Respondents must decide the PE&MT disqualification representation by a reasoned speaking order within 30 days.

The applicant, Sheetal, aged about 23 years, applied for recruitment to the post of Constable (Executive) Female in the Delhi Police Examination, 2025, pursuant to the Examination Notification dated 22 September 2025.

After qualifying in the Computer-Based Examination, she was issued an e-Admission Certificate for the Physical Endurance & Measurement Test (PE&MT), scheduled for 19 August 2026 at the Delhi Police Academy, Wazirabad, Delhi.

The applicant participated in the 1600-metre race and claimed that, according to the watch worn by her, she had completed it within the prescribed time.

However, the chip-based timing system recorded her time as approximately 8 minutes and 1 second, resulting in her being declared unsuccessful.

On the same date, she submitted a representation seeking verification of the relevant timing records and a fresh opportunity to participate in the 1600-metre race.

As the representation remained undecided, she filed the present Original Application before the Tribunal.

Whether the respondents were required to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 19 August 2026 concerning the alleged inaccuracy in the chip-based timing system and her request for reappearance in the 1600-metre race?

Whether the Tribunal should directly permit the applicant to reappear in the PE&MT and direct declaration of her result and appointment, without first requiring the respondents to examine her pending representation?

The Tribunal applied the administrative-law principle that a representation raising a material grievance must be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law and disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order.

Since the matter involved disputed facts concerning the chip-based timing record and the applicant’s alleged completion time, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating the merits at the admission stage and directed the respondents to undertake the initial factual and administrative examination.

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

The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s claim regarding the 1600-metre race conflicted with the timing recorded by the chip-based system, and that she had promptly submitted a representation seeking verification and reappearance.

Since that representation had not yet been decided, the Tribunal considered it appropriate not to determine whether the timing system was defective or whether the applicant had actually satisfied the prescribed standard.

With the consent of the parties, it therefore disposed of the Original Application at the admission stage and required the respondents to consider the pending representation in accordance with law.

The direction to pass a reasoned and speaking order ensured that the applicant’s grievance would be administratively examined without the Tribunal expressing any opinion on the merits.

Instead, it directed the respondents to consider and decide the applicant’s representation dated 19 August 2026 by passing a reasoned and speaking order within 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.