High Court · 2025

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority to extend time for qualifying running test in respect of Uttar Pradesh Police Head Operator/Head Operator (Mechanic) Direct Recruitment, 2022 to the petitioner.

3. It is submitted that in terms of the Advertisement dated 06.01.2022 petitioner applied for same and was declared successful in the written examination whereafter she was required to participate in a Physical Education Test in terms of paragraph 4.7 of the aforesaid Advertisement. It is submitted that the petitioner was unable to participate in the aforesaid Test since she had at that time suffered fracture in her leg and was on bed rest.

4. It is submitted that even as per paragraph 4.3 of the aforesaid Advertisement, the aforesaid Physical Education Test is only in the nature of a qualifying test and does not make any difference on marks obtained on merit by petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner's case is covered by judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Khusbu Sharma versus Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Service Commission & Ors. passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).14225 of 2019 as well as by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Preeti Malik versus State of U.P. & Ors. passed in Writ A No.16580 of 2021.

5. Learned State counsel on the basis of instruction has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that petitioner's case would be covered by provisions of paragraphs 4.3 and 4.7 of the Advertisement whereby there is no provision for subsequent Physical Education Test in case petitioner was unable to participate in the same.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that the issue in question has already been considered and decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Khusbu Sharma (supra) in the following manner:- " We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We face a dilemma arising from on one hand maintaining the schedule of the examination as sacrosanct and on the other hand the difficulties faced by women candidates who could undergo the competitive test but are constrained in undergoing PET on account of pregnancy. The presence of lady members in the police force, considering the crime against women, is a prime need of the hour. Thus we feel that every endeavor should be made to ensure that there is higher representation of women in the police services. It is not as if some quota is being carved out for the women candidates but they are competing against men candidates. They have been successful in competitive examination getting higher merit. Our attention was drawn to the advertisement in question and the modus and norms for carrying out PET in the Bihar Police Manual, 1978 (as amended from time to time) which is set out as under: "(d) In 2nd phase candidates shall be selected six times of the existing vacancies in each category as per merit for physical eligibility test (PET) on the basis of main written examination. The Bihar Police Sub-ordinate Services Commission shall conduct the Physical Eligibility Test itself which will be qualifying only. In case of unavailability of eligible candidates for Physical Eligibility Tests, said proportion may be reduced by the commission. For physical measurements and other required tests in PET, transparent procedure based on electronic and computerized methods based on modern technology will be adopted. Videography of the entire procedure will also be done. The Commission shall inform all the candidates regarding their success and failure in PET everyday and the unsuccessful candidates shall be required to put their signature on the Master-Chart. Any candidate, dissatisfied with the result of PET, shall place his objections before the Commission within 03 days. The Commission shall hear the representations and dispose the representations the same day." (emphasis supplied) A reading of the aforesaid shows that PET will only be "qualifying". No specific marks are assigned to the PET to be added to the main marks so as to vary the merit. There is no doubt if having qualified, the candidates do not make it in the PET, such people cannot be appointed. In the conspectus of the aforesaid the question arises as to what directions should be passed by us, even by recourse of Article 142 the Constitution of India, so as to ensure that the sanctity of the process of examination is maintained and yet the women candidates don't suffer a handicap on account We are of the view that not only the appellant but all such candidates who sought deferment on account of pregnancy alone should be called for PET. Since sufficient time has elapsed, we see no reason to further postpone the PET on that account for such of the candidates. Out of the candidates so called those who qualify the PET and are otherwise found in the merit for appointment alone would be eligible to be considered for appointment, subject to verification of the factum of pregnancy. Such process should be completed within a period of two months. All such people will, however, take merit at the bottom of the current list as it is the pregnancy. vacancies which are now advertised against which the candidates are being adjusted. We are conscious that this would possibly reduce the number of seats available for the subsequent examination but then that is the natural corollary of the aforesaid direction. In case, in the meantime, more seats are available for candidates it may not even require the seats advertised to be reduced. We are persuaded to do the aforesaid also for the reason that had recruitments taken place in accordance with certain pre-defined schedules, intervention of this court would not have been called for as candidates would have known as to when recruitment would take place and would have to plan their life accordingly. However that has not happened and in fact, as stated aforesaid, it is on the prodding of this court that these examinations have been held. In view of this fact, we feel it is a fit case where the benefit should be made available to the candidates who may be in the advance stage of pregnancy at the relevant stage of time but have otherwise qualified the test. We make it clear that the aforesaid is a one time measure as we are informed that now the examinations are being held periodically. We are not inclined to open a flood gate effecting the sanctity of the future examination."

7. The aforesaid reasoning has also been followed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Preeti Malik (supra). It is also evident that provisions of Bihar Police Manual 1978 which form the basis of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is pari materia to the provision indicated for the State of U.P. as also indicated in paragraph 4.3 of the Advertisement.

8. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the ratio decidendi indicated in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Khusbu Sharma (supra) would be squarely applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Considering aforesaid, opposite parties are directed to permit petitioner to participate in Qualifying Running Test on any date prescribed for purposes of recruitment on the post of Head Operator (Mechanic) in the U.P. Police Recruitment in pursuance of Advertisement dated 06.01.2022.

