STATE OF U P Vs. SUDHAKAR PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mrs. Bulbul Godiyal, learned Additional Advocate General duly assisted by Shobhit Mohan Shukla for the appellants and Sri Anil Kumar Tewari,Senior Advocate, Dr L.P.Mishra, Sri Amit Bose, Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Sajjad Husain, Sudhir Kumar Mishra and other Advocates, appearing for the private respondents.

(2.) A notification inviting applications for appointment on the post of Sub -Inspector was published in the month of July, 2010. The private respondents -petitioners and other candidates appeared in the written examination and were declared successful. Later on, a circular was issued by Additional Secretary (Promotion) U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board, Lucknow, prescribing norms and procedures for the physical efficiency test.

(3.) AGGRIEVED by the faulty manner adopted by the authorities in holding the Physical Efficiency Test, which is either violative of circulars issued by the selecting authority or the manner of holding it is either unconscionable or is such that is against the very common sense in view of the circumstances prevalent on the track/field on the date of holding of Physical Efficiency Test, respondents -petitioners have filed the instant petition. The writ petitions though were pertaining to selection on the post of Sub -Inspector, but the facts were different as such they were categorized by the learned Single Judge as under: