016. The Advocate Commissioner filed a report before the Tribunal in which the Commissioner concluded as herein below: “Therefore, the running track for the long jump and 200 meters race is uneven, which in all probability, is likely to cause injury to the participants. In this regard, the photographs and the video CD of the ground is produced along with this commission report. In this regard, the photographs and the video CD of the ground is produced along with this commission report. The high jump conducted without providing any bed or any other material where the participants are landing is highly dangerous. The pit used for long jump and high jump is not in fully loose condition even if it is filled with sufficient sand. The 100 meters track is suitable for running.” 6. Based on the Commission report, the Tribunal passed an interim order on 7.12.2017, directing the KPSC to arrange Physical Efficiency Test for the applicants in respect of two items, namely, long jump and 200 metres run in a suitable ground at Kozhikode itself. The above interim order is challenged by KPSC before this Court by filing OP(KAT) No. 69 of 2018. This Court stayed the interim order passed by the Tribunal and directed the Tribunal to dispose OA(EKM) No.1971 of 2016 immediately. Ext P5 is the order impugned in this O.P. 7. Thereafter, the Tribunal considered the contentions of the applicants and the respondents and the Original Application was allowed, directing KPSC to conduct a Physical Efficiency Test to all the applicants in all the eight items in a suitable ground and also directed the KPSC to see that, while arranging the ground, the findings of the Advocate Commissioner will also be borne in mind so that further controversies are avoided. This order dated 29.3.2019 in OA(EKM) No.1971 of 2016 of the Tribunal is challenged in this OP(KAT) by the KPSC. 8. Heard the Standing Counsel for the KPSC and the counsel for the applicants. The main point urged by the KPSC is, whether the Tribunal is justified in appointing an Advocate Commission to verify the condition of the ground and then direct a re-test to the failed candidates, to assess their Physical Efficiency in the failed items. The KPSC contended that, the Tribunal cannot direct the KPSC to undertake successive physical efficiency test to failed candidates one after other. The KPSC also contended that, the very procedure adopted by the Tribunal in appointing a Commission, months after the original test conducted, to verify the standard of the ground, where the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted, is totally unsustainable. The KPSC also contended that, the very procedure adopted by the Tribunal in appointing a Commission, months after the original test conducted, to verify the standard of the ground, where the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted, is totally unsustainable. The counsel for the applicants supported the decision of the Tribunal and contended that, in the facts and circumstances of this particular case, the Tribunal was justified in appointing a Commission to inspect the ground, where the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted and further ordering re-test based on the report of the Commission. 9. On going through the pleadings and after hearing the parties, we are of the opinion that, the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable on several grounds. The Tribunal cannot order re-test of Physical Efficiency on such flimsy grounds. The KPSC is the recruiting agency and they are following uniform criteria while considering the ground, where a Physical Efficiency Test is to be conducted. The Standing Counsel submitted that, before starting the Physical Efficiency Test in the ground, the Commission will make all arrangements for the smooth conduct of the test. If the candidates have any complaint regarding the criteria of the test, they can point out the same before the Board. The Board at Kozhikode, consist of an Under Secretary of the KPSC as Board Chairman, Physical Efficiency Teacher of the Physical Education Department of the Government Medical College, Kozhikode and DYSP from Police Department. The Board constituted to conduct the Physical Efficiency Test will inspect the ground conditions prior to Physical Efficiency Test to make sure that the ground is suitable for the conduct of Physical Efficiency Test. The measurement of the grounds, where the events have to be conducted is taken by the members of the Board in the presence of the candidates, so that, they can raise complaints, if any. In such circumstances, after participating in the Physical Efficiency Test and being unsuccessful in it, the applicants cannot request for a re-test. The Tribunal ought not have entertained such a request from the applicants, unless there are sufficient reasons for the same. 10. This position is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court reported in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi ( (2013)11 SCC 178 ). The Tribunal ought not have entertained such a request from the applicants, unless there are sufficient reasons for the same. 10. This position is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court reported in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi ( (2013)11 SCC 178 ). The relevant portion of the above judgment is extracted here under: “It is accepted position that the respondent appeared in the test and could not qualify. Once he did not qualify in the physical test, the High Court could not have asked the Department to give him an opportunity to hold another test to extend him the benefit on the post of Sub Inspector solely on the ground that there has been efflux of time.” 11. Therefore, we are of the opinion that, the Tribunal while considering the request for re-test of Physical Efficiency conducted by the recruiting agency like KPSC, could not have ordered it mechanically. The KPSC is a recruiting agency, which conduct tests with the experts in the concerned field. The Tribunal or this court cannot sit in appeal against such test conducted by the KPSC, which is conducted under the supervision of experts. Therefore, the order directing the KPSC to conduct re-test is unsustainable. 12. Moreover, the Tribunal erred in relying on the Advocate Commission report to find out suitability of a ground in which the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted. An Advocate need not be an expert to find out whether a ground is suitable for conducting a Physical Efficiency Test. Therefore, the appointment of the Advocate Commissioner by the Tribunal to inspect the ground to find out its suitability, where the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted by the KPSC, is illegal and hence unsustainable. 13. In addition to this, the KPSC conducted the Physical Efficiency Test on 30.11.2016. The Commissioner inspected the ground as per the order of the Tribunal on 26.12.2016. What happened during the interregnum period is not known to anybody. It is to be noted that, 43 candidates participated in the Physical Efficiency Test as per the statement filed by the KPSC. Out of this 43 candidates, 13 candidates qualified in the Physical Efficiency Test. The applicants participated, but failed and this failure alone is the cause of complaint; which otherwise would have been raised before the test itself. Applicants are 6 in number. Out of this 43 candidates, 13 candidates qualified in the Physical Efficiency Test. The applicants participated, but failed and this failure alone is the cause of complaint; which otherwise would have been raised before the test itself. Applicants are 6 in number. Out of 43 candidates, there are several others also failed in the Physical Efficiency Test. They have no objection about the ground in which Physical Efficiency Test was conducted. The applicants filed Ext P1(A3) complaint before the KPSC only on 3.12.2016, whereas the test was conducted on 30.11.2016. This will also show that, the applicants had no complaint immediately after the Physical Efficiency Test and the complaint came only after three days of the Physical Efficiency Test. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that the complaint against the ground where the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted is an afterthought. 14. Moreover, KPSC submitted that another Physical Efficiency Test for Beat Forest Officers were also conducted at the same premises between 21.11.2016 to 29.11.2016. Thereafter, on 30.11.2016, the Physical Efficiency Test of the applicants and others was conducted in the very same premises. According to KPSC, the events for the Physical Efficiency Test for Beat Forest Officers is also similar to that of the present selection process and includes 100 metres run, high jump, long jump, putting the shot, 1500 meters run (in the present test this event is not present instead it is 200 meters). A total number of 1324 candidates were admitted for the test of Beat Forest Officers at the same premises. According to the Standing Counsel for the KPSC, there was no complaint for any of the candidates. In such circumstances, the contention of the applicants that the ground, where the Physical Efficiency Test is conducted, was not suitable for the test is unsustainable. The Tribunal erred in directing the KPSC to conduct a re-test to the applicants in some of the items in a suitable ground. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable. Hence OP(KAT) No.445 of 2019 is allowed. The order dated 29.3.2019 in O.A.(EKM)1971 of 2016 on the file of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, Thrivuananthapuram (Addl.Bench, Ernakulam) is set aside.