news details |
|
|
| DB upholds selection of Sub-Inspectors of 2009 batch | | | Jammu, Aug (JNF) : Division Bench of State High Court comprising Justice Virender Singh and Justice Hasnain Massodi in an appeal filed by Gurtej Singh and Ors against the judgment of writ Court whereby Writ Court upheld the selection of Sub-Inspectors of four wings of Police, Upheld of judgment of Writ Court whereby Writ Court dismissed the 21 petitions challenging the selection of Sub-inspectors. Perusal of the record reveals that the Physical Examination/Outdoor Test was only qualifying in nature and did not earn any marks for a candidate appearing in said examination/test that was intended to examine physique of a candidate and take measurements like height, chest (before and after inhaling) and make the candidates to undergo some outdoor tests.
Only such of the candidates, who satisfied the requirements laid down in rules as regards height, chest, were to appear in the Preliminary Test. The majority of the candidates appeared for Physical Examination/Outdoor Test, as per the scheduled programme, i.e. between 12.09.2009 to 07.10.2009. However, some of the candidates from different parts of the State were not, for one or other reason, able to report the respective Range Headquarters on the scheduled dates. They, accordingly, approached the respondents for grant of an opportunity to appear in the Physical Examination/Outdoor Test.
The respondents alive their duty to net the best talent from the market place, decided to provide the representationists an opportunity to appear in Physical Examination/Outdoor Test.
The respondents realized that their failure to report to the Range Headquarters on the scheduled dates was not deliberate and intentional and was attributable to the factors beyond their control. What weighed with the respondents was that their failure to report to the respective Range Headquarters would not by itself indicate that they were not either fulfilling the requirements as regards their physique/physical measurements or their competence to make it to the selection list. The mere opportunity to appear for Physical Examination/Outdoor Test did not, in any manner, change the eligibility criteria laid down for the selection process. It is not a case where the candidates, who had failed to appear in the Preliminary examination, were notwithstanding such failure allowed to appear in the written examination or given a second chance to appear in such examination.
It was one of allowing the candidates to appear for Physical Examination/Outdoor Test, that was qualifying in nature and did not earn the candidates any marks but enabled them to sit in the actual examination that comprised of Preliminary examination, Written Test and Interview/Personality Assessment Test. The performance of the candidates, who missed the Physical Examination/Outdoor Test and were allowed to appear for the test on the re-scheduled dates, as traced in the writ Court judgment would suggest that the indulgence granted by the respondent no.3 to the representationists was not, in any case, tainted with mala fides.
There is, therefore, no substance in the case set up by the appellants that the respondents while allowing a few candidates to appear in Physical Examination/Outdoor Test on their representation, change Recruitment Rules/Criteria midstream or that any mala fides were involved in such decision. With these observations Court dismissed the LPAs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
STOCK UPDATE |
|
|
 |
| BSE
Sensex |
 |
| NSE
Nifty |
|
|
| |
CRICKET UPDATE |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
