2021 INSC 0731
               NON­REPORTABLE
   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
    CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6860 OF 2021   
(Arising out of SLP (CIVIL) No.5006 of 2020)
State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.                      .…Appellant(s)
Versus
Pankaj Kumar                   ….  Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
A.S. Bopanna,J.
1. The   appellants   are   before   this   Court   assailing   the   order
dated   29.08.2019   passed   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow, in
Special Appeal Defective No. 366/2019. Through the said order
the Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the Special
Appeal,   thereby   upholding   the   judgment   and   order   dated
12.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.693
(S/S) of 2019, titled Pankaj Kumar vs. State of U.P and Ors.
1

2. The   brief   facts   leading   to   the   present   appeal   is   that   the
appellants had published an advertisement in the year 2015 to
recruit Police Constables to the Provincial Armed Constabulary
(Male) by direct recruitment. The respondent herein was one of
the   candidates   who   had   responded   to   the   said   advertisement
and   submitted   his   application.   Pursuant   thereto,   the   admit
card   was   issued   to   the   respondent   and   the   initial   fitness
examination   was   held.   In   order   to   complete   the   process   of
selection, the documents were to be verified and the candidates
were   to   be   subjected   to   physical   fitness   test   which   was   to   be
made   subsequently   as   the   next   stage   of   recruitment   process.
The   issue   presently   is   with   regard   to   the   respondent   being
unable   to   appear   for   the   physical   fitness   test   and   the
verification of documents which he alleges is for want of written
communication.
3. According   to   the   appellants,   the   candidates   who   were
required   to   appear   for   the   physical   fitness   test   and   document
verification   were   intimated   by   issuing   SMS   over   the   mobile
phone,   the   number   of   which   had   been   furnished   in   the
application.   Several   other   candidates   who   had   received   such
2

SMS had appeared and taken part in the process of document
verification   and   the   physical   fitness   test.   The   respondent   who
had   not   appeared,   made   out   a   grievance   about   appellants   not
intimating   the   respondent   through   post.   In   that   light,   the
respondent   filed   the   writ   petition   bearing   SS   No.693   of   2019
seeking   that   the   appellants   herein   be   directed   to   complete   the
document   verification   and   the   physical   fitness   test   of   the
respondent   pertaining   to   his   height,   weight   and   chest
measurement   and   to   declare   the   result   after   completing   the
process.   The   case   put   forth   was   that   the   appellants   had   not
adhered   to   the   requirement   contemplated   under   the   Uttar
Pradesh   (Civil   Police)   Constable   and   Head   Constable   Rules,
2008. According to the respondent, as per rule, a call letter was
required   to   be   issued.   Since,   such   call   letter   has   not   been
issued   to   the   respondent   he   was   unable   to   take   part   in   the
process   of   document   verification   and   physical   fitness  test.   The
Learned   Single   Judge   though   did   not   record   a   finding   with
regard   to   there   being   violation   or   non­compliance   of   any   rule,
had   arrived   at   the   conclusion   that   there   was   inadvertence   on
part   of   the   respondent   since   an   applicant   would   not   have
deliberately   not   participated   in   the   process   of   recruitment.   In
3

that   circumstance,   as   a   matter   of   equitable   consideration,   the
Learned Single Judge had directed the appellants to permit the
petitioner  to appear for the document verification and physical
fitness   test   for   the   post   of   Constable   in   pursuance   to   the
recruitment advertised in the year 2015. 
4. The   appellants   herein,   claiming   to   be   aggrieved   by   such
direction   issued   by   the   Learned   Single   Judge   filed   an   intra
court appeal in Special Appeal No.366/2019 before the Division
Bench  of the High Court. The  Division  Bench  having  extracted
the   portion   of   the   observations   made   by   the   Learned   Single
Judge   wherein   an   equitable   consideration   was   made,   has
further indicated that there is no dispute to the fact that except
for   the   SMS   sent   to   the   respondent   no   other   mode   of
information   was   sent   and   in   that   view   the   Division   Bench
approved   the   direction   issued   by   the   Learned   Single   Judge
whereby an opportunity has been granted to the respondent to
appear for the document verification and physical fitness test. It
is in that view, the appeal was dismissed.
5. Mr.   Pradeep   Misra,   learned   counsel   representing   the
appellants   while   assailing   the   order   passed   by   the   Learned
4

