Absence of Contemporaneous Evidence Nullifies Challenge to Disqualification in Physical Endurance Tests

The applicant, an OBC candidate for the post of Warder (Post Code No. 37/13) under Recruitment Advertisement-2013, participated in the Physical Endurance Test (PET) on February 12, 2018.

The applicant failed to complete the race within the prescribed time and was disqualified. He alleged that during the race, he was pushed by another candidate, causing him to fall and suffer minor injuries.

He claimed to have made oral objections to the authorities at the time, requesting a second chance, which was denied on the grounds that no appeal lies against the PET. Consequently, he filed this Original Application seeking to quash his disqualification and obtain a fresh opportunity to participate in the recruitment process.

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to a re-test of the Physical Endurance Test (Race) based on alleged external interference and subsequent injury during the event.

2. Whether the applicant met the burden of proof required to substantiate claims of irregularity during the recruitment process in the absence of contemporaneous written representations.

The court applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which governs the filing of applications for the redressal of grievances regarding service matters.

The court further relied on the Indian Evidence Act principle regarding the "burden of proof," asserting that the initial burden lies upon the claimant to prove factual assertions.

Additionally, the court observed the principle of administrative finality in recruitment processes, especially regarding PET/Skill Tests where no internal appeal mechanism is provided.

The Tribunal analyzed the applicant's claim that he was forced out of the race due to being pushed. It noted a critical procedural lapse: the applicant failed to submit any written representation or formal objection to the respondents alleging irregularity at the time of the event.

The Bench reasoned that the initial burden of proof rested on the applicant to provide evidence of the fall and the resulting injuries; however, no contemporaneous material or medical records were placed on record to substantiate these claims.

Furthermore, the Tribunal highlighted the significant delay, noting that the recruitment pertained to a 2013 advertisement, and granting relief at such a late stage (2026 holding) was not feasible.

The Court dismissed the Original Application, refusing to grant the applicant a second chance for the race or any further participation in the recruitment process for the post of Warder. All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of with no order as to costs.