Satyajit Mondal v. Union Of India And ORS.
Form No. J.(2) Item No. DL/6 AMIT - AR (CT)
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction (Appellate Side) W.P.A. NO. 26120 OF 2025 SATYAJIT MONDAL Vs.
UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS BEFORE: THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA For the Petitioner : Mr. Debasish Kundu, Adv.
For the Union of India : Mr. Subhash Chandra Sarkar, Adv.
Hearing concluded on : 17.12.2025 Judgment On : 17.12.2025 SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.:
1.
Matter is heard in presence of the learned advocates representing the parties.
2.
In terms of the previous order dated 02nd December, 2025, a short affidavit is filed by the respondent no. 5 affirmed on 11th December, 2025 and same is taken on record.
3.
In the affidavit filed today it is disclosed that during driving test petitioner started engine of Light Motor Vehicle by pressing key without
P a g e | 2 wearing seat-belt as a result whereof Motor Vehicle Inspector had to abort driving test as driving a Light Motor Vehicle without wearing seatbelt is impermissible. 4.
Learned advocate representing the petitioner has relied upon Clause 11.5 of notice relating to Recruitment of Constable/Driver and Constable/Driver-cum-Pump Operator (Driver For Fire Services) in CISF-2024 wherein it is provided that who qualify in the physical efficiency test, physical standard test and document verification will be put through the driving test for Light Vehicle, driving test for Heavy Vehicle and practical knowledge of motor mechanism and ability to carry out minor repair of vehicles. It is also provided therein that any candidate who does not secure the minimum qualifying marks in these tests will be eliminated from that particular stage by issuing rejection slip and will not be allowed to participate in further recruitment process. It is contended that since petitioner was not permitted to complete Light Vehicle Driving Test marks were not allotted and act and action of the respondent authorities are contrary to Clause 11.5.1. 5.
The provisions as contained under Clause 11.5.1 does not come in aid of the petitioner as Light Motor Vehicle Driving Test had to be aborted by Motor Vehicle Inspector since petitioner started driving by pressing key without wearing seat-belt.
6.
Moreover, based on case made out Court was considering previously the document dated 12th November, 2025 whereby petitioner was
P a g e | 3 disqualified in driving test which does not bear reasons but it appears that petitioner signed at the bottom of the said document dated 12th November, 2025 certifying that he was told about the grounds of his rejection.
7.
Since purpose of filing affidavit on behalf of respondents in terms of the order dated 02nd December, 2025 is to disclose reasons as to why petitioner was disqualified in Light Motor Vehicle Driving Test, filing of exception to this report though prayed for is not required as it is averred in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that when the petitioner pressed the key for starting Light Motor Vehicle and shifted the gear, respondent authority/examiner asked the petitioner to get down from the vehicle which corroborates the statements made on behalf of respondents in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the affidavit which is filed today on behalf of respondents. Nowhere in the writ petition it is averred that petitioner after fastening the seat-belt started the Light Motor Vehicle during driving test. Therefore, calling for exception to the affidavit filed today will not improve the case of the petitioner further. 8.
Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 9.
Writ petition stands dismissed.
10. Urgent photostat certified copy of the order, if applied for, be given to the parties, upon usual undertakings.
(SAUGATA BHATTACHARYYA, J.)