Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent should have seen that despite the injury, he was successful in the rope climbing and he could not clear the long jump. The petitioner is an Engineering Graduate, who had secured 75% in the written examination. For the very same recruitment, the respondent had already considered the very same request favourably and relied on the order of this Court, dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 27.09.2018 made in W.P(MD)No.20316 of 2018 (A.Arunpandian vs. the Member Secretary TNUSRB and others) and the relevant portion of the order is extracted hereunder:-

4. He relied on another order of this Court, dated 20.01.2021, made in W.P(MD)No.14177 of 2020 (G.Vinoth vs. The Chairman, Sub Committee, TNUSRB) and the relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:
“12. In consequence to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Full Bench, a Division Bench of this Court in the same case of A.Parthiban (cited supra) had also interfered in the height measurement test already conducted by the Board and directed the Board to conduct remeasurement of the height of the candidate. The relevant portion of the order of the Hon'ble Division Bench reads as follows:

Hence, the petitioner was issued with impugned disqualification slip on 14.10.2020. The petitioner after six months of failure in the Physical Efficiency Test and after issuance of disqualification slip, gave representation to the respondent to reconduct the Physical Efficiency Test and has sought for another chance to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test. The petitioner has sought for another chance on the ground that he sufferred injury on the right leg two days prior to the date of the test conducted by the respondent. The petitioner approached the respondent by giving representation after six months of the impugned disqualification slip. The petitioner without disclosing his alleged injuries or producing the medical certificate relied on now before this Court, participated in the Physical Efficiency Test without any protest. He was successful in 6 meter rope climbing, but he was foul in three chances for high jump. If really, the petitioner could not perform his test due to the injuries, he ought to have informed the authorities by showing the medical certificates produced now before this Court and sought for https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ postponement of Physical Efficiency Test. In the order relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, dated 27.09.2018 made in W.P(MD)No.20316 of 2018 (A.Arunpandian vs. the Member Secretary TNUSRB and others), the petitioner therein while standing in the queue for attending the physical endurance test in front of second respondent's office therein, he was hit by unknown car and he was admitted in Virudhunagar Government Hospital, wherein it was diagnosed that his left collar bone was broken and after intensive treatment in a private hospital, subsequently, he was discharged from the hospital in the afternoon of 08.09.2018, which made him impossible to attend the 2nd stage of physical examination.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

8. In the present case, the petitioner participated in the selection process without disclosing that he was injured and by producing the medical certificate that he was advised by the doctor to take bed rest for four weeks. In view of this fact, the order dated 27.09.2018, relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, does not advance the case of the petitioner. As far as the order, dated 20.01.2021, made in W.P(MD)No.14177 of 2020 (G.Vinoth vs. The Chairman, Sub Committee, TNUSRB) relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner, is concerned, it relates to measurement of height. The issue in the said writ petition has nothing to do with the present writ petition and not applicable to the facts of the present case.