Karanti Goyal vs. Ministry Of Environment Forests Climate Change & Anr.

Neutral Citation Number:2023/DHC/000849
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment delivered on: February 07, 2023

+ W.P.(C) 4638/2021
KARANTI GOYAL ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Pankaj Sinha, Adv.
versus
MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT FORESTS
CLIMATE CHANGE & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Avnish Singh, Adv.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA

J U D G M E N T
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J

1. The sole petitioner, Karanti Goyal, filed this present petition
challenging the order dated January 13, 2021 of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (‘Tribunal’, for
short) in Original Application being O.A. 1078/2015, whereby, the
Tribunal has dismissed the O. A, as being without merit.
2. The Original Application was filed by two applicants including
the petitioner herein. The petitioner, a physically disabled candidate,
had taken part in the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2014. He
appeared in the Preliminary and Main Examination and was selected
for Indian Forest Service (IFoS). The Recruitment Rules for IFoS,
stipulate a walking test of 25 kilometers of distance to be covered in
four hours by male candidates and 14 kilometers in four hours by
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:07.02.2023
17:15:02
W.P.(C) 4638/2021 Page 1 of 10

Neutral Citation Number:2023/DHC/000849
female candidates. The petitioner appeared for the walking test and
was not able to cover the distance within the stipulated time. He was
given another opportunity, as provided for under the Rules, but he was
not successful and as such was not included in the list of selected
candidates.
3. It was the case of the petitioner before the Tribunal that,
wherever any requirement is stipulated with reference to time, the
relevant rules provide for compensatory / extra time for candidates
with physical disability, but in the case of the petitioner, such a facility
was not extended. It was also the case of the petitioner that, the
requirement stipulated by the respondents with regard to the walking
test is contrary to the guidelines framed by the Ministry of Social
Justice.
4. The case of the respondents was that the petitioner cannot be
permitted to challenge the condition, once he had participated in the
examination and taken subsequent steps thereof. It was also stated that,
though the reservation is provided for in favor of physically disabled
candidates, there is no relaxation on certain conditions that are required
to be complied with; the walking test being one such condition.
5. The Tribunal while dismissing the Original Application, has in
paragraph 7 and 8 stated as under:-
“7. The UPSC published a notification in the year 2014.
Separate set of rules was published for selection to IFS.
In the instructions to the candidates also, it was clearly
mentioned that a candidate must successfully complete
the walking test, covering the distance of 25 kilometres
in 4 hours. For woman candidates, the distance is
stipulated as 14 kilometres to be covered in the same
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:07.02.2023
17:15:02
W.P.(C) 4638/2021 Page 2 of 10

Neutral Citation Number:2023/DHC/000849
time. According to them, separate parameters are
provided in favour of the disabled candidates. However,
much would depend upon the nature of the requirement
under the rules and the advisability or possibility of
providing for relaxation. In its wisdom, the concerned
Ministry did not provide for any relaxation in favour of
physically disabled candidates, in the context of the
walking test, even while some relaxation is provided for
in favour of woman candidates. It is purely a policy:
decision that was taken, on the basis of relevant inputs.
The Tribunal cannot express its view on such policy
matters.
8. Another aspect is that the applicants did not
challenge the condition, before participating in the
examination. Not only they participated in the
examination, but also attempted the walking test, twice.
It is fairly well settled that a candidate cannot take the
chance of getting selected and then turn around and
challenge the rules, if he is not selected. The selections
took place way back in the year 20 17. Even if the
respondents are required to amend the rules duly taking
into account the interest of physically disabled
candidates, that would be applicable only for future
selections. No benefits would accrue to the candidates in
earlier selections.”

6. Mr. Pankaj Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would
make similar submissions as were made before the Tribunal, that as is
permitted under various other rules, a physically challenged person
needs to be assessed on a lower threshold, inasmuch, a physically
challenged person cannot be put to test on the same parameters
applicable to general candidates. That apart, it is his submission, by
relying upon Rules 18 and 19 of the Indian Forest Service Examination
Rules, 2014 (‘Rules of 2014’, hereinafter) that the respondents were
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:07.02.2023
17:15:02
W.P.(C) 4638/2021 Page 3 of 10

