Case Name: COMMISSIONER, DELHI POLICE & ANR. VS. UTTAM KUMAR
Petition Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4150 OF 2026
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 314
Date of Judgement: 02.04.2026
Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA & HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
INTRODUCTION
The appeal was filed by the recruiting authorities, challenging a judgment of the Delhi High Court that had upheld an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi. The Tribunal and the High Court had directed the authorities to allow the respondent, a candidate for the post of Constable in the police force, a second opportunity to participate in the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PE&MT) after he failed to appear on his scheduled date due to ill health.
FACTS
An advertisement was issued on September 1, 2023, for the recruitment of police Constables, drawing nearly a lakh of aspirants. It explicitly stipulated that the schedule for the PE&MT was final and unalterable under any circumstances. The respondent, having qualified in the first tier of the selection process, was scheduled to appear for the. However, he abstained from appearing, citing ill health (cold, cough, fever, headache, body pain, and dizziness). He claimed to have submitted three representations requesting either a reserve day or 15 days to recover. The first representation was admittedly not accepted by the concerned officer, and there was no proof of receipt for the other two. Because he did not show up on the scheduled date, he was marked “ABSENT.”
The respondent approached the CAT, which ruled in his favour because his representations seeking rescheduling had gone unheeded, directing the authorities to allow him to take the test with the next batch. The Delhi High Court refused to interfere with the Tribunal’s direction, prompting the authorities to appeal to the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
- Whether a candidate’s failure to appear for a mandatory physical test due to illness, followed by unanswered representations, creates an enforceable right to demand a rescheduled examination?
- Whether adjudicatory bodies can use discretionary or compassionate grounds to alter strictly stipulated examination schedules in public employment, particularly for candidates belonging to backward communities?
ARGUMENT OF THE PARTIES
The Appellants argued that the advertisement clearly stated the PE&MT schedule was final and could not be altered. Out of nearly a lakh candidates, it was the respondent alone seeking a rescheduled date. They contended that granting a second chance based on a minor illness and unacknowledged representations undermines the strict, fair-play requirements of the mass selection process.
The Respondent argued that his sudden ill health prevented him from taking the physical test. He contended that his repeated representations seeking a reserve date went unanswered by the authorities, which justified the Tribunal’s intervention. Furthermore, it was argued on his behalf that because he belonged to a backward community, the Tribunal and the High Court were justified in exercising equitable discretion in his favour.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal and firmly set aside the orders of both the CAT and the High Court. The Court observed that public employment is exceedingly scarce, and the respondent exhibited tardy and lethargic conduct by frittering away a golden opportunity.
The Court noted several critical flaws in the respondent’s case. By his own admission in his third representation, he was mobile and able to report to the recruitment venue in the morning, yet no efforts were made by him to remain physically present on the scheduled date of PE&MT. The Court observed that his presence at the venue could, at the very least, have enabled the appellants or the authorities examining to assess whether he was genuinely in need of accommodation. The Court emphasized that his ailments (cold, cough, fever, headache, body pain, and dizziness) were not so debilitating as to deserve an exceptional treatment. In these circumstances, the respondent’s failure to appear, coupled with his subsequent expectation of being granted another opportunity, was held to reflect “a lack of drive and initiative on the part of the respondent.”
The Court ruled that the mere omission or failure of the authorities to respond to his representations did not clothe the Tribunal with the power to throw the recruitment process asunder. Addressing the argument regarding his social background, the Court explicitly rejected the notion that belonging to a backward community is a decisive factor for tilting the scales of discretionary relief in a standardized testing environment. The court held that, “Grace, charity or compassion ought to stay at a distance in matters of public employment, if a fair level playing field is to be secured.”
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court concluded that the respondent lacked the drive and initiative expected of a police constable and that his absence was rightfully marked. The Court held that boundaries for the exercise of judicial discretion are strictly carved out, and adjudicatory forums ought not to trench beyond them. Reaffirming the necessity of maintaining a strict and uniform standard in mass recruitment, the Court held that grace, charity, or compassion must stay at a distance in matters of public employment if a fair, level playing field is to be secured for all aspirants.
