Supreme Court Allows Re-test for Unfit Candidates in Sub-Inspector Selection: Mahendra Pratap Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2018)

Date of the Judgment: 15 November 2018

Citation: 2018 INSC 1008

Judges: Kurian Joseph, J., Deepak Gupta, J., Hemant Gupta, J.

Can candidates who were unwell during a physical efficiency test, but were forced to participate, be given another chance to qualify? The Supreme Court addressed this issue in a case concerning the selection of Sub-Inspectors in Uttar Pradesh. The Court considered whether candidates who were compelled to undergo the physical test despite their illness should be given a second chance, especially when others who did not participate due to illness were given that opportunity. The judgment was delivered by a three-judge bench comprising Justice Kurian Joseph, Justice Deepak Gupta, and Justice Hemant Gupta, with the opinion authored by Justice Kurian Joseph.

Case Background

The appellants were candidates who participated in the selection process for Ranker Sub-Inspectors in 2011. They claimed that they were not physically fit to take part in the physical efficiency test but were compelled to do so. The candidates also submitted that the Competent Authority had issued a circular permitting those who did not participate due to physical illness to appear on a subsequent date. The candidates argued that those who were compelled to participate despite their illness should not be disadvantaged compared to those who were allowed to re-appear.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The State of Uttar Pradesh argued before the High Court that candidates who participated in the physical efficiency test without objection should not be given a second chance. However, the Division Bench of the High Court permitted a re-test for candidates who had informed the authorities about their ailment on or before the date of the physical efficiency test. The Supreme Court considered the High Court’s judgment and the arguments presented by both parties.

Legal Framework

There were no specific legal provisions or statutes cited in the judgment. The case primarily revolved around the interpretation of fairness and equal opportunity in the context of a selection process.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants contended that they were not physically fit to participate in the physical efficiency test but were compelled to participate.
• They argued that a circular issued by the Competent Authority allowed candidates who did not participate due to physical illness to appear on a subsequent date.
• The appellants submitted that they should not be in a worse position than those who were allowed a second chance due to their illness.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The State of Uttar Pradesh argued that candidates who participated in the test without objection should not be given a second chance.

Innovativeness of the argument: The appellants’ argument was innovative in that it sought to establish parity between candidates who were unwell and compelled to participate, and those who were unwell and allowed to skip the test, using the principle of fairness.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues. However, the core issue was whether the High Court’s decision to allow re-tests only for candidates who informed about their ailment before or on the date of the test was fair and equitable to all candidates.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

No authorities (cases or books) were cited in the judgment.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

There were no authorities cited in the judgment.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily driven by the principle of fairness and equity. The Court noted that the High Court had already provided relief to candidates who had informed about their ailments, and it sought to ensure that the appellants, who claimed to be in a similar situation, were not unfairly disadvantaged. The Court emphasized that those who were compelled to participate despite their illness should not be in a worse position than those who were allowed a second chance due to their illness.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was based on the principle of fairness, ensuring that those who were unwell and compelled to participate were not disadvantaged. The Court did not delve into complex legal interpretations but rather focused on the practical implications of the High Court’s order and the need for equitable treatment.

The Court did not consider any alternative interpretations but rather affirmed the High Court’s approach. The decision was reached by acknowledging that the High Court had already addressed the issue of re-tests for candidates who had informed about their ailment, and the Supreme Court sought to ensure that the appellants, who claimed to be in a similar situation, were not unfairly treated.

The Court concluded that if the appellants had informed about their ailment before or at the time of the test, they were protected by the High Court’s judgment. The Court permitted such appellants to approach the competent authority with supporting material for a re-test. The decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring.

“In case, the appellants had actually informed prior to the test or at the time of test regarding their ailment they are otherwise protected by the High Court.”

“Such of the appellants are permitted to approach the competent authority with supporting material, in which case the needful in the light of the judgment as extracted herein above will be done within another one month.”

“Therefore, no further orders are required in these appeals. The appeals are, accordingly, disposed of.”

Key Takeaways

• Candidates who were compelled to participate in a physical efficiency test despite being unfit may be given a second chance if they had informed the authorities about their ailment before or on the date of the test.
• The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to allow re-tests for such candidates, ensuring fairness and equal opportunity.
• Candidates must provide supporting material to the competent authority to avail the benefit of a re-test.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the appellants who had informed about their ailment before or at the time of the test could approach the competent authority with supporting material for a re-test. The competent authority was directed to take necessary action within one month.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of the case is that candidates who were compelled to participate in a physical efficiency test despite being unfit may be given a second chance if they had informed the authorities about their ailment before or on the date of the test. This decision reinforces the principle of fairness and equal opportunity in selection processes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Mahendra Pratap Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ensures that candidates who were compelled to participate in a physical efficiency test despite being unfit are not unfairly disadvantaged. By allowing a re-test for those who had informed about their ailment, the Court upheld the principles of fairness and equal opportunity in the selection process.