10. In view thereof, writ petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mr. Ajay Pratap Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority to extend time for qualifying running test in respect of Uttar Pradesh Police Head Operator/Head Operator (Mechanic) Direct Recruitment, 2022 to the petitioner.

3. It is submitted that in terms of the Advertisement dated 06.01.2022 petitioner applied for same and was declared successful in the written examination whereafter she was required to participate in a Physical Education Test in terms of paragraph 4.7 of the aforesaid Advertisement. It is submitted that the petitioner was unable to participate in the aforesaid Test since she had at that time suffered fracture in her leg and was on bed rest.

4. It is submitted that even as per paragraph 4.3 of the aforesaid Advertisement, the aforesaid Physical Education Test is only in the nature of a qualifying test and does not make any difference on marks obtained on merit by petitioner. It is submitted that petitioner's case is covered by judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Khusbu Sharma versus Bihar Police Sub-Ordinate Service Commission & Ors. passed in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s).14225 of 2019 as well as by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Preeti Malik versus State of U.P. & Ors. passed in Writ A No.16580 of 2021.

5. Learned State counsel on the basis of instruction has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that petitioner's case would be covered by provisions of paragraphs 4.3 and 4.7 of the Advertisement whereby there is no provision for subsequent Physical Education Test in case petitioner was unable to participate in the same.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident that the issue in question has already been considered and decided by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Khusbu Sharma (supra) in the following manner:- " We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We face a dilemma arising from on one hand maintaining the schedule of the examination as sacrosanct and on the other hand the difficulties faced by women candidates who could undergo the competitive test but are constrained in undergoing PET on account of pregnancy. The presence of lady members in the police force, considering the crime against women, is a prime need of the hour. Thus we feel that every endeavor should be made to ensure that there is higher representation of women in the police services. It is not as if some quota is being carved out for the women candidates but they are competing against men candidates. They have been successful in competitive examination getting higher merit. Our attention was drawn to the advertisement in question and the modus and norms for carrying out PET in the Bihar Police Manual, 1978 (as amended from time to time) which is set out as under: "(d) In 2nd phase candidates shall be selected six times of the existing vacancies in each category as per merit for physical eligibility test (PET) on the basis of main written examination. The Bihar Police Sub-ordinate Services Commission shall conduct the Physical Eligibility Test itself which will be qualifying only. In case of unavailability of eligible candidates for Physical Eligibility Tests, said proportion may be reduced by the commission. For physical measurements and other required tests in PET, transparent procedure based on electronic and computerized methods based on modern technology will be adopted. Videography of the entire procedure will also be done. The Commission shall inform all the candidates regarding their success and failure in PET everyday and the unsuccessful candidates shall be required to put their signature on the Master-Chart. Any candidate, dissatisfied with the result of PET, shall place his objections before the Commission within 03 days. The Commission shall hear the representations and dispose the representations the same day." (emphasis supplied) A reading of the aforesaid shows that PET will only be "qualifying". No specific marks are assigned to the PET to be added to the main marks so as to vary the merit. There is no doubt if having qualified, the candidates do not make it in the PET, such people cannot be appointed. In the conspectus of the aforesaid the question arises as to what directions should be passed by us, even by recourse of Article 142 the Constitution of India, so as to ensure that the sanctity of the process of examination is maintained and yet the women candidates don't suffer a handicap on account We are of the view that not only the appellant but all such candidates who sought deferment on account of pregnancy alone should be called for PET. Since sufficient time has elapsed, we see no reason to further postpone the PET on that account for such of the candidates. Out of the candidates so called those who qualify the PET and are otherwise found in the merit for appointment alone would be eligible to be considered for appointment, subject to verification of the factum of pregnancy. Such process should be completed within a period of two months. All such people will, however, take merit at the bottom of the current list as it is the pregnancy. vacancies which are now advertised against which the candidates are being adjusted. We are conscious that this would possibly reduce the number of seats available for the subsequent examination but then that is the natural corollary of the aforesaid direction. In case, in the meantime, more seats are available for candidates it may not even require the seats advertised to be reduced. We are persuaded to do the aforesaid also for the reason that had recruitments taken place in accordance with certain pre-defined schedules, intervention of this court would not have been called for as candidates would have known as to when recruitment would take place and would have to plan their life accordingly. However that has not happened and in fact, as stated aforesaid, it is on the prodding of this court that these examinations have been held. In view of this fact, we feel it is a fit case where the benefit should be made available to the candidates who may be in the advance stage of pregnancy at the relevant stage of time but have otherwise qualified the test. We make it clear that the aforesaid is a one time measure as we are informed that now the examinations are being held periodically. We are not inclined to open a flood gate effecting the sanctity of the future examination."

7. The aforesaid reasoning has also been followed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Preeti Malik (supra). It is also evident that provisions of Bihar Police Manual 1978 which form the basis of judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is pari materia to the provision indicated for the State of U.P. as also indicated in paragraph 4.3 of the Advertisement.

8. In view thereof, in the considered opinion of this Court, the ratio decidendi indicated in the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Khusbu Sharma (supra) would be squarely applicable in the present facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Considering aforesaid, opposite parties are directed to permit petitioner to participate in Qualifying Running Test on any date prescribed for purposes of recruitment on the post of Head Operator (Mechanic) in the U.P. Police Recruitment in pursuance of Advertisement dated 06.01.2022.

10. In view thereof, writ petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 4.8.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench