Candidate Not Entitled to Multiple Walking Test Opportunities for Applying to Two Different Driver Posts.

The appellant applied for the posts of Driver (Light Motor Vehicle - LMV) and Driver (Heavy Motor Vehicle - HMV) under an advertisement dated 18.05.2023

He secured the first position in the merit list for both posts following a practical examination

On 24.06.2025, the walking tests (physical efficiency tests) for both posts were conducted simultaneously

The appellant appeared for the HMV walking test but failed to complete it within the prescribed time and consequently missed the LMV test

He sought a second opportunity for the LMV test via an application dated 26.06.2025, which was not granted despite internal departmental communications

The appellant challenged this in WPS No. 10537 of 2025, which was dismissed by the Single Judge on 26.02.2026

1. Whether the appellant is entitled to a second opportunity to undergo the walking test for the post of Driver (LMV) on the grounds that tests for two different posts were conducted simultaneously

2. Whether the refusal to grant a second opportunity violates the terms of the recruitment advertisement or principles of natural justice

The Court primarily relied on the doctrine of strict adherence to the terms of a recruitment advertisement, specifically Clause 8 of the subject advertisement, which explicitly mandates that "only one opportunity shall be granted for the Walk Test"

The Court applied the principle that administrative authorities and the judiciary cannot grant relaxations that would result in procedural prejudice to other candidates or deviate from the established selection criteria once the process has commenced

The Court observed that the physical efficiency requirements (distance and time) for both the LMV and HMV walking tests were identical and scheduled for the same day

It held that the appellant's failure to complete the HMV test or appear for the LMV test does not create a legal right for a second attempt

The Court reasoned that since Clause 8 of the advertisement strictly prohibited multiple opportunities, granting the appellant’s request would be "impermissible and prejudicial to other candidates" who were bound by the same rules

The Bench further noted that the Single Judge correctly identified that if a candidate applies for multiple posts with identical physical requirements conducted simultaneously, they are expected to manage their candidature accordingly, and the authorities are not obligated to provide separate slots

The Division Bench affirmed the order of the Single Judge, ruling that there was no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional error in dismissing the writ petition

The writ appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit, and no costs were awarded