Neutral Citation Number:2023/DHC/000849
required to constitute a special Medical Board with experts in the area
for conducting the medical examination of physically disabled
candidates.
7. That apart, he stated that Rule 19 of the Rules of 2014 provides
that a physically disabled candidate shall also be required to meet the
special eligibility criteria in terms of physical requirements/functional
classification consistent with the requirements of the identified
service/post, as may be prescribed by the Cadre Controlling Authority.
In other words, it is his submission the appointment of vision disabled
male candidates is subject to usual medical examination elaborated in
Appendix III, including walking test of 25 kilometers in four hours.
8. Mr. Sinha conceded that the petitioner appeared before the
specially constituted Central Standing Medical Board for Persons with
Visual Disabilities on February 13, 2015 to March 26, 2015, as
scheduled by respondent No.1 for his medical examination. According
to him, he fulfilled the special eligibility criteria in terms of functional
classification / fulfill requirement (abilities / disabilities).
9. After conducting various tests including test for physical
requirements like manipulation by fingers, pulling and pushing, lifting,
kneeling and crouching, bending, sitting (on bench or chair), standing,
walking, seeing, hearing/speaking, communication, reading, writing
etc. on February 13, 2015 and March 26, 2015, the petitioner was
declared fit for appointment in IFoS by the specially constituted
Central Standing Medical Board as per the provisions of the Rules 18
and 19 of the Rules of 2014.
10. According to Mr. Sinha, after being declared fit for
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:07.02.2023
17:15:02
W.P.(C) 4638/2021 Page 4 of 10

Neutral Citation Number:2023/DHC/000849
appointment in IFoS by the specially constituted Central Standing
Medical Board vide its report dated February 13, 2015 and March 26,
2015, which were examined in terms of the above mentioned Rules 18
and 19 of the Rules of 2014, there was no reason for the respondent not
to appoint the petitioner in IFoS, without taking part in the walking
test. The petitioner being a person with low vision fulfils all eligibility
criteria/conditions, and is fit for IFoS, as per the Rules of 2014.
11. Mr. Sinha by referring to the Appendix III of the Rules of
2014, stated that, on a conjoint reading of clauses 2 and 7 thereof, it is
evident that, a non disabled male candidate with 6/6 eyesight i.e. 100%
visual ability, will have to complete the walking test of 25 kilometers
in four hours and a non disabled female candidate with 6/6 eyesight
i.e., 100% visual ability, will have to complete the walking test of 14
kilometers in four hours. The petitioner was wrongly called to appear
for the walking test and no relaxation/special guidelines for walking
test was provided for visually disabled candidates. Even otherwise,
walking test is not part of the selection process and the same is not
mentioned anywhere in the advertisement for the examination.
Furthermore, he stated, paragraph 9 of the advertisement issued by
respondent No.2, is similar to the provision mentioned in Rule 19 of
the Rules of 2014, which is related to fulfillment of special eligibility
criteria in terms of functional classification/physical requirement
(abilities/disabilities) for persons with disabilities.
12. It is his submission that, as per Section 2(t) of the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full
Participation) Act, 1995, reservation is applicable for persons having
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:07.02.2023
17:15:02
W.P.(C) 4638/2021 Page 5 of 10

Neutral Citation Number:2023/DHC/000849
disability not less than 40%. He stated that persons with visual
disabilities or low vision constitute a larger group of individuals who
may have different functional constraints related to various activities
like reading, writing, walking etc. and may require varied and
reasonable accommodations. Wherever vision is required to be used, a
person with severe visual disability needs such reasonable
accommodations. No such reasonable accommodation was provided
to the petitioner for the walking test, although requisite reasonable
accommodations were provided for written examinations by
respondent No.2.
13. He has sought the prayers as sought for by the petitioner in the
Original Application.
14. On the other hand, Mr. Avnish Singh, learned counsel for the
respondent No.1 submitted that the petitioner appeared in IFoS
Examination, 2014 and was declared qualified along with a total of 85
candidates. Appendix III of the Rules of 2014 provides for the
stipulation of the walking test of covering 25 kilometers in four hours
for male candidates and 14 kilometers in four hours for female
candidates. The Rules do not permit any relaxation except that the
candidates failing to complete the walking test in the first chance are
given one more chance. Since the petitioner failed to complete the
walking test, he was given one more opportunity. The petitioner being
unsuccessful in the first chance held in February 16, 2015, filed the
O.A. wherein, the impugned order has been passed. He submitted that
reservation for two physically handicapped candidates is applicable in
IFoS, since 2012.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:07.02.2023
17:15:02
W.P.(C) 4638/2021 Page 6 of 10

