# Ravi Prakash & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 135
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-12
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 23866 of 2019
- **Bench:** Vivek Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ravi-prakash-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49596
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Service Law - U.P. Home Guards
Department Subordinate Service Rules,
1982
-
R.
15
-
Post
of
Platoon
Commander
and
Block
Organizer
-
Selection
-
Clause
2(2)
of
the
advertisement
provide
for
physical
efficiency test - Legality challenged -
Petitioner did not appear in physical
efficiency test inspite of order of this
Hon'ble Court - Effect - Held, after
participating in the selection process, it is
not open for the petitioners to challenge
the same, that too, at a later stage -
Ramesh Chandra Shah's case relied upon
- Held further, once it is found that
physical efficiency test is necessary and
petitioners have not appeared in the
same, their claim is liable to be rejected.
(Para 13 and 22)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

1 All. Ravi Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
135
had
recommended
accepting
her
resignation from the service.

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has placed reliance upon the judgment &
order dated 08.03.2022 passed in Writ-A
No. 4813 of 2021, Dr. Sonal Sachadev
Aurora Vs. State of U.P. & others.

11. Learned Standing Counsel also
could not place any reason for not
accepting the resignation of the petitioner.

12. This Court finds that the case of
the petitioner is squarely covered by the
judgment of Dr. Sonal Sachdeva (Supra).
The petitioner in the given facts and
circumstances is treated arbitrarily by the
respondents. The respondents were bound
to accept the resignation of the petitioner
and, there was no necessity to conduct any
inquiry against the petitioner.

13. In view of the aforesaid, the
impugned orders dated 25.09.2020 &
26.09.2020 are hereby quashed. The
respondents shall treat the petitioner as
having resigned from her post w.e.f.
24.02.2020 and shall grant her benefit
which she is entitled to by treating her to be
in service till 24.02.2020. Such an exercise
shall be conducted expeditiously, say in not
more than two months from the date a copy
of this order is placed before respondent
no.2, Director, Medical Education &
Training, 6th Floor, Jawahar Bhawan,
Lucknow.

14. With the aforesaid, the writ
petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 135
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.01.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ A No. 23866 of 2019
Connected with
Writ A No. 24438 of 2019
and
Writ A No. 24805 of 2019
and
Writ A No. 28 of 2023

Ravi Prakash & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Laltaprasad Misra, Prafulla Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra, Utsav Mishra

A. Service Law - U.P. Home Guards
Department Subordinate Service Rules,
1982
-
R.
15
-
Post
of
Platoon
Commander
and
Block
Organizer
-
Selection
-
Clause
2(2)
of
the
advertisement
provide
for
physical
efficiency test - Legality challenged -
Petitioner did not appear in physical
efficiency test inspite of order of this
Hon'ble Court - Effect - Held, after
participating in the selection process, it is
not open for the petitioners to challenge
the same, that too, at a later stage -
Ramesh Chandra Shah's case relied upon
- Held further, once it is found that
physical efficiency test is necessary and
petitioners have not appeared in the
same, their claim is liable to be rejected.
(Para 13 and 22)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

1. Ramjit Singh Kardam & ors. Vs Sanjeev
Kumar& ors.; (2020) 20 SCC 209
2. K. Manjusree Vs St. of Andhra Pradesh &
anr.; (2008) 3 SCC 512.
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Ramesh Chandra Shah & ors. VsAnil Joshi &
ors.; (2013) 11 SCC 309
4. Dhananjay Malik & ors. Vs St. of Uttaranchal&
ors.; (2008) 4 SCC 171
5. Civil Appeal No. 1924 of 2010; Sankar Mondal
Vs St. of W.B. & ors. decided on 15.2.2022
6. Writ A No. 2460 of 2022; Smt. Vijay Laxmi&
ors. Vs St. of U.P.& ors. decided on 29.4.2022
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra assisted by
Sri Naveen Shukla as well as Sri Birendra
Pratap Singh and Sri Manish Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Praful Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for
the State and Sri Utsav Mishra, learned
counsel for the Commission.

