Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
S Shajahon And 74 Others vs Ut Of Puducherry And Ors on 18 February, 2026
1 MA 310/00082/2026 &
OA 310/00163/2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
MA 310/00082/2026 & OA 310/00163/2026
Dated Wednesday, the 18th day of February, Two Thousand and Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. M. SWAMINATHAN, Member (J)
&
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA, Member (A)
1. S.Shajahon
2 A.Vikram
3. C. Prakash
4. M. Parthipan
5. D.Priyanka
6. S.Shyamala @ Vani roja
7. M. Rajalakshmi
8. A. Avina
9. N.Dhanalakshmi
10. S.Sangeetha
11. P. Ramachandiran
12. P Uthayaprakash
13. M. Jayaseelan
14. R. Ezhilarasan
15. S.Ilampugazhandi
16. T.Balachandhar
17. M.Jayapragash
18. S. Sathish, S/o Saravanan
19. B.Prabu
20. K.Deepiga
21. C.Siva
22. S. Sathish, S/o Sankar
23. R.Shruthi
24. V. Santhiya
25. K. Priyenga
26. R.Rosie Rizone
27. K.Diviya
28. S.Dhivya
29. V.Swathi
30. M.Dhivya D/o Maduraiveeran
31. M.Dhivya, D/o.Mohan.M
2 MA 310/00082/2026 &
OA 310/00163/2026
32. H.Kalaiarasi
33. M.Anupriya
34. S. Ezhilarasi
35. S.Sowndary
36. M.Rajeswari
37. M.Manoshini
38. F.Jesintha
39. S.Renukiruba
40. E. Nithiya
41. N.Thamizhvendhan
42. J.Thamizharasan,
43. M.Arun prasath
44. A.Noel Raj
45. K.Kalaiyarasan
46. M.Thamizh Indira
47. L.Archana
48. K.Vimala
49. P. Vetrivel
50. F.Benjamine Frankelin
51. J. Balaji
52. M.Iyyappan
53. I.Rajaraman
54. P.Mathankumar
55. J. Jagadeesh
56. S.Ajeeth
57. S.Seethalakshmi
58. G.Thirumurugan
59. T.Prakash
60. P.Maheswari
61. I.Pavendhan
62. R. Nasrin
63. M.Sankaran
64. S.Poongodi
65. D.Subalakshmi
66. A.Akashavalli
67. G.Raja
68. B.Jeevidha
69. K.Bharath
70. Chinta Deepika
71. P.Jayaprakash
72. P. Venkatraman
73. Maneesha PP
74. Dhanusree V K
3 MA 310/00082/2026 &
OA 310/00163/2026
75. P. Anjana ... Applicants
By Advocate M/s. M. Gnanasekar
Vs
1. Union of India,
Rep. by its Secretary (Home)
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry - 605 001.
2. The Director General of Police,
Police Department,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry - 605 001.
3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police (L&O),
Police Department,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry - 605 001.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Police (HQ),
Police Department, Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry - 605 001.
5. The Superintendent of Police (HQ),
Police Department, Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry - 605 001.
6. The Special Officer (Police),
Police Department,
Puducherry - 605 001. ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa
4 MA 310/00082/2026 &
OA 310/00163/2026
ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Member(J)) MA 310/00082/2026 is filed by the applicants seeking permission to join together and file a single Original Application. For the reasons stated in the MA and in the interest of justice, MA is allowed.
2. In the instant OA, the applicants seek the following relief:
"i. Declare the action of the respondents in issuing the rejection slips dated 20.01.2026 and various dates for the month of Jan - Feb 2026 issued to the Applicants in respect of Stage-1 (100 metres run) of the Physical Endurance Test for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police as illegal and ii. Consequently, direct the respondents to permit the Applicants to undergo a fresh physical endurance test by adopting a fully electronic and scientifically accurate timing mechanism on such date as may be fixed by this Tribunal:
iii. Award costs;
iv. And pass such further or other orders and thus render justice."
3. Brief facts of the case as submitted by the applicants are as follows:
The Applicants are natives and residents of the Union Territory of Puducherry and possess the required educational qualifications for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. Pursuant to a recruitment notification dated 12.08.2025 issued by the Police Department of the Government of Puducherry for filling 70 5 MA 310/00082/2026 & OA 310/00163/2026 posts of Sub-Inspector of Police (Level-6), they applied and were issued hall tickets to participate in the selection process. As per the notification, the selection process comprises a Physical Standard Test, Physical Endurance Test, and Written Examination, with only those qualifying in the first two stages being eligible to appear for the Written Examination. The Physical Endurance Test includes four compulsory stages, the first being a 100-metre run to be completed within 15 seconds. The Applicants appeared for the Physical Endurance Test on 20.01.2026. During Stage-I (100-metre run), the timing was recorded through a partially manual and partially electronic system. The race was started manually by an official, while only the finish was recorded electronically. Owing to this allegedly inaccurate and unscientific method, the Applicants' timings were recorded as 15.30 seconds, marginally exceeding the prescribed limit, leading to their disqualification. The Applicants contend that they had consistently completed the 100-metre run within the prescribed time during practice sessions and that the marginal excess was solely due to the flawed timing methodology. Based on the recorded timings, rejection slips were issued on various dates, disqualifying them from further stages of the selection process. Although an appellate mechanism was stated to be available, the Applicants were orally informed that no appeal lies against the results of Stage-I (100-metre run) and that appeals are entertained only for Stage-IV (800-metre run). Consequently, they were denied an effective opportunity to challenge their disqualification. Representations submitted by them seeking a fresh Physical 6 MA 310/00082/2026 & OA 310/00163/2026 Endurance Test reportedly received no response. Aggrieved by the same, the Applicants have filed the present Original Application seeking to quash the impugned rejection slips and to direct the authorities to conduct a fresh Stage-I Physical Endurance Test using a fully electronic and scientifically accurate timing system.
4. When the matter was taken up for admission, the learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants were declared unsuccessful for allegedly completing the 100 metres run in 15.20 to 15.30 seconds, exceeding the prescribed time limit by a negligible of 02.20 to 0.30 seconds. He further submitted that the marginal deviation is attributable solely to the respondents flawed timing procedure and not to any physical inability on the part of the applicants.
5. He further submitted that the applicants had a legitimate expectation that the physical endurance test would be conducted in a scientifically, accurate, transparent, and standardized manner. Failure to ensure precision in the timing process has defeated the legitimate precision in the timing process has defeated the legitimate expectation of the applicants and undermined the fairness in selection process. He further submitted though an appellate mechanism is stated to exist, the applicants were orally informed that no appeal is permissible for Stage-1 (100 metres). Such selective denial of appellate remedy is arbitrary, 7 MA 310/00082/2026 & OA 310/00163/2026 discriminatory and violative of principles of natural justice.
6. He finally submitted that the rejection slips dated 20.01.2026 and various dates for the month of Jan - Feb 2026 did not disclose any reasons other than the recorded timing, nor do they explain the method of measurement of the basis for denying appeal. Disqualification at the threshold stage of recruitment for a negligible timing difference, without providing an opportunity for review or re- test is depriving the applicants of their right to compete in public employment guaranteed under Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution. Therefore, prayed for the relief sought in the present OA.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the applicants, and Mr. Syed Mustafa took notice on behalf of the respondents.
8. In the present OA, the applicants were disqualified in the 100 metres run since they have not completed their run within the stipulated time of 15 seconds as notified in the notification for the post of Sub-Inspector of Police. The details of their timings are mentioned in the documents annexed in the OA.
9. It is also seen from the records that Radio Frequency Identification Technology (RFTI) has been used to all the candidates to calculate accurate timing of their run in 100 metre event and 800/200-meter events for male and 8 MA 310/00082/2026 & OA 310/00163/2026 female candidates respectively. All the candidates have to RFID chips in their both legs and once the candidates commence their run, the exact timing will be automatically stated and recorded in the computer system and the accurate time of running of the candidates are calculated by the said device. All the candidates have been briefed by the Physical Education Teachers in 100 meters run starting point that they should complete their run in 15 Seconds.
10. It is also seen from the records that 3,324 male candidates have participated in the 100 metres run for the post of Sub Inspector of Police and out of which 2,088 persons were qualified in 100 metres event and 1,146 persons were disqualified in the 100 metres even including the applicants. We also fond that the PST/PET events were conducted in fair and transparent manner and all the events were covered through CCTV cameras. Two Physical Education Teachers are present in each event and supervised by a Police Officer not below the rank of Superintendent of Police.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Om Prakash Shukla Vs Akhilesh Kumar Shukla, reported in AIR 1986 SC 1043 has held that a candidate cannot question the process of selection and call it unfair only because the result of selection process is not palatable to him after having participated in the selection process. In the case of Anupal Singh Vs State of UP (2020) reported in 2 SCC 173, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a person having consciously participated in the 9 MA 310/00082/2026 & OA 310/00163/2026 interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process. In the case of Union of India Vs N. Murugesan reported in (2022) 2 SCC 25, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the party cannot be allowed to approbate or reprobate. The unselected candidates cannot press into service, by taking part in the selection process, thus one cannot blow hot and cold. Such a selective adoption is not permissible under law.
12. This Tribunal in a similar matter in MA 39/2026 & OA 97/2026, dismissed the OA by an order dated 11.02.2026. In the above circumstances and in the light of the judgements cited supra, we are of the view that the applicants have not made out a case.
13. In the result the OA is dismissed at the admission stage itself.
(M. L. Srivastava) (M. Swaminathan)
Member (A) Member (J)
18.02.2026
Digitally signed
P. ARUNA SOWBHAGYA
by P ARUNA
COURT MASTER SOWBHAGYA
CAT, CB
Date: 2026.03.16
14:20:21 +05'30'