Supreme Court: In an appeal assailing the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) to allow the respondent to take the test with the next batch, the Division Bench of Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ., allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment and observed that 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. The Court held that,
“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. Most certainly, non-communication of any decision on any of the representations, on facts and in the circumstances, did not clothe the Tribunal to make the order it did while disposing of the original application, throwing the process asunder.”
Background
The present dispute arose from the recruitment process of the Delhi Police, wherein the respondent-candidate cleared the first stage and did not appear for the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PE&MT), citing ill-health.
The respondent-candidate successfully obtained a favourable decision from the CAT, directing the appellants to allow the respondent to take the PE&MT with the next batch of job aspirants. The appellants approached the High Court impugning the decision, but any interference was denied; thus, the present appeal was preferred.
Analysis and Decision
At the outset, the Court noted that the reasoning of the CAT and the High Court was that the respondent had submitted at least three representations seeking rescheduling of the date for his PE&MT, which went unheeded. However, in the absence of any acknowledgement receipt for the said representations, the claim of the respondent casted a shadow of doubt. The Court stated that even assuming the fact that the representations were received and did deserve a look, the ailment from which the respondent was suffering was not such that he was even unable to move, and the minimum that one could expect of him was to report for the PE&MT, cite his inability to take the same and to request rescheduling to enable him participate. The authorities concerned would have had the opportunity to determine whether or not the respondent deserved exceptional treatment. The Court observed that,
“The stakes are high, when it comes to public employment and opportunities like these can be life changing for young people. When chances are rare, one needs to grab them with both hands.”
The Court opined that the respondent was rightly marked absent since he abstained from reporting, and expected a second chance, which demonstrated his lack of drive and initiative.
The Court stated that the omission, neglect or failure of the appellants to even respond to the respondent’s representations did not confer on him the enforceable right to seek a rescheduling of the examination date. The Court also refused to consider the backward community status of the respondent and stated that “merely because one belongs to the backward community cannot be the decisive factor for tilting the scales”.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned judgment of the CAT, which was upheld by the High Court. Hence, the appeal was allowed.
[Commr., Delhi Police v. Uttam Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 523, decided on 2-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the petitioner: Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., with AOR Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Garvil Singh, Kamal Digpaul, Harshita Choubey, Padmesh Mishra, Advocates
For the respondent: AOR Jagrati Singh, Shivanshu Bhardwaj, Rajpal, Surendar Kumar, Omprakash, Himanshu Bhardwaj, Raghuvansh Mishra, Advocates
