High Court · 2025

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2591 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dharmendra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2592 of 2020 Petitioner :- Kuldeep Batham Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Devesh Mishra,Vijay Gautam(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2606 of 2020 And Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2612 of 2020 Petitioner :- Manoj Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Devesh Mishra,Vijay Gautam(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And 3 of 11 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2615 of 2020 Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Devesh Mishra,Vijay Gautam(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20942 of 2019 Petitioner :- Naveen Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshul Pathak,Irfan Ahmad Malik,Surya Prakash Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 289 of 2020 Petitioner :- Gaurav Tomer Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Ajeet Singh,Anand Kumar,R.P. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1805 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Kumar,Sher Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3148 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ravi Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amitrana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 399 of 2020 Petitioner :- Neeraj Kumar 4 of 11 Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaswant Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 407 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sateesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 486 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dheeraj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 845 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Bind Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Shukla,Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1025 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh Bishen,Ravi Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2762 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dhiraj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ambarish Chatterji,Pramod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 5 of 11 And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2773 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sonu Paswan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2803 of 2020 Petitioner :- Pujesh Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Yadav,Sheo Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2857 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2884 of 2020 Petitioner :- Manoj Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Yash Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3017 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3184 of 2020 Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Suparn Samadariya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 6 of 11 And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3192 of 2020 Petitioner :- Mangla Yadav And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3438 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sachin Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh,Ajeet Singh,Indra Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3469 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sanjay Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari,Kripa Shankar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3505 of 2020 Petitioner :- Deepoo Kumar Verma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh Bishen Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3566 of 2020 Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3908 of 2020 Petitioner :- Aakash Rohal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others 7 of 11 Counsel for Petitioner :- Kaushal Kishor Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4023 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh,Ajeet Singh,Indra Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5683 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shivam Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6335 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Upadhyay,Vikram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8271 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8873 of 2020 Petitioner :- Pravesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Shukla,Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9450 of 2020 Petitioner :- Gaurav Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others 8 of 11 Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4368 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sonu Kumar Bhargav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Rai,Vinit Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This bunch of petitions consist of various categories of petitions in which either candidates have been found initially not fit in the physical standard test held but subsequently they got it done separately/privately and have come up before this Court that their physical standard test was not properly held even in review, and therefore, they may be afforded further opportunity. Another category of petitions of those in which this Court had intervened and directed for special board to be constituted to conduct physical standard test and in those cases physical standard test has been conducted and results have been placed before the Court. Yet another category of petitions of those candidates who were earlier found to be physically fit in the physical standard test in some earlier round of selection/ first round of recruitment held in the year 2015/ 2018 (first recruitment), but were declared physically unfit in physical standard test held in second recruitment of 2018 whereas in the third recruitment in the year 2023, they have been again found to be physically fit and there are also petitioners who claim that in earlier test held by Selection Board in 2015 and first recruitment 2018 they were found fit in terms of height/chest as the case may be, but have been declared unfit in second recruitment of 2018. Thus they all claim that there must have been 9 of 11 some fault in carrying out physical standard test by the board constituted by Selection Board. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel at this stage submits that final results have been declared on 13th March, 2025 and board has already proceeded with appointment of the selected candidates and any further direction by this Court will not only upset the already selected candidate to whom further orders have been issued but will amount to complete reversal of the merit, which may not be in fitness of things and in interest of justice as well. In the given facts and circumstances, the Court is of the considered view though who have been found physcially fit in the physical standard test conducted under the direction of this Court should not be denied opportunity of selection and also those candidates who have been once/twice found to be physically fit in the earlier recruitment conducted by same Selection Board, should not be discriminated against merely because in the recruitment in question, they were found to be not fit physically. However, the Court cannot remain oblivious of this fact that scheduled selection programme was undertaken and final results have been declared pursuant to which further orders have also been issued to a large number of candidates. In the case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan (2011)12 SCC 85, the Supreme Court has categorically observed as under: “29. … In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained…….” In the circumstances, therefore, the Court finds it to be appropriate to direct the Board to do justice, in equity, with those candidates who have been found physically fit in the physical standard test held pursuant to the order of this Court by Special Board so constituted and also to carry out 10 of 11 fresh exercise for holding physical standard test of those candidates who were found to be physically fit in the physical standard test held in the previous selection of recruitment 2015/ 2018 (first recruitment) and even in 2023 but not fit in respect of second recruitment 2018 and also those who were earlier in 2015 selection declared fit but not in second recruitment 2018. However, it is clarified that while all this exercise may be carried out but adjustment of such candidates against select list of particular recruitment will only be subject to availability of vacancies. Accordingly, selection board is directed to consider the candidature of the candidates for final selection who have been found physically fit in the physical standard test held pursuant to the orders of this Court in various petitions passed from time to time and that are also part of the bunch subject to availability of vacancies and likewise also in respect of second recruitment selection 2018, a physical standard test may be held by the Selection Board as may constituted and the candidates within a time frame of one month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, but final selection of such candidates if they qualify in physical standard test, shall be subject to availability of vacancies. All such petitions stand accordingly disposed of. In other petitions, where physical standard test has been held and petitioners have not been found successful, since final selection is completed and results have been declared, the Court does not grant indulgence in the matter and accordingly all such petitioners stand dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Order Date :- 13.5.2025/Sanjeev SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 11 of 11

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2591 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dharmendra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2592 of 2020 Petitioner :- Kuldeep Batham Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Devesh Mishra,Vijay Gautam(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2606 of 2020 And Petitioner :- Sunil Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ranjana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2612 of 2020 Petitioner :- Manoj Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Devesh Mishra,Vijay Gautam(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And 3 of 11 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2615 of 2020 Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Devesh Mishra,Vijay Gautam(Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20942 of 2019 Petitioner :- Naveen Chaudhary Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshul Pathak,Irfan Ahmad Malik,Surya Prakash Dubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 289 of 2020 Petitioner :- Gaurav Tomer Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Ajeet Singh,Anand Kumar,R.P. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1805 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rakesh Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Kumar,Sher Bahadur Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3148 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ravi Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amitrana Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 399 of 2020 Petitioner :- Neeraj Kumar 4 of 11 Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jaswant Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 407 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sateesh Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 486 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dheeraj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ved Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 845 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Bind Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Shukla,Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1025 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dilip Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh Bishen,Ravi Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sunil Kumar Singh And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2762 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dhiraj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ambarish Chatterji,Pramod Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 5 of 11 And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2773 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sonu Paswan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2803 of 2020 Petitioner :- Pujesh Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Yadav,Sheo Ram Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2857 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dharmendra Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2884 of 2020 Petitioner :- Manoj Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Yash Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3017 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Gautam Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3184 of 2020 Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi,Suparn Samadariya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. 6 of 11 And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3192 of 2020 Petitioner :- Mangla Yadav And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3438 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sachin Kumar And 3 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh,Ajeet Singh,Indra Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3469 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sanjay Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Tiwari,Kripa Shankar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3505 of 2020 Petitioner :- Deepoo Kumar Verma And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh Bishen Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3566 of 2020 Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Bhardwaj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3908 of 2020 Petitioner :- Aakash Rohal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others 7 of 11 Counsel for Petitioner :- Kaushal Kishor Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4023 of 2020 Petitioner :- Dileep Kumar Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Adarsh Singh,Ajeet Singh,Indra Raj Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5683 of 2020 Petitioner :- Shivam Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6335 of 2020 Petitioner :- Ashutosh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.K. Upadhyay,Vikram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8271 of 2020 Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Agnihotri Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8873 of 2020 Petitioner :- Pravesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Shukla,Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9450 of 2020 Petitioner :- Gaurav Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others 8 of 11 Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. And Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4368 of 2021 Petitioner :- Sonu Kumar Bhargav And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Rai,Vinit Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This bunch of petitions consist of various categories of petitions in which either candidates have been found initially not fit in the physical standard test held but subsequently they got it done separately/privately and have come up before this Court that their physical standard test was not properly held even in review, and therefore, they may be afforded further opportunity. Another category of petitions of those in which this Court had intervened and directed for special board to be constituted to conduct physical standard test and in those cases physical standard test has been conducted and results have been placed before the Court. Yet another category of petitions of those candidates who were earlier found to be physically fit in the physical standard test in some earlier round of selection/ first round of recruitment held in the year 2015/ 2018 (first recruitment), but were declared physically unfit in physical standard test held in second recruitment of 2018 whereas in the third recruitment in the year 2023, they have been again found to be physically fit and there are also petitioners who claim that in earlier test held by Selection Board in 2015 and first recruitment 2018 they were found fit in terms of height/chest as the case may be, but have been declared unfit in second recruitment of 2018. Thus they all claim that there must have been 9 of 11 some fault in carrying out physical standard test by the board constituted by Selection Board. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel at this stage submits that final results have been declared on 13th March, 2025 and board has already proceeded with appointment of the selected candidates and any further direction by this Court will not only upset the already selected candidate to whom further orders have been issued but will amount to complete reversal of the merit, which may not be in fitness of things and in interest of justice as well. In the given facts and circumstances, the Court is of the considered view though who have been found physcially fit in the physical standard test conducted under the direction of this Court should not be denied opportunity of selection and also those candidates who have been once/twice found to be physically fit in the earlier recruitment conducted by same Selection Board, should not be discriminated against merely because in the recruitment in question, they were found to be not fit physically. However, the Court cannot remain oblivious of this fact that scheduled selection programme was undertaken and final results have been declared pursuant to which further orders have also been issued to a large number of candidates. In the case of Bedanga Talukdar v. Saifudaullah Khan (2011)12 SCC 85, the Supreme Court has categorically observed as under: “29. … In our opinion, it is too well settled to need any further reiteration that all appointments to public office have to be made in conformity with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In other words, there must be no arbitrariness resulting from any undue favour being shown to any candidate. Therefore, the selection process has to be conducted strictly in accordance with the stipulated selection procedure. Consequently, when a particular schedule is mentioned in an advertisement, the same has to be scrupulously maintained…….” In the circumstances, therefore, the Court finds it to be appropriate to direct the Board to do justice, in equity, with those candidates who have been found physically fit in the physical standard test held pursuant to the order of this Court by Special Board so constituted and also to carry out 10 of 11 fresh exercise for holding physical standard test of those candidates who were found to be physically fit in the physical standard test held in the previous selection of recruitment 2015/ 2018 (first recruitment) and even in 2023 but not fit in respect of second recruitment 2018 and also those who were earlier in 2015 selection declared fit but not in second recruitment 2018. However, it is clarified that while all this exercise may be carried out but adjustment of such candidates against select list of particular recruitment will only be subject to availability of vacancies. Accordingly, selection board is directed to consider the candidature of the candidates for final selection who have been found physically fit in the physical standard test held pursuant to the orders of this Court in various petitions passed from time to time and that are also part of the bunch subject to availability of vacancies and likewise also in respect of second recruitment selection 2018, a physical standard test may be held by the Selection Board as may constituted and the candidates within a time frame of one month from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order, but final selection of such candidates if they qualify in physical standard test, shall be subject to availability of vacancies. All such petitions stand accordingly disposed of. In other petitions, where physical standard test has been held and petitioners have not been found successful, since final selection is completed and results have been declared, the Court does not grant indulgence in the matter and accordingly all such petitioners stand dismissed. Ordered accordingly. Order Date :- 13.5.2025/Sanjeev SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad 11 of 11