High Court · 2025

Order

- (1) Such candidate will be given preference who possesses preferential qualification, if any (in the same order as stated in rule-9). Candidate having more than one preferential qualification shall get the benefit of only one preferential qualification. (2) Even then if two or more candidates have equal marks then candidate older in age shall be given preference. (3) If the aforementioned more than one candidates are equal, then preference to such candidate shall be determined according to the order. in English Alphabets of their names mentioned in High School Certificate. (6) Medical Examination- (a) The candidates whose names figure in the select list will be required to appear for Medical Examination by the Appointing authority. (b) The Appointing authority shall request the Chief Medical Officer of the concerned district to constitute a Medical Board consisting of panel of 3 doctors for conducting the medical examination in consultation with the Director General of Medical Health. The panel will conduct Medical: Examination as per "Police Recruitment Medical Examination Forms" as prescribed and codified by the Head of Department of police. (c) Any candidate not satisfied with his Medical Examination, may file an appeal before the Divisional Medical Board on the day of examination itself. Any appeal with regard to Medical Examination will not be considered if it is filed on any date after the date of his Medical Examination and declaration of its result thereof. (d) The Medical Board constituted for appeal shall have an expert relating to Medical deficiency of the applicant. (e) The decision of the Divisional Medical Board on the appeal filed by the candidate about his/her medical examination shall be final and binding on the candidate and no appeal against it will be entertained. (f) The detailed instructions for conducting Medical Examination will be issued by the Director General of Police. (g) The candidates found unsuccessful in Medical Examination shall be declared unfit by the Appointing authority and such vacancies shall be carried forward for next selection."

2. The petitioners had applied for the appointment and qualified in the written examination, after which they were called for scrutiny of documents and the Physical Standard Test. Petitioners also cleared this stage. The next stage in recruitment process was the Physical Efficiency Test, which the petitioners also qualified. In terms of Rule 15 (5) of the Rules, selection and final merit list are drawn after the conclusion of Stage 4. It is at this stage that petitioners were not selected on account of their low merit.

3. The petitioners contend that by virtue of Rule 15(5)(b) of the Service Rules, no waiting list is to be drawn by the Board. It is pointed out that the next stage for the issuance of appointment is the medical examination of the candidates selected from the final merit list. It is submitted that a large number of candidates usually apply in such recruitment exercises and a fairly good number of candidates do not qualify the medical examination required under the Rules. It is, therefore, urged that those left over vacancies are carried over to the next recruitment, as a result of which a good number of candidates who otherwise could be considered for appointment are left out.

4. In paragraph 21 of the writ petition, it is stated that in the previous recruitment drives, 3,000 to 4,000 candidates were declared medically unfit and those vacancies were then carried forward to the next recruitment. The petitioners, therefore, have

challenged the statutory rules of the recruitment on the ground that the holding of medical examination after the publication of select list should be declared invalid and ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A further prayer is made to command the respondents to redraw a fresh select list by including a larger number of people in the final select list against the available posts so that vacancies caused due to candidates being declared medically unfit are then filled from such selected candidates. It is also urged that mere selection, otherwise does not carry any right and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents.

5. Shri S.C. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes the writ petition on the grounds that there would be no presumption that a large number of candidates would be declared medically unfit so as to include large number of persons against the available posts in the select list. It is also urged that the petitioners otherwise have participated in the recruitment with their open eyes without raising any challenge to the rules or the selection proceedings and at this late stage, they cannot be permitted to challenge the recruitment rules, which otherwise are not shown to be contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution of India.

6. We have heard Shri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.C. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the State and have examined the materials on record.

7. The scheme of recruitment for the post of Constable is outlined in the Rules of 2015. The amended rules clearly provide for different stages of selection. Once a candidate clears the written examinations; scrutiny of documents and Physical Standard Test; and the Physical Efficiency Test, then the final select list is prepared and published in terms of Rule 15(5) of the Rules.