2. The petitioners have challenged the
physical efficiency test as prescribed by
order dated 8.7.2019 for appearing in the
physical efficiency test scheduled to be
held between 9.9.2019 to 11.9.2019 for the
post of Platoon Commander, Home Guards
and on 12.9.2019 and 13.9.2019 for the
post of Block Organizer, Home Guards at
Lucknow. They claim that they may not be
subjected to such physical efficiency test.
In the alternative, the petitioners have
sought a relief of certiorari for quashing
Clause 12(2) of the Advertisement No.02Examination/2016 so far as it prescribes for
holding a physical efficiency test for
selection to the post of Platoon Commander
and Block Organizer in the Home Guards
Department.

3. The facts of the case are that in the
year
2016,
Advertisement
No.02Examination/2016 was issued for combined
subordinate services selection by which,
large number of vacancies of different
departments were advertised. Under the
said advertisement, vacancy for the post of
Platoon Commander and Block Organizer
of the Home Guards Department was also
advertised. For the said post, selection
process included written and interview tests
and further, physical efficiency test as well
as physical measurements. The physical
measurements were prescribed in the
advertisement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners
submit that appointments on the aforesaid
posts are to be made under the U.P. Home
Guards Department Subordinate Service
Rules, 1982 (for short 'the Rules of 1982')
read
with
U.P.
Subordinate
Services
Selection Commission Act, 2014 (for short
'the Act of 2014') and its Regulations.

5. Challenging the said selection,
learned counsel for the petitioners submit
that the Rules of 1982 do not provide for a
physical efficiency test and the said Rules
only provide for physical measurements. It
is further submitted that the physical
efficiency test could not have been
provided in midway of the selection
process after the advertisement is made.
Learned counsel further submit that even
otherwise, physical efficiency test, as
provided by the impugned order, is too
stringent.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners have tried to drawn comparison
with the physical efficiency test held for the
post of Sub Inspector of Police and Police
Constable and submit that the physical
efficiency test imposed for the Home
Guards is much more stringent than that of
Sub Inspector of Police and Police
Constables. Thus, the conditions are
arbitrarily stringent.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
further submit that the marks fixed in the
physical efficiency test are competitive in
nature as the same provide increasing
1 All. Ravi Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
137
marks
for
better
efficiency.
Learned
counsel further submit that such marking
system cannot be imposed during the
process of selection and the same ought to
have been provided at the time of
advertisement. It is further submitted that at
a later stage, only a criteria for clearing the
physical efficiency test could be provided
and not competitive marking. For the said
purpose, learned counsel for the petitioners
rely upon the judgment of the Supreme
Court in the cases of Ramjit Singh Kardam
and others vs. Sanjeev Kumar and others
(2020) 20 SCC 209 and K. Manjusree vs.
State of Andhra Pradesh and another
(2008) 3 SCC 512.

7. Opposing the contention of learned
counsel for the petitioners, Sri Utsav Mishra,
learned counsel for the Commission and Sri
Praful Yadav, learned Standing Counsel,
submit that a bare perusal of Clause 12(2) of
the said advertisement shows that physical
efficiency
test
as
well
as
physical
measurements
was
provided
in
the
advertisement. They submit that the said fact
is also clear from the alternative relief
claimed by the petitioners in which, they are
seeking for quashing of Clause 12(2) of the
advertisement so far as it prescribes for
holding of physical efficiency test. They
further submit that since the advertisement is
of the year 2016 under which the petitioners
duly participated, hence, after a period of
three years, they cannot challenge the
condition of the advertisement. Learned
counsel for the respondents for the said
purposes, rely upon the following judgments:

(i) Ramesh Chandra Shah and
others vs. Anil Joshi and others (2013) 11
SCC 309;

(ii) Dhananjay Malik and others
vs. State of Uttaranchal and others (2008)
4 SCC 171;

(iii) Sankar Mondal vs. State of
West Bengal and others: Civil Appeal
No.1924 of 2010, decided on 15.2.2022;
and

(iv) Smt. Vijay Laxmi and others
vs. Stat of U.P. and others: Writ-A
No.2460 of 2022, decided on 29.4.2022.

8.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents further place reliance upon
Rule 15 of the Rules of 1982 and claim that
the same provides for a physical efficiency
test of competitive nature and also provides
that the criteria of physical efficiency test
may be prescribed from time to time by the
Commandant General of Home Guards.
The respondents' counsel submit that the
Rules of 1982 are strictly followed read
with the Act of 2014 and its Regulations
and there is no illegality committed in the
selection process.

9. I have perused the records of the
case with the assistance of learned counsel
for the parties and judgments relied upon
by them.

10. Clause 12(1) of the Advertisement
No.02-Examination/2016 provides that the
selection shall be made on the basis of
written examination and interview and the
manner,
syllabus
and
the
date
of
examination shall be intimated at the
relevant time. Clause 12(2) provides that
for the post of Platoon Commander and
Block Organizer, along with the selection
procedure provided in Clause 12(1),
physical efficiency test, shall also be
included and along with the physical
efficiency test, the required physical
measurements shall also be conducted as
prescribed in the advertisement.

11. Clauses 12(1) and 12(2) of the
said advertisement are quoted hereinbelow:
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"121⁄411⁄2& p;u dk vk/kkj& fyf[kr ijh{kk
rFkk lk{kkRdkj gSA iz'uxr inksa ij p;u gsrq mRRkj
izns'k lewg ^x^ ds inksa ds fy, lh/kh HkrhZ 1⁄4jhfr vkSj
izfdz;k1⁄2 fu;ekoyh] 2015 vf/klwpuk fnuk¡d 11 ebZ]
2015 esa fofgr izko/kkuksa ds varxZr lh/kh HkrhZ dh
izfdz;k] ikB~;dz] fyf[kr ijh{kk@lk{kkRdkj ds vad
ogh gksaxs] tks jkT; ljdkj ds vuqeksnu ls vk;ksx
}kjk fu/kkZfjr fd, tkaxsA rn~uqlkj fyf[kr ijh{kk gsrq
ijh{kk ;kstkuk rFkk ikB~;dze ,oa ijh{kk frfFk ds laca/k
esa ;Fkk le; lwfpr fd;k tk,xkA

1⁄421⁄2& oSrfud IykVwu dekaMj de fjiksVZ
vf/kdkjh 1⁄4indze la[;k&41⁄2] oSrfud IykVwu dekaMj
1⁄4indze la[;k&51⁄2 rFk Cykd vkxsZukbtj 1⁄4indze
la[;k&61⁄2 ds inksa ij p;u gsrq fcUnq&121⁄411⁄2 esa
mfYyf[kr p;u izfdz;k ds lkFk&lkFk 'kkjhfjd n{krk
ijh{kk Hkh lfEefyr gS] vH;fFkZ;ksa dh vgZrk ds varxZr
'kkjhfjd eki Hkh fu;ekuqlkj gS%&

vH;FkhZ
Å¡pkbZ
lhuk fcuk Qqyk;s lhuk
Qqyk;s
tkus ij
iq:"k vU;
167-7 ls0eh0
76-8 ls0eh0
83-8
ls0eh0
iq:"k ioZrh;
162-60 ls0eh0
76-5 ls0eh0
81-5
ls0eh0
iq:"k vuqlwpfr tkfr 160-0 ls0eh0
76-5 ls0eh0
78-8
ls0eh0
efgyk vU;
152-0 ls0eh0

efgyk ioZrh; ,oa
vuqlwfpr tutkfr
147-0 ls0eh0

12. Thus, the advertisement itself
provided that there shall be a physical
efficiency test. The said requirement was
fully in the knowledge of the petitioners
and the same is also reflected from the
alternative relief sought, wherein Clause
12(2) of the advertisement is sought to be
quashed.

13. The petitioners had applied for the
said posts in the year 2016. In case they felt
that any of the condition is illegal, the same
ought to have been challenged in the year
2016 only. After participating in the
selection process, it is not open for the
petitioners to challenge the same, that too,
at a later stage. The law in this regard is
well settled by the Supreme Court in case
of Ramesh Chandra Shah (supra), wherein
the Supreme Court in Paragraphs 17, 18
and 24 held:

"17. Those who were desirous of
competing for the post of Physiotherapist,
which is a Group ''C' post in the State of
Uttarakhand must have, after reading the
advertisement, become aware of the fact
that by virtue of the Office Memorandum
dated 3-8-2010, the Board has been
designated as the recruiting agency and the
selection will be made in accordance with
the provisions of the General Rules. They
appeared in the written test knowing that
they will have to pass the examination
enumerated
in
Para
11
of
the
advertisement. If they had cleared the test,
the private respondents would not have
raised any objection to the selection
procedure or the methodology adopted by
the Board. They made a grievance only
after they found that their names do not
figure in the list of successful candidates. In
other words, they took a chance to be
selected in the test conducted by the Board
on the basis of the advertisement issued in
November 2011. This conduct of the private
respondents clearly disentitles them from
seeking relief under Article 226 of the
Constitution. To put it differently, by having
appeared in the written test and taken a
chance to be declared successful, the
private respondents will be deemed to have
waived their right to challenge the
advertisement
and
the
procedure
of
selection.

18. It is settled law that a person
who consciously takes part in the process
of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around
and question the method of selection and its
outcome.
1 All. Ravi Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
139

...........

24. In view of the propositions
laid down in the abovenoted judgments, it
must be held that by having taken part in
the process of selection with full knowledge
that the recruitment was being made under
the General Rules, the respondents had
waived
their
right
to
question
the
advertisement or the methodology adopted
by the Board for making selection and the
learned Single Judge and the Division
Bench of the High Court committed grave
error by entertaining the grievance made
by the respondents."

14. Therefore, the present writ
petitions are not maintainable to the extent,
the challenge to Clause 12(2) of the
advertisement prescribing holding of a
physical efficiency test is concerned. Even
otherwise, the physical efficiency test is
also prescribed by Rule 15 of the Rules of
1982. The Note to Rule 15(2) provides that
course and procedure of the competitive
examination shall be such as is prescribed
by the Commandant General, Home
Guards. Rule 15(3) provides that the
Selection Committee shall take written and
physical efficiency test of the candidates
and on the basis of marks obtained in the
same, call the appropriate number of
candidates
for
interview.
The
marks
obtained by a candidate in interview shall
be added in the marks obtained in the
written and physical competitive test of the
candidates.

15. Thus, the Rules of 1982
themselves provide that there shall be a
written as well as physical competitive test
and also an interview. The result of the
selection shall be declared on the basis of
combined marks obtained in the said three
examinations. Therefore, no illegality is
found in holding the physical efficiency
test. The criteria of the physical efficiency
test is to be prescribed and is duly
prescribed
by
the
Chairman of
the
Selection Committee and thus, there is no
illegality in the same. So far as the criteria
fixed in the physical efficiency test is
concerned, the same is as follows:

"iq:"k vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy;s %&

1& fdzdsV xsan Qsaduk
de ls de
55 ehVj

2& yEch dwn

de ls de
13 QhV

3& che 1⁄4fpuhax vi1⁄2
de ls de
05 ckj

4& nkSM+ 1⁄41500 ehVj1⁄2
vf/kdre
06 feuV esa

mijksDr 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kkvksa esa
vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fuEukuqlkj vad iznku fd;s tk;sxsa %&

1⁄411⁄2 fdzdsV xsan Qsaduk vf/kdre 10 vad

55 ehVj

5 vad

60 ehVj

6 vad

65 ehVj

7 vad

70 ehVj

8 vad

75 ehVj

9 vad

80 ehVj

10 vad

1⁄421⁄2 yEch dwn vf/kdre 10 vad

13 QhV

5
vad

14 QhV

6 vad

15 QhV

7 vad

16 QhV

8 vad

17 QhV

9 vad

18 QhV ,oa mlls vf/kd

10
vad

1⁄431⁄2 che 1⁄4fofuax vij1⁄2 vf/kdre 10 vad

5 ckj

5 vad

6 ckj

6 vad

7 ckj

7 vad

8 ckj

8 vad

9 ckj

9 vad

10 ckj

10 vad

1⁄441⁄2 nkSM& 1500 ehVj vf/kdre 10 vad

5 feuV rd

10 vad

5 feuV 01 lsds.M ls

5 feuV 15 lsds.M rd
9 vad
140 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5 feuV 16 lsds.M ls

5 feuV 30 lsds.M rd
7 vad

5 feuV 31 lsds.M ls

5 feuV 45 lsds.M rd
6 vad

5 feuV 45 lsds.M ls

6 feuV rd

5 vad

efgyk vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy;s %&

efgyk vH;fFkZ;ksa dh 'kkjhfjd n{krk
ijh{kkvksa esa fuEukuqlkj vad iznku fd;s

tk;sxsa %&

1& yEch dwn

 de
ls
de 9 QhV

2& fdzdsV xsan Qsaduk
de ls de
25 ehVj

3& fLdfiax 1⁄4jLlh dwnuk1⁄2

 de
ls de 55 ckj

4& nkSM+ 800 ehVj

vf/kdre 4 feuV 30 lsds.M

1⁄411⁄2 yEch dwn vf/kdre 10 vad

9 QhV ij

5 vad

10 QhV ij

6 vad

11 QhV ij

7 vad

12 QhV ij

8 vad

13 QhV ij

9 vad

14 QhV ij

10 vad

1⁄421⁄2 fdzdsV xsan Qsaduk&vf/kre 10 vad

25 ehVj

5 vad

27 ehVj

6 vad

29 ehVj

7 vad

31 ehVj

8 vad

33 ehVj

9 vad

35 ehVj

10 vad

1⁄431⁄2 fLdfiax 1⁄4jLlh dwnuk1⁄2&vf/kre 10
vad

55 ckj ,d feuV esa

5 vad

60 ckj ,d feuV esa

6 vad

65 ckj ,d feuV esa

7 vad

70 ckj ,d feuV esa

8 vad

75 ckj ,d feuV esa

9 vad

80 ckj ,d feuV esa

10 vad

1⁄441⁄2 nkSM& 800 ehVj vf/kdre 10 vad

3 feuV 30 lsds.M rd rd
10
vad

3 feuV 31 lsds.M ls

3 feuV 45 lsds.M rd
9 vad

3 feuV 46 lsds.M ls

4 feuV rd

7 vad

4 feuV 1 lsds.M ls

4 feuV 15 lsds.M rd
6 vad

4 feuV 16 lsds.M ls

4 feuV 30 lsds.M rd
5 vad

16. For better efficiency on the said
criteria, like if a cricket ball is thrown to 55
meters, a candidate is awarded 5 marks and
if it is thrown to 60 meters, a candidate is
awarded 6 marks, so at every five meters, a
candidate gets one extra marks. Similarly,
in Long Jump, Beem (Chinning up),
running etc., better efficiency entitles a
candidate to obtain extra marks as per the
efficiency criteria.

17. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioners that such competitive
efficiency marks could not have been
provided for the physical efficiency test, is
contrary to the Rules of 1982 as Rule 15 of
the said Rules itself provides that there
shall
be
a
competitive
physical
examination. Rule 15 reads as under:

"15& 1⁄411⁄2 lh/kh HkrhZ ds iz;kstukFkZ p;u
lfefr;ksa dk xBu fd;k tk;sxk ftlesa fuEufyf[kr
gksxsa %&

1⁄4d1⁄2
IykVwu
dek.Mj
vkSj
Cykd
vkxZukbtj ds in ds fy;s %&

1⁄4,d1⁄2 fMIVh dek.Ms.V tujy gksexkMZlA

1⁄4nks1⁄2 T;s"B LVkQ vf/kdkjh] gksexkMZ~lA

1⁄4rhu1⁄2 dek.Ms.V] dsUnzh; izf'k{k.k laLFkku]
gksexkMZ~lA

1⁄4[k1⁄2 goynkj bULVaDVj ds in ds fy;s %&

1⁄4,d1⁄2 fMIVh dek.Ms.V tujy gksexkMZlA

1⁄4nks1⁄2 dek.Ms.V] dsUnzh; izf'k{k.k laLFkku]
gksexkMZ~lA

1⁄4rhu1⁄2 ,d fMfotuy dekUMs.V gksexkMZl
1⁄4ftls dek.Ms.V tujy }kjk uke fufnZ"V fd;k
tk;sxkA1⁄2

1⁄421⁄2 p;u lfefr vkosnu i=ksa dh laoh{kk
djsxh vkSj ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa esa izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk esa
mifLFkr gksus dh vis{kk djsxhA

fVIi.kh %& izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk dk ikB~;dze
vkSj mldh izfdz;k ,slh gksxh tSlh dek.Ms.V tujy]
gksexkMZ~l }kjk le;≤ ij fofgr dh tk;A

1⁄431⁄2 p;u lfefr] vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk fyf[kr
vkSj 'kkjhfjd ijh{kk esa izkIr vadks dh lkj.khc) fd;s
1 All. Ravi Prakash & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
141
tkus ds i'pkr~ fu;e 6 ds vuqlkj vuqlwfpr tkfr;ksa]
vuqlwfpr tu&tkfr;ksa vkSj vU; Jsf.k;ksa ds vH;fFkZ;ksa
dk lE;d izfrfuf/kRo lqfuf'pr djus dh vko';drk
dks /;ku esa j[krs gq,] mrus vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj
ds fy;s cqyk;sxh ftrus ijh{kkvksa ds ifj.kke ds vk/kkj
ij bl lEcU/k esa lfefr }kjk fu/kkZfjr Lrj rd igqap
lds gksaA lk{kkRdkj esa izR;sd vH;fFkhZ dks fn;s x;s
vad ijh{kkvksa esa mldks izkIr vadks esa tksM+ fn;s
tk;sxsaA

1⁄441⁄2 p;u lfefr vH;fFkZ;ksa dh] ;ksX;krk
dze esa] tSlk fd ijh{kkvksa vkSj lk{kkRdkj esa mudks
izkIr vadks ds dqy ;ksx ls izdV gks] ,d lwph rS;kj
djsxhA ;fn nks ;k vf/kd vH;FkhZ cjkcj&cjkcj vad
izkIr djsa rks fyf[kr ijh{kk esa vf/kd vad ikus okys
dk uke Åij j[kk tk;sxkA

lwph esa ukeksa dh la[;k fjfDr;ksa dh la[;k
esa vf/kd 1⁄4fdUrq 25 izfr'kr ls T;knk vf/kd ugh1⁄2
gksxhA "

18. Comparing the same with the
physical efficiency test of Sub Inspector
and Constable is concerned, the Rules of
Sub Inspector and Constable provide that a
candidate for the post of Sub Inspector is
required to run 4.8 kilometers in 28
minutes and a candidate for the post of
Constable is required to run 2.4 kilometers
in 16 minutes.

19. For the post of Platoon
Commander
and Block Organizer,
a
candidate is only required to run 1500
meters in 5 minutes. The time provided for
the physical efficiency test is not stringent
vis-a-vis that of the Sub Inspector or
Constable, but on the contrary, is much
lenient as they are only required to run 1.5
kilometers vis-a-vis 4.8 and 2.4 of the Sub
Inspector and Constable respectively. The
other
requirements
i.e.
Long
Jump,
throwing of cricket ball, Beem (chinning
up) or skipping and running for the women
are also not stringent, but are reasonable for
any physically fit person and looking into
the nature of job to be performed by the
selected candidate.

