Compassion Has No Place In Public Employment; No Second Chance For Candidate Who Skipped Physical Test : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that a candidate who failed to appear for a scheduled physical test in a police recruitment process cannot claim a right to rescheduling merely because his representations seeking postponement were not answered, emphasizing that compassion and discretion have limited roles in matters of public employment.

A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Delhi High Court's ruling that had affirmed the Administrative Tribunal's decision to grant a second opportunity to a candidate to appear in the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test for the Delhi Police Constable recruitment, on the ground that he was unwell on the scheduled date.

Background

The respondent had qualified in the first stage of the recruitment process for appointment as a Constable in Delhi Police. He was scheduled to appear for the PE&MT on January 14, 2024, but did not attend the test, citing illness such as cold, cough, fever, headache, body pain and dizziness.

He subsequently claimed to have submitted three representations seeking rescheduling of the test. The Tribunal directed the authorities to allow him to participate in the test with the next batch, and the High Court declined to interfere with that direction.

Challenging these orders, the Delhi Police approached the Supreme Court.

Allowing the Delhi Police's appeal, the bench observed that in matters of public employment, where lakhs of candidates compete, opportunities must be seized when they arise, as there is ordinarily no scope for a second chance.

The Court noted that the recruitment advertisement clearly stipulated that the schedule for the PE&MT was final and could not be altered under any circumstances. It also observed that nearly one lakh candidates had registered for the recruitment process, and the respondent was the only candidate who sought rescheduling of the test.

The Bench found the respondent's claim that his representations were ignored to be doubtful, pointing out that there was no acknowledgment of receipt of the representations

The Court noted that despite suffering from ailments such as a cold, cough, and fever, the respondent could have at least reported at the test venue to inform the authorities of his inability to participate and request rescheduling; his failure to do so, it held, reflected a lack of initiative and seriousness on his part.

“The stakes are high, when it comes to public employment and opportunities like these can be life changing for young people. When chances are rare, one needs to grab them with both hands. The ailment from which the respondent was suffering was not such that he was even unable to move, and the minimum that one could expect of him was to report for the Physical Endurance &Measurement Test (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 or the authorities in charge of holding the examination to decide whether or not the respondent was in genuine need for an accommodation. Not showing up and expecting a second chance, clearly demonstrates a lack of drive and initiative on the part of the respondent.”, the court observed.

The Court rejected the Respondent's argument that he, being belonging to a reserved category, is entitled to receive another chance based on compassion. Instead, the court said that “merely because one belongs to the backward community cannot be the decisive factor for tilting the scales. The boundaries for exercise of discretion are well carved out beyond which the adjudicatory fora ought not to trench."

"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 added.

Resultantly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: COMMISSIONER, DELHI POLICE & ANR. VS. UTTAM KUMAR

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 328

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Ms. Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Garvil Singh, Adv. Mr. Kamal Digpaul, Adv. Ms. Harshita Choubey, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv.

For Respondent(s) :Ms. Jagrati Singh, AOR Mr. Shivanshu Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Rajpal, Adv. Mr. Surendar Kumar, Adv. Mr. Omprakash, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Raghuvansh Mishra, Adv.