Absence of objective timing records and videography in recruitment physical tests necessitates a candidate's re-test.

The Petitioner, appointed to the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) in 2012, applied for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (Executive) through the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE), 2020

She successfully cleared Stage I (service records), Stage II (written exam), and Stage III (physical standard test)

On 24.09.2022, during Stage IV (Physical Efficiency Test - PET), she was declared "failed" in the 100-meter race for allegedly exceeding the 18-second limit

The Petitioner alleged that she was initially informed she had passed but was later declared unsuccessful without being shown her clocked time or videographic proof

She filed an immediate appeal on the same day

The Respondents admitted that no specific timings were recorded in the check-sheets and that the videography of the event was corrupted and unavailable

1. Whether the Respondents’ declaration of the Petitioner as "failed" was sustainable in the absence of objective timing records and videographic evidence

2. Whether the Petitioner is entitled to a re-test for the 100-meter race and consideration for the next recruitment cycle

The Court exercised its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

It relied on the judicial precedent of CT/GD Suman Yadav v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 1617/2023, which held that a lack of transparency in conducting physical tests warrants a re-test for the aggrieved candidate

The Court also applied the principle of administrative transparency, noting that the failure to maintain contemporaneous records of objective performance (like timing) in a competitive selection process undermines the fairness of the recruitment

The Court noted that the Petitioner’s immediate appeal on the day of the test demonstrated a prompt grievance regarding the result

Upon inspecting the official check-sheet (Annexure R-6), the Court identified visible overwriting in the cell recording the Petitioner’s result, which the Respondents failed to explain

Critically, since the Respondents did not record the actual time clocked by the Petitioner and had lost the videographic footage due to corruption, the Court found there was no objective material to substantiate the "failed" status

Although the 2020 recruitment cycle was finalized, the Court balanced the Petitioner's interest in fairness with administrative constraints by allowing a re-test. The Petitioner agreed to waive seniority claims from the 2020 cycle in exchange for being considered in the next recruitment cycle if successful in the re-test

If the Petitioner qualifies, she is to complete the remaining PET components (High Jump and Long Jump). Upon clearing Stage IV, her candidature shall be considered for the next LDCE recruitment cycle for ASI (Executive) without requiring her to repeat Stages I, II, or III

The Court further advised the Respondents to adopt a more transparent system where exact timings are recorded and preserved to avoid future litigation. The Petitioner shall not claim seniority with reference to the 2020 cycle