20. There is another aspect of the
matter also. This Court by order dated
6.9.2019, as an interim measure, provided
that the petitioners may appear in the
physical efficiency test scheduled to be
held in the month of September, 2019,
without prejudice to their rights in these
writ petitions.

21. Despite the aforesaid order, the
petitioners did not appear in the physical
efficiency test, instead they filed an
application that at present they are not in a
condition to appear in the physical
efficiency test. The respondents twice
adjourned the said test, but again on each
and every time, on the ground of Covid and
on other grounds, the petitioners refused to
appear in the said test.

22. This Court neither permitted the
petitioners to apply for extension of time to
appear in the physical efficiency test nor
permitted to respondents to extend the time
of the said test. The Court only directed
that the petitioners may appear in the
physical efficiency test to be conducted in
September, 2019. The petitioners opted not
to appear. This in itself is sufficient for this
Court to refuse relief to the petitioners as
they did not appear in the physical
efficiency test, which was subject to the
decision of the writ petition. Once it is
found that physical efficiency test is
necessary and petitioners have not appeared
in the same, their claim is liable to be
rejected.

23. Considering the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case, this Court
does not find any force in the submissions
of learned counsel for the petitioners.

24. The writ petitions have no force
and are dismissed.
142 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 142
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.

Writ A No. 28636 of 2019

Kuverjeet Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Satish
Chaturvedi,
D.N.
Chaturvedi,
Shantanu Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Suniti Chauhan, B.K. Shukla, Brijesh Kumar
Shukla,
K.K.
Pandey,
K.K.
Pandey,
Mahendra Kumar Misra

A. Service Law - Railway Protection
Force Rules, 1987 - Rule 219.4 -
Punishment - Second time enquiry was
initiated by superior authority - Validity
challenged - Order was passed beyond
the statutory period of one years -
Permissibility
-
Held,
the
superior
authority cannot hold an inquiry at its
own level but can only look into the
order
passed
by
the
disciplinary
authority - Clause-B of Rule 219.4
cannot be read so exhaustively as to
permit the superior authority to hold a
de novo inquiry totally ignoring the
inquiry already conducted and the order
passed by the disciplinary authority -
Held
further,
both
the
orders
are
passed beyond the period of one year
which cannot be passed as barred by
the first proviso of the said Rule. (Para
9)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Mahendra Kumar Misra,
learned counsel for the Union of India.

2. The petitioner has approached this
Court challenging the order/charge sheet
dated 24.09.2019.

3. The facts of the case are that the
petitioner was given a charge sheet on
25.06.2018 and on the basis of the same an
inquiry was conducted and the punishment
order dated 2.8.2018 was passed by the
Senior Commandant, Railway Protection
Special Force, Lucknow. Against the said
order, the petitioner had filed an appeal but
he had withdrawn the same. Despite the
same the superior authority; namely, the
Chief Security Commissioner, Railway
Protection Force, has proceeded to pass the
impugned order dated 24.09.2019. A
perusal of the same shows that the same is
the repetition of the earlier charge sheet
asking the petitioner to submit reply to the
same. The same nowhere states as to
whether by the same, order by the
disciplinary authority is intended to be
confirmed, modified or set aside or the
punishment is to be enhanced, reduced or
in any other manner modified or even
otherwise as to what order is proposed to
be passed. Rule 219.4 of the R.P.F. Rules of
1987, reads as follows:-

"Rule
219.4
Any
authority
superior to the authority making the
original order may, on its own motion, or
otherwise, call for the records of any
inquiry and revise any order made under
these rules and may:-

(a) confirm, modify or set aside
the order; or

(b) confirm, enhance, reduce or
set aside the punishment imposed by the