Amit Gangeshwar Sharma vs State Of H.P. And Anr

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J

The Government of Himachal Pradesh vide notification dated 12.2.2019 invited applications for filling up 38 posts of Constables i.e. 24 vacancies of Brass Band (Male) of Shimla District, 11 (9 M + 2 FM) of 1st HPAB Bn. Junga of Police Orchestra and 3 left out vacancies of 2nd IRBn, Sakoh of Brass Band (Male) by way of direct recruitment from the eligible candidates, off­line on prescribed formats, on or before 30.4.2019 upto 5.00 P.M. Call letters were issued to the candidates on 2.8.2019 for appearing in the physical efficiency test on 16.8.2019.

As many as 528 candidates appeared in physical efficiency test, out of which 260 candidates qualified it. The petitioner along with other candidates appeared for physical efficiency test and qualified high jump, but he could not qualify long jump i.e. stretch of 3.5 mtrs. maximum in three attempts and was thus, disqualified; and aggrieved thereby has filed the instant petition for grant of following substantive relief:­

"The respondents may kindly be directed to take physical efficiency test of the petitioner afresh and respondents further be directed to consider the name of the petitioner for the post of Police Orchestra on the basis of merit and appoint petitioner as Police Orchestra with all consequential benefits, pay seniority etc.

The only ground taken by the petitioner to assail the physical efficiency test is that on the date of test, the ground was slippery on account of heavy rains.

Obviously this ground to assail the physical efficiency test is not available to the petitioner because, as observed above, there were as many as 528 candidates, who appeared in the said test and not even a single candidate including the petitioner ever objected that the condition of the ground was not good for conducting physical efficiency test activities. Rather, it has specifically come in the reply filed by the respondents that dry saw, dust and sand were arranged and the ground after rain was made suitable for conducting physical efficiency test activities.

In such circumstances, the petitioner cannot claim second chance for performing the test.

Success in athletic competitions are momental in nature and the ground being slippery cannot be made basis for seeking another chance and this Court cannot otherwise issue any direction to the Competent Authorities to redo the events. If the ground was slippery for the petitioner so was it for other 268 candidates, who not only participated, but qualified the event.

In view of aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same is accordingly dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.