Neutral Citation Number:2023/DHC/000849
15. Further, due to the arduous nature of the job, there cannot be
any relaxation in the Rules as far as the walking test is concerned. The
same is compulsory as per the Rules and is also in the interest of the
candidates. He stated that, in fact one of the applicants in the O.A.
before the Tribunal had cleared the walking test by covering 25
kilometers within four hours but he did not join IFoS as he got
appointment in the Indian Administrative Service. In view of the
position of the Rules, as there is no relaxation in walking test for any
category, the petitioner would not be entitled to the prayer as made
before the Tribunal and also in the writ petition.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, there is no
dispute that the petitioner had applied for the IFoS Examination, 2014
and had cleared the same. As per Appendix III of the Rules of 2014,
male candidates are to qualify the walking test of 25 kilometers in four
hours, which admittedly the petitioner could not clear. Considering the
fact that the Rules of 2014, which contemplate that a male candidate
needs to qualify the walking test of 25 kilometers within four hours, is
applicable to all candidates alike and since the vires of the said Rules
has not been challenged by the petitioner, the issue which arises need
to be examined on the premise that such Rules are valid.
17. In fact, after the petitioner failed to qualify the walking test in
the first attempt, he was given one more chance in which he
participated but was still unsuccessful. During the course of hearing,
we were informed that the petitioner completed the walking test of 25
kilometers in four hours and 21 minutes. In other words, he had walked
beyond four hours to complete 25 kilometers. That apart, considering
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:07.02.2023
17:15:02
W.P.(C) 4638/2021 Page 7 of 10

Neutral Citation Number:2023/DHC/000849
the fact that the second applicant before the Tribunal had qualified the
same walking test within the time stipulated in Appendix III of the
Rules of 2014 i.e., within four hours and the petitioner being similarly
placed like the said applicant namely, Sh. Vijaya Bhaskar Reddy, it is
clear that the stipulation is not arduous, which a person with low vision
cannot achieve.
18. That apart, the Tribunal is justified in stating that the petitioner
having participated in the selection process, cannot as an afterthought
challenge the rules and stipulations of the selection process. The law in
this regard is well settled; the Supreme Court in the case of Madan Lal
and Ors. v. State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486
has held as under:-
“ 9 . Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in
view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the
contesting successful candidates being respondents
concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of
marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be
called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no
dispute between the parties. The petitioners also
appeared at the oral interview conducted by the
Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed
the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents
concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get
themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only
because they did not find themselves to have emerged
successful as a result of their combined performance
both at written test and oral interview, they have filed
this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate
takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview,
then, only because the result of the interview is not
palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently
contend that the process of interview was unfair or the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:07.02.2023
17:15:02
W.P.(C) 4638/2021 Page 8 of 10

Rules of 2014 are concerned, the same shall not come to the aid of the
petitioner. It is the conceded case of the petitioner that he was
examined by a special Medical Board comprising of experts in the area
for conducting the medical examination. Even the proviso to Rule 19
which as under:-
“Provided further that the physically disabled
candidates shall also be required to meet special
eligibility criteria in terms of physical
requirements/functional classification
(abilities/disabilities) consistent with requirements of the
identified service/post as may be prescribed by its cadre
controlling authority.”

The above contemplates that, a physically disabled candidate
shall also be required to meet special eligibility criteria in terms of
physical requirement/functional classification (abilities/disabilities)
consistent with requirements of the identified service/post as may be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:07.02.2023
17:15:02
W.P.(C) 4638/2021 Page 9 of 10

Neutral Citation Number:2023/DHC/000849
prescribed by its Cadre Controlling Authority. Consequently, the
walking test of completing 25 kilometers within four hours, in the
presence the said proviso would be an obligatory stipulation and need
to be fulfilled / adhered to. In fact, the stand of the respondents as
submitted by the learned counsel is that, such a requirement is in the
interest of the candidate. The submission that since the service
concerned is IFoS, every eventuality which an officer may encounter
in a forest has been perceived to stipulate such a condition, is
appealing. Insofar as the reliance placed by Mr. Sinha on the provision
of Section 2(t) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 is concerned, the
same is without merit in view of the provisions of the Rules referred to
above. Similarly, the submission made by Mr. Sinha that petitioner
could not have been called for the walking test is also without merit in
view of Appendix III of the Rules of 2014.
20. In view of the discussion above and considering the fact that
examination was of the year 2014, i.e., eight years ago, we are of the
view that in the facts of this case, the impugned order of the Tribunal
needs no interference. The writ petition being without merit is
dismissed. No costs.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.


ANOOP KUMAR MENDIRATTA, J.

/ds
FEBRUARY 07, 2023
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
KUMAR YADAV
Signing Date:07.02.2023
17:15:02
W.P.(C) 4638/2021 Page 10 of 10