WP(C) No.221/2008 and WP(C) No. 187/2008 Page 1 of 4 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +WP(C) No. 187/2008 and WP(C) No. 221/2008 Reserved on: 21st May, 2008 %Date of Decision: 4th July, 2008 WP(C) No. 187/2008 Shri Promod Kumar & Anr. ...Appellant Through: Mr. Keshav Kaushik, Advocate. Versus Commissioner of Police & Ors. …Respondent Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate and Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Advocate WP(C) No.221/2008 Bhagirath ...Appellant Through: Mr. Anil Singhal, Advocate. Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondent Through: Mr. Rohit Madan, Advocate. CORAM :- THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? J.R. Midha, J. In October 2007, Delhi Police invited application for 692 vacancies of Sub Inspector. The advertisement provided for a physical endurance test in which one of the condition was 1600 metres race in six minutes WP(C) No.221/2008 and WP(C) No. 187/2008 Page 2 of 4 and thirty seconds to qualify for the further tests. The advertisement also provided four different age limits, namely, 20-25 years for those seeking direct recruitment, 25-30 years for those seeking direct recruitment on the basis of age relaxation and the departmental candidates, 35-40 years for departmental candidates/ex-servicemen and 40-45 years for departmental candidates/ex-servicemen on the basis of age relaxation belonging to the reserved category. The petitioners in WP(C) No. 187/2008 applied for the post of Sub Inspector under the departmental category and they appeared in physical endurance test on 14th December 2007 in which they could not complete 1600 metres race within the stipulated time and were thus disqualified to appear in the written test held on 13th January, 2008. The petitioner in WP(C) No. 221/2008 also applied in departmental category as SC candidate and he was called for physical endurance on 19th December 2007, but he did not appear and approached the learned Tribunal seeking the stay. The OAs of both the petitioners were dismissed by the learned Tribunal which is under challenge before us. The petitioners have challenged the condition of the physical endurance test insofar as it prescribes 1600 metres race in six minutes and thirty seconds on the ground that the said time limit is less. It is next contended that the departmental candidates are in the age group of 30-45 years and they are put in the same class as that of direct candidates who are in early twenties. It is further contended that the Staff Selection Commission was earlier conducting the said test and they had prescribed the time limit of seven minutes for completing 1600 WP(C) No.221/2008 and WP(C) No. 187/2008 Page 3 of 4 metres race. It is also contended that the time limit for the post of Head Constable is 7 minutes for candidates below 30 years and eight minutes for candidates above 30 years. The petitioners have challenged the time limit of six minutes thirty seconds for 1600 metres race to be unreasonable and arbitrary and they have sought the quashing of the same. They have further prayed for being permitted to take the physical endurance test as prescribed by Staff Selection Commission in seven minutes. We have carefully considered the contentions raised by the petitioners. We agree with the finding of the learned Tribunal that running 1600 metres in six minutes fifty seconds is not difficult and even as per the case set up by the petitioners about 50 out of 69 departmental candidates have run 1600 metres in the stipulated time. We further agree with the view of the Tribunal that prescription of time limit to run 1600 metres has to be in the sole discretion of the concerned authorities and the Courts in such matters would seldom interfere. The employer knows the best requirements of the job and particular standards required for the same and the Courts are not supposed to substitute their view in such matters. The different time limits fixed by the Staff Selection Commission would not be a ground to interfere with the time limit fixed by the respondent in the present case. Fixing the same time limit for different age groups would also not make the requirement arbitrary. As stated above, it is not the case of the petitioners that the time limit of six minutes thirty seconds for 1600 metres race is WP(C) No.221/2008 and WP(C) No. 187/2008 Page 4 of 4 unrealistic. It is on record that 50 out of 69 candidates have been successfully completed 1600 metres in six minutes thirty seconds which clearly points out the figures to be realistic. The learned Tribunal has taken the correct view in the matter. There is no merit in both the Writ Petitions. We, therefore, dismiss the Writ Petitions without costs. (J.R. MIDHA) JUDGE (A.K. SIKRI) JUDGE July 4, 2008 aj