Belated petitioners may be denied parity with relief granted to similarly placed candidates.

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioner, who approached the Court belatedly, was entitled to the fresh PST/PET relief granted to similarly placed candidates in the earlier batch.

The court held

The Court declined to quash the petitioner’s PET/PST rejection slip or direct a fresh test.

It also directed

It disposed of the writ petition, observing that the petitioner’s case should be considered sympathetically in a future selection; it made no order as to costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petitions.

01Facts

The petitioner, who had passed the written examination for Constable (GD) recruitment, was disqualified in the physical test.

p. 2

He alleged that rain had left the track wet and that M-sand was spread over it, affecting his performance.

p. 2

In an earlier batch of petitions, the Court had directed fresh PST/PET for specified candidates who challenged their rejection slips, subject to stated eligibility conditions.

pp. 3–4

The petitioner sought the same relief but approached the Court after those orders had been made.

p. 4

The respondents submitted that the recruitment process had concluded, selectees were undergoing training, and the subsequent recruitment process had progressed to completion of the written examination.

p. 4

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioner, who approached the Court belatedly, was entitled to the fresh PST/PET relief granted to similarly placed candidates in the earlier batch.

pp. 2–3, 5

ii.2. Whether any consequential relief should be granted given that the recruitment process had concluded and a subsequent recruitment process was underway.

p. 4

03Law Applied

The petition invoked the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

p. 1

The Court considered its earlier order in W.P. No. 33420 of 2025 and connected matters, which directed fresh PST/PET for specified candidates who had challenged their rejection slips and met the stated PET eligibility criteria, with testing to be conducted after the rainy season and on suitable grounds.

pp. 3–4

The Court applied no separate statutory provision or other precedent; it treated the petitioner’s delay in seeking relief as a relevant distinction from those earlier petitioners.

p. 5

04Reasoning

Although similarly placed candidates had obtained fresh testing in the earlier batch, the petitioner approached the Court only after those orders had been passed.

p. 5

The Court also noted the respondents’ submission that the recruitment process had concluded and selectees were in training, while the next recruitment process had advanced.

p. 4

In these circumstances, it declined to extend the earlier relief to the petitioner, but stated that his case should be considered sympathetically in a future selection.

p. 5