After Warder Aspirant Says Typhoid Made Him Faint At PET, Delhi HC Advances Tribunal Hearing On Bid For Assistant Superintendent Test

The petitioner, a Scheduled Caste candidate for the post of Warder (Male), was scheduled to undergo the Physical Endurance Test (PET) and Physical Measurement Test on 18 September 2026.

He claimed that he had typhoid, had been advised bed rest from 15 to 21 September, and had sought permission to take the PET on a later date.

He nevertheless appeared on 18 September, fainted during the PET, and was disqualified.

He challenged the rejection of his candidature before the Central Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal) in OA 3821/2026, which remained pending.

He then sought permission, by MA 5148/2026, to participate in a PET for the post of Assistant Superintendent (Male).

The Tribunal issued notice on the interim-relief application, returnable on 2 November 2026, without deciding it.

The petitioner approached the High Court against that order.

The Court applied no identified statutory provision or substantive rule governing the petitioner’s eligibility or entitlement to a rescheduled PET.

It relied on the procedural consideration that, while the relevant interim-relief application was pending before the Tribunal, it was inappropriate for the High Court to express a view on the merits.

The Court also referred to Commissioner, Delhi Police v. Uttam Kumar, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 523, whose paragraph 9 discusses a candidate’s failure to report for a physical test and request accommodation; the petitioner’s counsel sought to distinguish that discussion on the basis that the petitioner had approached the respondents before the test.

The High Court did not decide the application of Uttam Kumar to the merits.

Because MA 5148/2026 was pending before the Tribunal, the High Court considered it inappropriate to determine the merits of the petitioner’s request or the relevance of Uttam Kumar at that stage.

Given the circumstances, it instead directed the respondent to file a reply within one week, advanced the Tribunal hearing from 2 November to 28 October 2026, and requested the Tribunal to decide the interim-relief application on that date.

It directed the respondent to file a reply to MA 5148/2026 within one week, advanced its hearing before the Tribunal to 28 October 2026, and requested the Tribunal to decide the interim-relief application on that date; neither side was to seek an adjournment.

The parties’ remedies in law remained available if aggrieved by the Tribunal’s order.