8. By virtue of sub-rule (b) of Rule 15(5), no waiting list is required to be prepared by the Board. Ordinarily, the list of selected candidates would be equal to the number of vacancies available for recruitment. It is otherwise a part of standard practice observed in various recruitments that a selected candidate is medically examined and his documents etc. are verified before he is offered appointment. It is quite possible that at such stage, some of the candidates may be declared medically unfit or their character verification etc., may not be found satisfactory. Just because certain selected candidates may not be ultimately issued appointment letters it cannot constitute any basis or ground for the candidates to be selected over and above the number of available vacancies. These are fortuitous circumstances and there will be no presumption that a large number of candidates would be declared medically unfit. At the stage of drawing the select list, it would otherwise not be known as to how many of such candidates would fail to clear the medical test. These are exigencies which cannot be predicted, nor the recruitment rules can be made subservient to such fortuitous circumstances. The select list would ordinarily consist of persons for whom vacancies are available. In the event a larger number of candidates are selected, it is also possible that all of them may qualify the medical test, in which case many of the selected individuals would be denied appointments. These are circumstances which cannot be known in advance when the recruitment exercise itself is undertaken.

9. The policy of recruitment is otherwise a matter to be determined by the employer in accordance with the rules. Mere fortuitous circumstances, which may or may not happen, cannot be allowed to be made the basis for successfully assailing the Recruitment Rules, which otherwise do not suffer from any illegality. We also find that the petitioners have participated in the recruitment exercise with their open eyes and having failed to secure selection on account of their low merit, cannot question the select list or the rules in that regard.

10. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 K.Tiwari KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

challenged the statutory rules of the recruitment on the ground that the holding of medical examination after the publication of select list should be declared invalid and ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. A further prayer is made to command the respondents to redraw a fresh select list by including a larger number of people in the final select list against the available posts so that vacancies caused due to candidates being declared medically unfit are then filled from such selected candidates. It is also urged that mere selection, otherwise does not carry any right and, therefore, no prejudice would be caused to the respondents.

5. Shri S.C. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, opposes the writ petition on the grounds that there would be no presumption that a large number of candidates would be declared medically unfit so as to include large number of persons against the available posts in the select list. It is also urged that the petitioners otherwise have participated in the recruitment with their open eyes without raising any challenge to the rules or the selection proceedings and at this late stage, they cannot be permitted to challenge the recruitment rules, which otherwise are not shown to be contrary to any statutory provision or the Constitution of India.

6. We have heard Shri Alok Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri S.C. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for the State and have examined the materials on record.

7. The scheme of recruitment for the post of Constable is outlined in the Rules of 2015. The amended rules clearly provide for different stages of selection. Once a candidate clears the written examinations; scrutiny of documents and Physical Standard Test; and the Physical Efficiency Test, then the final select list is prepared and published in terms of Rule 15(5) of the Rules.

8. By virtue of sub-rule (b) of Rule 15(5), no waiting list is required to be prepared by the Board. Ordinarily, the list of selected candidates would be equal to the number of vacancies available for recruitment. It is otherwise a part of standard practice observed in various recruitments that a selected candidate is medically examined and his documents etc. are verified before he is offered appointment. It is quite possible that at such stage, some of the candidates may be declared medically unfit or their character verification etc., may not be found satisfactory. Just because certain selected candidates may not be ultimately issued appointment letters it cannot constitute any basis or ground for the candidates to be selected over and above the number of available vacancies. These are fortuitous circumstances and there will be no presumption that a large number of candidates would be declared medically unfit. At the stage of drawing the select list, it would otherwise not be known as to how many of such candidates would fail to clear the medical test. These are exigencies which cannot be predicted, nor the recruitment rules can be made subservient to such fortuitous circumstances. The select list would ordinarily consist of persons for whom vacancies are available. In the event a larger number of candidates are selected, it is also possible that all of them may qualify the medical test, in which case many of the selected individuals would be denied appointments. These are circumstances which cannot be known in advance when the recruitment exercise itself is undertaken.

9. The policy of recruitment is otherwise a matter to be determined by the employer in accordance with the rules. Mere fortuitous circumstances, which may or may not happen, cannot be allowed to be made the basis for successfully assailing the Recruitment Rules, which otherwise do not suffer from any illegality. We also find that the petitioners have participated in the recruitment exercise with their open eyes and having failed to secure selection on account of their low merit, cannot question the select list or the rules in that regard.

10. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 22.5.2025 K.Tiwari KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad