Gautam Mathur v. Union Of India & ORS

$~11 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(C) 1971/2016 GAUTAM MATHUR ..... Petitioner Represented by:

Mr.R.K.Shukla, Advocate versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Represented by:

Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Advocate

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

O R D E R

% 12.07.2016 1.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the original record, we find no merit in the writ petition. 2.

Undergoing the selection process to be appointed as a Sub-Inspector in Delhi Police and Central Armed Police Force, the petitioner was served with an order requiring him to report at 7.00 A.M. to undergo a Physical Endurance Test on September 05, 2015. Suffering from fever and suspected to be a case of dengue, the doctor opined that for a week the petitioner should take rest and this information was conveyed by the petitioner to the competent authority on September 04, 2015. The petitioner was intimated that he could present himself for the Physical Endurance Test on September 15, 2015. The petitioner did not appear at the Physical Endurance Test on September 15, 2015. The authorities permitted the petitioner to undertake the test on September 19, 2015. The petitioner did not appear even on said date.

W.P.(C) No.1971/2016

3.

In the writ petition the petitioner admits that his request submitted on September 04, 2015 to defer his Physical Endurance Test scheduled for September 05, 2015 was accepted and he was intimated to appear on September 19, 2015.

4.

The grievance in the writ petition that the petitioner was not permitted to appear for the Physical Endurance Test on September 19, 2015 is a mere assertion.

5.

The record shows that name of the petitioner was forwarded to the competent authority to permit him to take the Physical Endurance Test firstly on September 05, 2015. Then on September 15, 2015 and lastly on September 19, 2015. The three lists have been seen by us. In all the three lists, against the name of the petitioner it is written 'absent'. The fact that the petitioner's name was forwarded by the competent authority to the authority which had to take the petitioner's Physical Endurance Test on September 19, 2015 shows that the department permitted the petitioner to appear at the Physical Endurance Test on September 19, 2015. The Gate Pass Register shows that the petitioner did not even enter the precincts of the complex where the Physical Endurance Test had to be conducted i.e. the Office of the Commandant, CISF, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. 6.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

7.

No costs.

CM No.8499/2016 Dismissed as infructuous.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

PRATIBHA RANI, J.

JULY 12, 2016 skb W.P.(C) No.1971/2016