Single   Judge   as   also   the   Division   Bench   has   contended   that
keeping in view the large number of candidates and the process
to be completed, the candidates were intimated by sending SMS
to appear for the document verification and the physical fitness
test.   It   is   his   further   contention   that   the   negligence   of   the
respondent in not responding to such SMS by appearing for the
further   process   should   be   to   his   own   detriment   and   cannot
interfere   with   the   process   of   selection   which   has   been
completed. It is pointed out that the physical standard test had
been held as far back as on 17 th
, 18 th
 and 19 th
 September 2018.
At   this   belated   stage,   no   indulgence   can   be   shown   when
admittedly the SMS had been received by the respondent on the
mobile no.8394959934 which was furnished by him. Reference
is   made   to   the   information/notification   dated   15.05.2018
wherein   the   details   of   the   process   of   selection   had   been
indicated and the candidates had also been notified therein that
the  result is  available on  the  website,  the details  of which was
furnished.   The   candidates   were   required   to   keep   track   of   the
details of the selection process through the website. Hence the
respondent   cannot   come   up   with   the   contention   as   has   been
put   forth   by   him   herein.   It   is   contended   that   though   one
5

opportunity   had   been   granted   as   a   concession   to   about   151
candidates pursuant to direction issued by the Court, the said
process   cannot   be   a   continuing   one,   as   and   when
individuals/candidates   seek   to   reopen   the   selection   process
time   and   again.   It   is   contended   that   the   Coordinate   Bench   of
the   High   Court   in   another   writ   petition   had   rejected   a   similar
claim   as   that   of   the   respondent   and   the   Division   Bench   had
upheld the rejection. It is in that light contended that in respect
of the selection process which was commenced in the year 2015
and   concluded   in   all   respects   in   the   year   2018,   request   for
opportunity   at   this   belated   stage   ought   not   to   have   been
entertained by the High Court.
6. Mr.   Sarvesh   Kumar   Dubey,   learned   counsel   for   the
respondent on the other hand seeks to sustain the order passed
by   the   Learned   Single   Judge   and   approved   by   the   Division
Bench   of   the   High   Court.   It   is   his   contention   that   the   Rules
contemplated   that  the   intimation   has   to   be   sent   through   post,
but   no   such   intimation   was   issued   to   the   respondent.   It   is
contended   that   the   mere   issue   of   SMS   intimating   the   date   of
further   process   in   the   selection   would   not   be   sufficient.   He
contends   that   the   mobile   number   would   be   furnished   by   the
6

candidates   at   the   time   of   making   an   application   and   in   the
instant   case   since   about   3   years   had   elapsed   from   the   date   of
the   application,   there   could   be   no   assumption   that   the
candidate would possess the very same mobile connection and
the   number.   In   that   light,   it   is   contended   that  the   appropriate
course   to   ensure   proper   service   would   be   through   postal
intimation, which had not been done in the instant case. It is in
that background, the Learned Single Judge as also the Division
Bench   has   arrived   at   the   conclusion   that   an   opportunity   is
required to be furnished as the employment opportunity should
not   be   jeopardized.   He   therefore,   seeks   that   this   appeal   be
dismissed.
7. In   the   light   of   the   rival   contentions,   having   perused   the
order passed by the learned Single Judge as also the conclusion
reached   by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court,   it   would
indicate   that   the   High   Court   has   not   granted   the   relief   to   the
respondent   by   recording   a   finding   with   regard   to   the   non­
compliance   of   any   requirement   envisaged   under   the   Rule   or
procedure   provided   in   the   advertisement   calling   for
applications. The Rule as referred to by the learned counsel for
the   respondent   mentions   that   the   intimation   is   to   be   provided
7

