Police recruitment disqualification upheld where candidates failed to use the prescribed on-the-spot appeal.

The petitioners challenged their disqualification in Stage I—the 100-metre run—of the Physical Endurance Test for recruitment to Sub-Inspector of Police, alleging that the timing mechanism was unreliable and seeking a fresh test using fully electronic timing

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed their applications on 16 February 2026.

Before the High Court, the petitioners contended that the alleged disqualification of the testing agency had not been considered in an earlier case concerning the same recruitment.

The respondents disputed the relevance of that allegation.

The High Court also noted that the petitioners had not lodged an appeal at the test venue as contemplated by the recruitment notification.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s order dismissing the petitioners’ challenge to their disqualification in the 100-metre run warranted interference.

2. Whether the petitioners’ allegation concerning the testing agency and the timing mechanism justified a fresh Physical Endurance Test.

The Court considered the recruitment notification’s prescribed procedure for the Physical Endurance Test, including the requirement that candidates disqualified in the 100-metre run could not proceed to the subsequent events and the availability of an appeal procedure.

It applied the Division Bench’s decision dated 20 February 2026 in W.P. Nos. 6616 and 6824 of 2026, which had rejected similar challenges in the same recruitment, finding no basis to conclude that candidates had been singled out, noting that the timing was recorded by microchips, and declining to examine allegations against an unnamed, non-impleaded agency.

The Court also followed the subsequent Division Bench order dated 29 July 2026 in W.P. No. 7764 of 2026.

The Court found that the earlier Division Bench had already considered the challenges to the same recruitment and concluded that the available material did not establish discriminatory disqualification or justify accepting the allegations against the testing agency.

The petitioners had not named or impleaded the agency, and the earlier decision noted that the timing system recorded results through microchips.

Further, the petitioners had not pursued the appeal procedure available under the notification.

In light of those findings and the later decision following the same precedent, the Court saw no ground to disturb the Tribunal’s order.

and dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.

Connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed