Commissioner, Delhi Police vs Uttam Kumar

REPORTABLE 2026 INSC 314 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4150 OF 2026 @ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO. 12269/2026 @ DIARY NO. 10302/2026

COMMISSIONER, DELHI POLICE & ANR. …APPELLANT

VS.

UTTAM KUMAR …RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal presents a classic example of how irresponsible an

individual can be.

3. Public employment is scarce. The youth of the country eagerly await

such employment opportunities, as and when the same are thrown

open, with fervent hopes for a brighter future. Here, we have a case

where the respondent, despite having qualified in the first tier of the

selection process for appointment as a Constable in the police force,

has simply frittered away a golden opportunity by staying away from

participating in the next tier of selection, i.e., the Physical Endurance

and Measurement Test1 citing ill health (suffering from cold, cough,

Signature Not Verified fever, headache, body pain, and dizziness). Respondent should have Digitally signed by MINI Date: 2026.04.04 13:02:58 IST Reason: been made to pay the price for his tardy and lethargic conduct;

1 PE&MT

1 however, the successful invocation of jurisdiction by the Central

Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi2 in directing the

appellants to allow the respondent to take the PE&MT with the next

batch of job aspirants, followed by refusal of the High Court of Delhi3

to interfere resulting in approval of the Tribunal’s aforesaid direction,

has triggered this appeal.

4. The reason which weighed with the Tribunal and the High Court is

that the respondent had submitted at least 3 (three) representations

seeking rescheduling of the date for his PE&MT, which went

unheeded.

5. The advertisement dated 1st September, 2023 pursuant to which the

respondent applied for consideration of his candidature, in no

uncertain terms, stipulated that the schedule for the PE&MT is final

and cannot be altered under any circumstances. We are informed that

a little less than a lakh of job aspirants had registered themselves for

participation in the selection process; however, it was the respondent

alone who sought for rescheduling of the date for the PE&MT.

6. The record reveals that the respondent was scheduled to appear for

the PE&MT on 14th January, 2024. He sought to submit three

representations dated 13th, 14th and 25th January, 2024. Prayer in the

first two representations was common: either the respondent be

advised to take the PE&MT on the reserve day or 15 (fifteen) days’

time may be given to him to recover. Admittedly, the first

2 Tribunal 3 High Court

2 representation “was not accepted by the concerned officer”. It was,

therefore, not looked into. Insofar as the second and the third

representations are concerned, we find absence of any statement in

the original application that the same were received by the office of

the respective addressees. Our query as to who submitted the said

representations went unanswered. There being no endorsement

acknowledging receipt of the said representations, it makes the claim

of the respondent that his representations were not considered

doubtful.

7. Be that as it may, assuming that the representations were received

and did deserve a look, there is a clear statement in the third

representation (dated 25th January, 2024) that “on the morning of

13th January, 2024 the applicant reported to the Delhi Police

Recruitment 2023 for the Posts of Constable/ Executive Male ...”. By

his own admission, the respondent was able to move around on 13 th

January, 2024 but unable to move on 14th January, 2024. Such being

the position, at least, an effort should have been made by the

respondent to remain physically present on the scheduled date of the

PE&MT. He, however, abstained and was, in our opinion, rightly

marked “ABSENT”.

8. Even otherwise, notwithstanding that the representations were not

answered, bearing in mind the clear stipulation in the advertisement,

noted above, the request of the respondent could not have been

favourably considered unless, of course, an exceptional case for its

3 acceptance were set up. Nature of the respondent’s ill health on the

date he was scheduled to appear for the PE&MT (14th January, 2024)

was not such so as to deserve an exceptional treatment. We, thus,

see no reason to hold that the omission, neglect or failure of the

appellants to even respond to the respondent’s representations,

assuming that they were received, conferred on him the enforceable

right to seek a rescheduling of the examination date. Most certainly,

non-communication of any decision on any of the representations, on

facts and in the circumstances, did not clothe the Tribunal to make

the order it did while disposing of the original application, throwing

the process asunder.

9. 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 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.

4

10. Given that the respondent aspired to join the police force as a

Constable, his conduct leaves a lot to be desired.

11. We are also not persuaded to accept the argument that since the

respondent belongs to the backward community, the Tribunal and the

High Court were right in exercising discretion in his favour and against

the appellants. 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.

12. There is, thus, no other option before us but to set aside the judgment

and order of the Tribunal dated 7th July, 2025, since upheld by the

High Court vide the judgment and order dated 3rd September 2025

under challenge. It is ordered accordingly.

13. The appeal stands allowed.

14. Parties shall bear their own costs.

…………….............................J. [DIPANKAR DATTA]

……………..............................J. [SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA] New Delhi;

April 02 , 2026.

5