Disqualification from constable appointment was upheld after videography established failure of the requisite physical fitness test.

The petitioner’s father, an Additional Sub-Inspector in the Police Department, died in service on 19 May 2024.

The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment to the post of Police Constable and was directed to undergo the prescribed Physical Fitness Efficiency Test, which he claimed to have passed.

He alleged that the test report dated 14 March 2026 had subsequently been interpolated to record him as having failed and that it was inconsistent with a contemporaneous letter of the Deputy Superintendent of Police requesting his medical examination.

The petitioner challenged the subsequent letter dated 7 April 2026, by which he was asked whether he would accept appointment to a Class-IV post, contending that his candidature for the Constable post had been wrongly rejected.

The State relied on videography of the physical test, asserting that the petitioner had failed to complete the requisite chin-ups.

The Court viewed the videography in the presence of counsel for both parties.

1. Whether the petitioner had successfully completed the requisite Physical Fitness Efficiency Test for appointment as a Police Constable.

2. Whether the petitioner’s disqualification from the Constable post was illegal or arbitrary, warranting interference under writ jurisdiction.

3. Whether the State could nevertheless consider the petitioner for compassionate appointment against another suitable post.

The Court applied the principle that a candidate for appointment to a post requiring prescribed physical standards must satisfy the applicable Physical Fitness Efficiency Test, and that a decision based on the candidate’s actual performance will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless it is shown to be illegal or arbitrary.

The Court also treated contemporaneous videographic evidence of the test, viewed in the presence of both parties’ counsel, as relevant and reliable evidence for determining whether the prescribed physical standard had been met.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court directly examined the State’s videography rather than relying solely on the disputed written test report or the earlier medical-examination letter.

Upon viewing the chin-up exercise, the Court found that the petitioner had completed only one chin-up, had partially completed two others, and had failed to complete the fourth and fifth chin-ups; consequently, he had not achieved the required five chin-ups.

Since the petitioner failed to satisfy the prescribed physical standard, the Court held that his disqualification was supported by the evidence and could not be characterised as illegal or arbitrary.

However, the Court clarified that the order would not prevent the State from considering the petitioner for compassionate appointment against any other suitable post.

Any pending application was also disposed of.