Aakash Kumar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt.

1. Heard Mr. Ram Charitra Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 1A.Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated

10.07.2025 whereby petitioner's representation for participation in Physical Efficiency Test and Medical Examination has been rejected.

3. It has been submitted that petitioner had applied for selection on the post of Constable in the U.P. Police and qualified the stages prior to Physical Efficiency Test, in which he could not participate due to lodging of a Criminal Case Registered as Case Crime No.564 of 2024 against him due to which he was under incarceration since

19.12.2024 till 19.05.2025, when he was enlarged on bail.

4. It is submitted that since the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted in February 2025, 2 WRIA No. 10893 of 2025 evidently petitioner was unable to participate in same owing to his incarceration. It is submitted that upon enlargement on bail, he gave a representation for participation in a fresh Physical Efficiency Test but the same was not decided due to which he filed Writ A No.6875 of 2025 which was disposed of vide order dated

27.06.2025 directing the authority concerned to decide petitioner's representation. It is submitted that impugned order has been passed in pursuance thereof rejecting the representation.

5. It has been submitted that a perusal of impugned order will make it evident that representation of petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that there is no provision for any fresh Physical Efficiency Test and that the selection having already concluded by issuance of result on

13.03.2025, the Board has become functus officio.

6. It is submitted that opposite parties have ignored the fact that petitioner could not have participated in the Physical Efficiency Test in February 2025 when he was under incarceration.

7. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that since petitioner was absent from the Physical Efficiency Test, he was eliminated on the selection process automatically. The learned counsel has attention paragraph

4.3 notification dated 23.12.2023 to indicate the conditions under which a candidate is required to qualify the Physical Efficiency Test as also Clauses 7, 11 and 12 thereof to submit that it was incumbent upon petitioner to have informed the 3 WRIA No. 10893 of 2025 reasons of unavailability to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test and upon failure to do so, there is no provision for having any further Physical Efficiency Test. It is also submitted that once the final results have already been declared on 13.03.2025, the Board itself has become functus officio.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order, it is evident that petitioner's representation has been rejected primarily on the ground that he was absent in the Physical Efficiency Test, qualifying for which is essential for participation in any further recruitment process. The impugned order also indicates that it is on account of petitioner's failure to inform the authorities concerned with regard to reasons for his absence that such a reconsideration cannot be made. The other ground indicated is that once the final select list has already been issued on 13.03.2025, the Board itself has become funcutus officio.

9. With regard to aforesaid reasons, it is evident even from the notification on which the opposite parties placed reliance upon that it is only in view of extenuating circumstances that an exemption can be granted to a candidate. The circumstances are clearly indicated in the impugned order itself as well as in the relevant clauses mentioned in the counter affidavit. The same pertains to the aspect that in case a candidate is unable to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test on account of unavoidable circumstances, he is required to inform the authorities either personally or to enable through an agent reasons for his absence and since 4 WRIA No. 10893 of 2025 petitioner neither presented himself personally nor through any agent or relative, such a facility for re-conduct of Physical Efficiency Test cannot be permitted.

10. Evidently, the reason indicated is not in consonance with the purpose of the notifications.

11. Once, it is admitted by opposite parties that the petitioner was under incarceration due to a criminal case, as on the date when the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted, it is beyond comprehension as to how the opposite parties would expect the petitioner to present himself personally on the date when the Physical Efficiency Test took place. The petitioner naturally cannot be held liable for absenting himself when he was under incarceration. It is not the case of opposite parties that there was any deliberate attempt on the part of petitioner to evade the Physical Efficiency Test or participation therein.

12. On the earlier occasion as well, the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by this Court in Writ A No.6875 of 2025, it is evident that the same aspect was also under consideration and therefore it was directed that during the course of consideration of petitioner's application, necessary guidelines/ approvals, if are required at any level, the same shall be given due consideration by the competent authority.

13. In view of the purpose of the notification dated 23.12.2023 and the clauses mentioned therein, it being evident that petitioner did not deliberately absent himself from the Physical Efficiency Test, there was no occasion for the opposite parties rejected 5 WRIA No. 10893 of 2025 representation.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding opposite party no.1 i.e. Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to permit petitioner to participate in a fresh Physical Efficiency Test Examination and Medical Examination in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23.12.2023. In case petitioner succeeds in the aforesaid Physical Efficiency Test and Medical Examination, opposite parties shall consider his appointment on the post of Constable in the U.P. Civil Police. The aforesaid exercise shall be conducted and completed by the opposite parties within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority.

15. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 10, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mr. Ram Charitra Pandey, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 1A.Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated

10.07.2025 whereby petitioner's representation for participation in Physical Efficiency Test and Medical Examination has been rejected.

3. It has been submitted that petitioner had applied for selection on the post of Constable in the U.P. Police and qualified the stages prior to Physical Efficiency Test, in which he could not participate due to lodging of a Criminal Case Registered as Case Crime No.564 of 2024 against him due to which he was under incarceration since

19.12.2024 till 19.05.2025, when he was enlarged on bail.

4. It is submitted that since the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted in February 2025, 2 WRIA No. 10893 of 2025 evidently petitioner was unable to participate in same owing to his incarceration. It is submitted that upon enlargement on bail, he gave a representation for participation in a fresh Physical Efficiency Test but the same was not decided due to which he filed Writ A No.6875 of 2025 which was disposed of vide order dated

27.06.2025 directing the authority concerned to decide petitioner's representation. It is submitted that impugned order has been passed in pursuance thereof rejecting the representation.

5. It has been submitted that a perusal of impugned order will make it evident that representation of petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that there is no provision for any fresh Physical Efficiency Test and that the selection having already concluded by issuance of result on

13.03.2025, the Board has become functus officio.

6. It is submitted that opposite parties have ignored the fact that petitioner could not have participated in the Physical Efficiency Test in February 2025 when he was under incarceration.

7. Learned State Counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that since petitioner was absent from the Physical Efficiency Test, he was eliminated on the selection process automatically. The learned counsel has attention paragraph

4.3 notification dated 23.12.2023 to indicate the conditions under which a candidate is required to qualify the Physical Efficiency Test as also Clauses 7, 11 and 12 thereof to submit that it was incumbent upon petitioner to have informed the 3 WRIA No. 10893 of 2025 reasons of unavailability to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test and upon failure to do so, there is no provision for having any further Physical Efficiency Test. It is also submitted that once the final results have already been declared on 13.03.2025, the Board itself has become functus officio.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the impugned order, it is evident that petitioner's representation has been rejected primarily on the ground that he was absent in the Physical Efficiency Test, qualifying for which is essential for participation in any further recruitment process. The impugned order also indicates that it is on account of petitioner's failure to inform the authorities concerned with regard to reasons for his absence that such a reconsideration cannot be made. The other ground indicated is that once the final select list has already been issued on 13.03.2025, the Board itself has become funcutus officio.

9. With regard to aforesaid reasons, it is evident even from the notification on which the opposite parties placed reliance upon that it is only in view of extenuating circumstances that an exemption can be granted to a candidate. The circumstances are clearly indicated in the impugned order itself as well as in the relevant clauses mentioned in the counter affidavit. The same pertains to the aspect that in case a candidate is unable to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test on account of unavoidable circumstances, he is required to inform the authorities either personally or to enable through an agent reasons for his absence and since 4 WRIA No. 10893 of 2025 petitioner neither presented himself personally nor through any agent or relative, such a facility for re-conduct of Physical Efficiency Test cannot be permitted.

10. Evidently, the reason indicated is not in consonance with the purpose of the notifications.

11. Once, it is admitted by opposite parties that the petitioner was under incarceration due to a criminal case, as on the date when the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted, it is beyond comprehension as to how the opposite parties would expect the petitioner to present himself personally on the date when the Physical Efficiency Test took place. The petitioner naturally cannot be held liable for absenting himself when he was under incarceration. It is not the case of opposite parties that there was any deliberate attempt on the part of petitioner to evade the Physical Efficiency Test or participation therein.

12. On the earlier occasion as well, the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by this Court in Writ A No.6875 of 2025, it is evident that the same aspect was also under consideration and therefore it was directed that during the course of consideration of petitioner's application, necessary guidelines/ approvals, if are required at any level, the same shall be given due consideration by the competent authority.

13. In view of the purpose of the notification dated 23.12.2023 and the clauses mentioned therein, it being evident that petitioner did not deliberately absent himself from the Physical Efficiency Test, there was no occasion for the opposite parties rejected 5 WRIA No. 10893 of 2025 representation.

14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 10.07.2025 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari. Further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding opposite party no.1 i.e. Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to permit petitioner to participate in a fresh Physical Efficiency Test Examination and Medical Examination in pursuance of the advertisement dated 23.12.2023. In case petitioner succeeds in the aforesaid Physical Efficiency Test and Medical Examination, opposite parties shall consider his appointment on the post of Constable in the U.P. Civil Police. The aforesaid exercise shall be conducted and completed by the opposite parties within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority.

15. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. November 10, 2025 Subodh/- (Manish Mathur,J.) SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench