Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Further, it is a matter of common knowledge and common sense that a person running in water logged field/track repaired by putting sand shall be less efficient than on normal track and every step of a run will take comparatively more time and force or physical power than on a normal track. Obviously, for this purpose circular dated 20.7.2011 issued by the Board clearly provided for selecting the alternate field and not for holding the Physical Efficiency Test on a repaired field. However, the authorities conducting the Physical Efficiency Test had failed to act as per circular dated 20.7.2011 and had asked the candidates to appear for Physical Efficiency Test on the track/field which was not fit to hold the said test.

Learned Chief Standing Counsel emphasized that on the same very Track where petitioners had failed 93 out of 100 candidates had qualified the test. Moreover, none of the participating candidates had lodged any protest with regard to length of Track and their performance was not affected in any manner whatsoever.

It is also submitted by learned Chief Standing Counsel that the plea of petitioners that the candidates in the inner circle of the circular track were required to run less in comparison to the candidates running in the outer circle and the manner and mode of asking the petitioners to stand up on the Track for the purpose of running cannot be accepted as they were already aware of the criteria as well as the manner and mode of holding of Physical Efficiency Test declared vide circular dated 01.06.2011. No candidate had raised any objection prior to holding of the test. The candidates were not required to run in a particular Track and were at liberty to change the Track during the test. For the purpose of measuring laps and the timing of a candidate while running, a very advance level of technology, namely, Champion Chip technology was used which was attached to a candidate's shoelace. In fact, after the start of the run all the candidates had converged at the inner most circle and all of them were running in the inner circle and none of the candidates were running in the outer circle. The said fact can also be verified from the photographs taken during the said test.

As per counter affidavit of opposite parties, sand was put on the track/field where there were water logging and the ground was approved by the supervising authority for holding test. This fact clearly indicates that there was water logging on the track/field and before holding the test on 21.7.2011 sand was put at the places where there was water logging. Merely putting sand on the track/field, the condition of the Track could not have been improved to such a situation that it becomes normal and conducive to hold the test; rather putting sand on the track/field would create more problem for the candidates to run as it is common knowledge that running on sand is much more difficult than on the normal soil.

It is to be noted that a number of persons had fallen unconscious or incurred injuries while undergoing the Physical Efficiency Test and a large number of candidates had reportedly died.

So far as the test held at 2nd Battalion, P.A.C., Sitapur on 04.08.2011 is concerned, the Court in the writ petitions challenging the said test vide interim order had directed the authorities to get the track measured by an expert person in presence of petitioners. The committee comprising of Additional Superintendent of Police, Sitapur, Deputy Commandant, 2nd Battalion, P.A.C., Sitapur and District Sports Officer, Sitapur was constituted for that purpose and in presence of some of petitioners the committee had measured the track on which the test was held. As per report of the committee the Track is of 400 meter. The petitioners have filed objections against the measurement conducted by the Committee mainly on the ground that the Committee did not consist of an expert as District Sports Officer was not a sports person belonging to Athletics. The Sub Divisional Magistrate who was a member of the Committee which had conducted the run on 04.08.2011 was not a Member of the Committee constituted for measuring the track, although he was the only person who could be an expert in this regard. However, the Committee only measured the inner circle of the Track whereas non of the candidates was instructed to run in the inner circle of the Track. The Committee had not measured the outer circle of the Track.