Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 484 (ALL)

State of U. P. v. Dharm Wati

2020-02-12

BISWANATH SOMADDER, YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

body2020
JUDGMENT 1. This Special Appeal arises in respect of a judgment and order dated 22nd April, 2019, passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 3767 of 2019 (Dharm Wati v. State of Uttar Pradesh and two others). 2. By the impugned judgment and order, the writ petition was disposed of with certain directions upon the third respondent, namely, the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board. 3. This appeal has been preferred by the State of Uttar Pradesh, the Deputy Inspector General Police, Establishment, Police Headquarter, Allahabad, and the Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board through its Chairman (who was the third respondent in the writ petition). 4. For convenience, the impugned judgment and order is set-out hereinbelow in its entirety: "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Despite repeated opportunities, learned Standing Counsel has not been able to receive satisfactory instructions from the third respondent. The writ petition is being heard and decided on the consent of the parties without calling for the counter-affidavit. Petitioner applied for the post of Constable in U.P. Civil Police. Petitioner was issued Role No. 1121020117 and appeared in Document Verification/Physical Standard Test (DV/PST) at Reserve Police Line, Agra on 31 January 2019. It is urged that petitioner was declared successful in the said test, thereafter, it is submitted that the selected candidates were required to be informed about the date and centre of the Physical Eligibility Test (PET) on email/mobile phones. It is urged that the petitioner was not informed of the date and centre of PET. Attention of the Court has been drawn to the list of candidates scheduled for DV/PST to be held on 3 February 2019 to 4 February 2019 by way of last chance to the absentees, it has been categorically specified, therein, the PET Centre where candidates have to report after qualifying DV/PST. However, in the case of the petitioner no such list with regard to the centre of PET was published/notified on the official website. Learned Standing Counsel submits that appropriate decision shall be taken by the third respondent, expeditiously. In regard thereto, without entering into the merit of the case, as well as, rival contentions. However, in the case of the petitioner no such list with regard to the centre of PET was published/notified on the official website. Learned Standing Counsel submits that appropriate decision shall be taken by the third respondent, expeditiously. In regard thereto, without entering into the merit of the case, as well as, rival contentions. raised by the respective parties, the writ petition is being disposed of directing the third respondent, Chairman, U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board to conduct/take Physical Eligibility Test (PET) of the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within two weeks from the date of filing of certified copy of this order alongwith the copy of the writ petition. With the aforementioned observations/directions, the writ petition stands disposed of." 5. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment and order, as reproduced hereinabove, reveals that the learned Standing Counsel representing the State of Uttar Pradesh had submitted before the learned Judge that appropriate decision shall be taken by the third respondent (being the appellant No. 3 herein), expeditiously. 6. In such a factual backdrop, a mandatory direction upon the Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, to conduct/take Physical Eligibility Test (P.E.T.) of the respondent-writ petitioner, without the same being supported with cogent and justifiable reason, cannot be sustained. 7. We, therefore, modify the direction of the learned Single Judge in the following manner: "The Chairman, Uttar Pradesh Police Recruitment and Promotion Board shall take an appropriate decision in the matter based on all relevant materials on record as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks, but not later than six weeks from date of communication of a photostat certified copy of this order." 8. This Special Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.