← Library
Madras High CourtWP/17209/2023dismissed

Sivananthan v. The Chairman

2023-07-04Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar5 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 04.07.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUIMAR Sivanathan .. Petitioner

Versus

The Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Old Commissioner of Police Office Pantheon Road, Egmore Chennai - 600 008 .. Respondent Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the respondent to reconsider the calculation of the Long Jump marks of the petitioner in Physical Test held on 09.02.2023(Enrolment No.1806833) for the post of Common Recruitment of GR.II, PCS, GR.II JWS and Fireman-2022.

For Petitioner : Mr.P.Muthamizhselvakumar For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan Additional Advocate General assisted by Mrs.D.Sowmi Dattan

ORDER

This writ petition has been filed seeking to direct the respondent to reconsider the calculation of the Long Jump marks of the petitioner in Physical Test held on 09.02.2023(Enrolment No.1806833) for the post of Common 1/5

Recruitment of GR.II, PCS, GR.II JWS and Fireman-2022.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that he has participated in the recruitment process as per the notification in Notification No.2 of 2022 for the appointment of the post of Grade-II Police Constable for District and Armed Force, Tamil Nadu Special Force. He has qualified the written examination and was called for the physical test to be held on 06.02.2023 at about 08.00 A.M. at Armed Police Ground, Nethaji Hall, Fire Service Office, Vellore District.

3. During the measurment of height by the selection comittee, he was found to be eligible in the physical test. During the course of physical test, long jump test was conducted, wherein, the petitioner attempted 3 times for a long jump. Though, he has covered the long distance in the second jump, he was declared foul. Then the respondent allowed the third jump and the least distance of jump were calculated by the respondent. Hence, after calculating the distance covered by the petitioner in three attempts, the petitioner qualified marks were shown as 81.0. Hence, it is the contention that long jump was not properly measured and calculated by the respondent. Hence, this writ petition.

4. Counter has been filed by the respondent, wherein, in para 8, it is 2/5

extracted as below:

"...8. It is submitted that as per the PET coding sheet, the petitioner had qualified the long jump event by jumping a distance of 4.45 metres obtaining 1 star against the stipulated distance of 4.50 metres for obtaining 2 stars. As per the lap sheet, it is seen that the petitioner had participated in the long jump event in batch no.06 with chest no.51 along with 9 other candidates in the said batch. The petitioner had covered a distance of 4.19 metres in the first chance given to him. In the second chance, he made a foul and in the third chance he had jumped 4.45 metres. Considering the highest distance covered by him in the given 3 chances, the petitioner was awarded 1 star i.e., 4 marks."

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that if the measurement has been properly calculated, he would have selected. Therefore, the petitioner prayer has to be considered.

6. On perusal of the counter affidavit, this Court is of the view that when the physical test has been conducted with a specific measurement and certain parameters has been fixed for the purpose of selection of the Constable for armed forces, merely, because the petitioner has not performed well in the physical test, as a matter of right it cannot be said that wrong measurement has been taken. The petitioner himself pleaded that in the second jump, he is found to be foul. The test was an integral part of the Physial Efficiency Test conducted in the presence of qualified and designated sports authorities. Merely, because, the person is not qualified and jumped shortly and not 3/5

reached the fixed distance, one cannot contend that the entire re-exercise to be done by the respondent for the purpose of selection process. If such contention is entertained by this Court, there cannot be any end for the recruitment process.

7. Accordingly, I do not find any merits in this case and this writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.

04.07.2023 dhk Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No To The Chairman Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board Old Commissioner of Police Office Pantheon Road, Egmore Chennai - 600 008 4/5

N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.

dhk W.P.No.17209 of 2023 04.07.2023 5/5