Ct/Gd Suman Yadav vs Union Of India And Ors 2023 Latest Caselaw 3985 Del

Delhi High Court Ct/Gd Suman Yadav vs Union Of India And Ors on 4 October, 2023 $~73 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment delivered on: 04.10.2023 + W.P.(C) 1617/2023 & & CM APPL. 6150/2023 & CM APPL. 9668/2023 CT/GD SUMAN YADAV ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case: For the Petitioner: Ms. Ankita Patnaik, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Dev P. Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Chaahat Khanna, Advocate and Inspector Sanjay Kumar, Exe. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN JUDGMENT SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J. (ORAL) 1. Petitioner impugns order dated 08.12.2022 whereby the decision dated 24.09.2022 issued by the Physical Efficiency Test (PET)/Physical Standard Test (PST) Board has been upheld, and the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 1617/2023 1 By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:06.10.2023 14:25:41 2. The petitioner was declared 'FAIL' by the PET/PST Board in the 100 meter race for recruitment to the post of Assistant Sub- Inspector through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination 2020 in CISF. 3. The petitioner had joined the CISF as a Lady Constable on 14.11.2009. 4. Petitioner applied pursuant to a Notification dated 31.12.2020 for filling up the post of Assistant Inspector (Exe) through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination 2020. 5. Petitioner qualified the written examination and also successfully completed, Stage-I, Stage-II, Stage-III. 6. Stage-IV comprised of the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) which consisted of four events i.e. 800 meter race, 100 meter race, 3 ft. (high jump) and 9 ft. (long jump). 7. Petitioner qualified in the 800 meter race in 3 minutes 38 seconds as against the required time of four minutes. However, in the 100 meter race, the petitioner was declared 'unsuccessful' on the ground that she did not complete the 100 meter race in the stipulated time of 18 seconds. 8. The case of the petitioner is that the candidates were required to run the 100 meter race, however, the race was not counted on the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 1617/2023 2 By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:06.10.2023 14:25:41 ground that they had failed to clock the timing of the candidates and the candidates were required to run again. She submits that when the candidates were made to run again, all candidates except one, qualified, however, they selected three out of the six candidates, even though, they had clocked timing of more than 18 seconds. She submits that since the petitioner was made to run immediately after the first race she was already exhausted and could not complete the race in 18 seconds. 9. On 05.07.2023, the video recording of the second run of 100 meters was produced before us. The stop-watch at the finish-line showed that the first person to cross the finished line crossed at 19.26 seconds. The contention of the respondent was that apart from the digital clock which was visible in the video, there was a hand held stopwatch and timings were taken from the hand held stopwatch and based on that, three candidates had been selected. 10. Without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties and keeping in view the fact that some of the selected candidates had clocked more than 18 seconds in the second run and also the fact that the petitioner was made to run a second time without any break, this Court directed that re-test be conducted for the petitioner. 11. As per the respondent, re-test of the petitioner was conducted on 28.07.2023 once again and the petitioner was declared as 'FAIL'. It is also noticed that the result of re-test does not, however record the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 1617/2023 3 By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:06.10.2023 14:25:41 timing that she had clocked in the 100 meter race. 12. The video of the re-test has been produced us. 13. Video shows that the person holding the stopwatch stopped the watch at 18.19 seconds as the time taken to complete the race. However, perusal of the video also shows that the stopwatch has not correctly recorded the timing as 18.19 seconds. As per the respondents, the torso has to cross the finish line. 14. We have played the video in slow motion and found that the petitioner's torso crossed the finish line before 18 seconds i.e. at 17.99. A screenshot of the time when the petitioner had crossed the stop line, which also shows the timing of the stopwatch, is extracted herein below. ******************************************************** Intentionally left blank Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 1617/2023 4 By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:06.10.2023 14:25:41 ******************************************************** Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 1617/2023 5 By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:06.10.2023 14:25:41 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 1617/2023 6 By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:06.10.2023 14:25:41 15. Consequently, we are of the view that the decision of the respondent in declaring the petitioner as 'FAIL' in the re-test as having crossed after 18 seconds cannot be sustained. In our view petitioner did, in fact, complete the 100 meter race within the stipulated time of 18 seconds. We accordingly declare the petitioner as 'qualified' in the 100 meter race. 16. As per the advertisement, the petitioner has to then progress on to the next test of the Physical Efficiency Test i.e. high jump (3 ft.) and if she qualifies then to the long jump (9 ft.). 17. We, accordingly, dispose of this petition directing the respondents to conduct further tests of the petitioner as per the advertisement i.e. high jump and if she qualifies, long jump. If she qualifies the same also then to take further steps in accordance with law towards the selection to the post of ASI (Exe.). The above tests be conducted within a period of two weeks from today. 18. Needless to say that it would be open to the petitioner to avail of such remedy as may be available in law in case she is aggrieved by any further action of the respondents. 19. The petition is disposed of in the above terms. 20. Order dasti under signature of the Court Master. SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J OCTOBER 04, 2023/'rs' MANOJ JAIN, J Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 1617/2023 7 By:RASHIM KAPOOR Signing Date:06.10.2023 14:25:41