The Supreme Court of India has allowed an appeal by the Delhi Police, setting aside orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Delhi High Court that had directed authorities to reschedule a Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PE&MT) for a candidate who failed to appear due to minor illness. The Bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, observed that public employment is a scarce resource and candidates must demonstrate “drive and initiative” to secure it.
Background of the Case
The respondent, Uttam Kumar, applied for the post of Constable (Executive) Male in the Delhi Police pursuant to an advertisement dated September 1, 2023. Having qualified in the first tier of the selection process, he was scheduled to appear for the PE&MT on January 14, 2024.
The advertisement explicitly stipulated that the schedule for the PE&MT was final and could not be altered under any circumstances. However, the respondent abstained from the test, citing ill health (cold, cough, fever, headache, body pain, and dizziness). He purportedly submitted three representations dated January 13, 14, and 25, 2024, seeking a rescheduling of the test. When these went unheeded, he approached the CAT.
The CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, directed the appellants to allow the respondent to take the PE&MT with the next batch. This direction was subsequently upheld by the Delhi High Court on September 3, 2025.
Arguments and Evidence
The primary reason weighing with the lower fora was that the respondent’s representations seeking a reschedule had gone unconsidered. However, the Supreme Court noted several discrepancies:
- The first representation was admittedly not accepted by the concerned officer.
- Regarding the second and third representations, there was no evidence or endorsement acknowledging their receipt.
- A statement in the third representation revealed that the respondent had reported to the recruitment office on January 13, 2024, but claimed inability to move on January 14.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court criticized the respondent’s conduct, describing it as “tardy and lethargic.” The Court emphasized that when nearly a lakh aspirants registered for the process, the respondent was the only one seeking such a reschedule.
On the Requirement of Physical Presence: The Court noted that the respondent’s ailment was not so severe that he was unable to move.
“The minimum that one could expect of him was to report for the PE&MT, cite his inability to take the same and to request rescheduling to enable him participate. This could have, at least, given an opportunity to the appellants… to decide whether or not the respondent was in genuine need for an accommodation.”
On the Exercise of Discretion: The Bench held that the Tribunal and High Court erred in exercising discretion based on the respondent’s background or health status.
“Grace, charity or compassion ought to stay at a distance in matters of public employment, if a fair level playing field is to be secured.”
The Court further remarked that “not showing up and expecting a second chance, clearly demonstrates a lack of drive and initiative” and concluded that such conduct “leaves a lot to be desired” for an individual aspiring to join the police force.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court held that the omission of the appellants to respond to the representations did not confer an “enforceable right” to seek rescheduling, especially given the clear stipulations in the recruitment advertisement.
The Court set aside the judgment and order of the CAT dated July 7, 2025, and the subsequent judgment of the Delhi High Court dated September 3, 2025. The appeal was allowed, with parties directed to bear their own costs.
Case Details Block:
- Case Title: Commissioner, Delhi Police & Anr. vs. Uttam Kumar
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 4150 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 12269/2026)
- Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
- Date: April 02, 2026
