Belongs To Backward Community Can’t Tilt Scales; No Scope For Charity Or Compassion In Matters Of Public Employment: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was considering a matter where the police recruitment aspirant had frittered away a golden opportunity by staying away from participating in the next tier of selection, i.e., the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test citing ill health.

The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held, “We are also not persuaded to accept the argument that since the respondent belongs to the backward community, the Tribunal and the High Court were right in exercising discretion in his favour and against the appellants. Merely because one belongs to the backward community cannot be the decisive factor for tilting the scales. The boundaries for exercise of discretion are well carved out beyond which the adjudicatory fora ought not to trench. Grace, charity or compassion ought to stay at a distance in matters of public employment, if a fair level playing field is to be secured.”

Addl. Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave represented the Appellant, while AOR Jagrati Singh represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The respondent had qualified in the first tier of the selection process for appointment as a Constable in the police force. However, he did not appear in the next tier of selection, which was the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test, on the grounds that he was suffering from a cold, cough, fever, headache, body pain, and dizziness. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi,  had directed the Authorities to allow the respondent to take the PE&MT with the next batch of job aspirants. This was followed by the refusal of the Delhi High Court to interfere, resulting in approval of the Tribunal’s aforesaid direction. The Tribunal and the High Court took note of the fact that the respondent had submitted at least 3 representations seeking rescheduling of the date for his PE&MT, which went unheeded. It was in such circumstances that the appeal was filed before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the advertisement dated September 1, 2023, pursuant to which the respondent applied for consideration of his candidature, in no uncertain terms, stipulated that the schedule for the PE&MT is final and cannot be altered under any circumstances. The Bench was informed that a little less than a lakh of job aspirants had registered themselves for participation in the selection process; however, it was the respondent alone who sought the rescheduling of the date for the PE&MT.

The Bench further noticed that there was a clear statement in the third representation that “on the morning of 13th January, 2024, the applicant reported to the Delhi Police Recruitment 2023 for the Posts of Constable/ Executive Male ...”. The Bench found that by his own admission, the respondent was able to move around on January 13, 2024, but was unable to move on January 14, 2024. “Such being the position, at least, an effort should have been made by the respondent to remain physically present on the scheduled date of the PE&MT. He, however, abstained and was, in our opinion, rightly marked “ABSENT”, it added.

The Bench stated, “Nature of the respondent’s ill health on the date he was scheduled to appear for the PE&MT (14th January, 2024) was not such so as to deserve an exceptional treatment. We, thus, see no reason to hold that the omission, neglect or failure of the appellants to even respond to the respondent’s representations, assuming that they were received, conferred on him the enforceable right to seek a rescheduling of the examination date.”

Considering that the ailment from which the respondent was suffering was not such that he was even unable to move, the Bench stated that the minimum expectation from him was to report for the PE&MT, cite his inability to take the same and to request rescheduling to enable him to participate. This, as per the Bench, could have, at least, given an opportunity to the appellants or the authorities in charge of holding the examination to decide whether or not the respondent was in genuine need for an accommodation. “Not showing up and expecting a second chance, clearly demonstrates a lack of drive and initiative on the part of the respondent”, it added.

Thus, setting aside the order of the Tribunal which was upheld by the High Court, the Bench allowed the appeal.

Cause Title: Commissioner, Delhi Police & Anr. v. Uttam Kumar (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 314)

Appearance

Appellant: Addl. Solicitor General Archana Pathak Dave, AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Advocates Garvil Singh, Kamal Digpaul, Harshita Choubey, Padmesh Mishra

Respondent: AOR Jagrati Singh, Advocates Shivanshu Bhardwaj, Rajpal, Surendar Kumar, Omprakash, Himanshu Bhardwaj, Raghuvansh Mishra

Click here to read/download Judgment