Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14113 of 2019 Petitioner :- Prateek Bhardwaj Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
While entertaining the writ petition following orders were passed on 17.09.2019:-
"It is stated that petitioner had fractured his leg, and therefore, he could appear in the physical efficiency test for which 6th July, 2018 was the date fixed. According to the petitioner, an intimation was sent to the Police Recruitment Board by e-mail on 6.8.2018 itself, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Submission is that due to fracture it was not possible for the petitioner to have actually appeared before the authorities. Submission is that while others have given second opportunity, petitioner has been denied consideration in that regard.
Learned Standing Counsel may obtain instructions in the matter, by the next date fixed.
Put up as fresh on 27.9.2019."
Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, according to which, the petitioner had not made any application before the Board where petitioner was to appear for his physical efficiency test. It is also stated that the examination has otherwise been concluded and final result has also been published in February 2019. On the basis of further instructions obtained, learned Standing Counsel states that all vacancies have been filled and there exists no vacancy against which the petitioner could now be considered.
Although it is stated that petitioner had sent an email to the Police Recruitment Board, but the requirement as per the advertisement is for the applicant to approach the centre where the physical efficiency test is being undertaken and request for fixing a fresh date.
There is nothing on record to show that petitioner actually attended at the centre or made any request for deferment of date. The only letter which has been annexed along with the writ petition is addressed to the Police Recruitment Board and not to the centre at which the physical efficiency test was being conducted. Mere mentioning in his letter sent to the Board by E-mail that he attended the centre would not be conclusive. In case petitioner had attended the centre it was expected that some receiving etc. would be issued to him. In a case of recruitment where number of applicants is into lacs it would not be expected that every letter sent to the Board is transmitted to the competent authority i.e. the Recruitment Centre at the District. The final results have been declared and all vacancies are reported to be filled.
In such circumstances, this Court would not be inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner, particularly as the Recruitment has already been undertaken and final result has been declared in the month of February 2019. The Court is otherwise informed that no vacancy subsist against which the petitioner's claim can now be considered.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 M. ARIF