Police Recruitment Exam Candidates Must Be Tested For Reasoning & Logic, Not Physics: Allahabad HC Directs Authority To Revise Result
The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh State Recruitment Board to revise the result of candidates of Police Recruitment Examination.
The court observed that such candidates must be tested for reasoning and logic, and not physics.
The Court ordered thus in a batch of intra-court appeals filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules challenging identical orders and judgments of the Single Judge whereby the writ petitions of the candidates (appellants) were dismissed. The candidates sought for a direction to the State authorities to declare them successful in the written examination for the posts of Constables (Civil Police) and Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) in pursuance of an advertisement issued by the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotional Board (respondent).
A Division Bench comprising Justice Manoj Kumar Gupta and Justice Manish Kumar Nigam held, “A question has to be given its plain meaning and read as a whole. The candidates were being tested for reasoning and logic and not physics. … For testing logic and reasoning, often questions are based on a given assumption. The assumption on which question is founded is different from the actual state of affairs. The candidates are not supposed to import their understanding of the actual state of affairs, but answer the question on basis of the assumptive premise.”
Advocates Prashant Mishra and Tarun Agrawal represented the appellants in this case.
Brief Facts -
The selection of the appellants was held as per the U.P. Police (Constable and Head Constable) Service Rules, 2015 which consisted of five stages i.e. (i) written examination (ii) documentary verification (iii) physical standard test (iv) physical efficiency test and (v) medical examination. A total of 31360 posts of Constables (Civil Police) and 18208 of PAC were advertised. The written examination was held in two separate shifts and the Recruitment Board notified the cut off marks of the written examination for each category. Thereafter, by a notice, the Recruitment Board intimated the appellants that document verification/physical standard test would be held for candidates numbering 2.5 times the total number of vacancies and those who were successful, were made to undergo physical efficiency test.
The appellants, being successful in document verification/physical standard test, were permitted to participate in physical efficiency test and said exercise was held. The final select list was uploaded and the same did not include the names of appellants. All the appellants had obtained marks nearing the cut-off in their respective category. The writ petitions filed by them was dismissed by the Single Judge of the High Court and hence, the matter was before the Division Bench.
The High Court in the above context of the case noted, “We thus held that a complete hands off approach of no interference has not been suggested in any of the judgments cited on behalf of the State otherwise it would be in derogation of the power of judicial review conferred on the Constitutional Courts. At the same time, interference should be in rare and exceptional situations where the mistake is apparent and where it does not involve any inferential process of reasoning or rationalization.”
The Court further noted that the appellants approached the Court immediately after their marks were notified and final result was uploaded and they came to know that they were short by a marginal difference.
“We have already held that the Recruitment Board has acted in a completely irrational manner in changing the key answer to Question No.68 of Test Booklet B, Series 17 at the time of notifying the revised answer key. Admittedly, there was no provision for filing objection after the changes made in the final answer key. There are still 603 posts vacant after final round of selection. Although it is alleged that these posts have been carried forward to the next recruitment, but even advertisement for fresh recruitment has not been issued so far.”, said the Court.
The Court also referred to the judgments in the cases of Sankar Mondal v. State of West Bengal and Others (Civil Appeal No.1924 of 2010) and State of U.P. v. Pankaj Kumar (Civil Appeal No.6860 of 2021). Furthermore, the Court directed that the appellants who are short of 2.5 marks or less from the cut-off are entitled to be appointed against vacant posts, provided they qualify the medical exam or any other norm prescribed thereof.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the judgment of the Single Judge and issued necessary directions to the Recruitment Board.
Cause Title- Kapil Kumar and 7 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others (Neutral Citation: 2023:AHC:207388-DB)