by postal communication or any other mode. In that view, there
is   no   bar   in   intimating   the   candidates   through   SMS,   more
particularly when large number of candidates had to appear in
the   subsequent   process   and   majority   of   the   candidates   have
appeared   for   document   verification   and   physical   fitness   test
pursuant to intimation by SMS. Even, so far as the respondent
is   concerned,   it   is   not   his   case   that   he   had   not   received   the
SMS.   It   is   only   a   technical   contention   that   he   ought   to   have
been   intimated   through   postal   communication.   When   a
requirement   is   stated   in   the   application   to   provide   the   mobile
number, it is with a purpose to communicate and in the instant
case,   the   appellants   have   sent   the   SMS   to   the   very   number
which had been furnished by the appellant. 
8. Though,   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respondent   vaguely
contended that a person may not retain the same number after
a long lapse of time, no material has been brought on record to
indicate   that   the   respondent   did   not   possess   the   said   mobile
connection   as   on   the   date   the   SMS   was   sent.   Further,   the
argument   as   put   forth   by   the   learned   counsel   for   the
respondent   that   one   may   not   retain   the   same   number   after
lapse of long time would hold good even for the address which
8

is furnished for issue of postal communication. In a given case,
the   person   may   not   reside   in   the   same   address   which   is
furnished for communication as it existed when the application
is   made.   In   such   circumstance,   it   is   for   the   candidate   to
intimate   any   change   to   the   authorities,   since   such   change
would be within the knowledge of the candidate and it is in his
or   her   own   interest   such   intimation   is   to   be   made.   In   the
instant case, when there can be no dispute that the respondent
was in possession of the  same mobile connection,  the detail of
which was furnished in the application and the SMS had been
sent to the respondent, the respondent having not acted on the
same   cannot   at   his   own   convenience   make   request   to   be
permitted   to   participate   in   the   selection   process   which   has
already   concluded,   not   having   utilized   the   opportunity   which
was available to him.
9. Further,   from   the   very   nature   of   consideration   made   by
the High Court, it is seen that it was the casual attitude of the
respondent   which  had  brought   about   the   situation   though   the
High  Court  has  mildly  put  it  as, inadvertence and provided an
opportunity.   It   is   no   doubt   true,   that   as   contended   by   the
respondent   in   the   objection   statement,   an   opportunity   was
9

granted   to   about   151   candidates   to   take   part   in   the   selection
process   as   indicated   in   the   notice   dated   14.01.2019   issued
pursuant   to   directions   issued   by   the   High   Court   in   the   writ
petitions   which   were   filed.   It   is   to   be   noticed   that   the
respondent was not vigilant at the earliest point in time but it is
only after such consideration had been made by the High Court
and   an   opportunity   was   granted   to   certain   other   persons,   the
respondent   had   chosen   to   file   the   writ   petition   by   merely
contending   that   he   had   made   a   request   to   permit   him   to   take
part   in   the   process   on   15.01.2019   and   he   had   not   been
permitted.
10.   In   that   background,   it   is   to   be   noted   that   another
learned   Single   Judge   of   the   High   Court   in   a   similar
circumstance had dismissed Writ Petition No.3647 of 2019 filed
by one Radha Sharma seeking similar relief and the said order
was   upheld   by   the   Division   Bench   in   Special   Appeal   Defective
No.903   of   2019.   The   order   of   the   learned   Single   Judge   was
dated 13.05.2019. In any event, though indulgence was shown
in   the   earlier   cases,   a   line   has   to   be   drawn   at   some   stage   as
otherwise,   the   recruitment   process   undertaken   by   the
competent authorities would be meaningless without a time line
10

and   the   next   recruitment   process   will   also   get   effected   since
determination   of   the  number   of   vacancies  for   the  next   process
will keep fluctuating. The process herein had commenced in the
year   2015   and   the   document   verification   along   with   the
physical fitness test was held in 2018. Several candidates who
were   permitted   pursuant   to   the   order   of   the   High   Court   had
taken   part   in   early   January   2019.   Since,   sufficient   time   has
elapsed   thereafter   it   would   not   be   appropriate   to   make   an
exception   in   the   case   of   the   respondent   at   this   stage   as
otherwise the trickle would continue.
11. We   are   therefore   of   the   opinion   that   the   learned   Single
Judge   as   also   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   was   not
justified   in   their   conclusion.   The   order   dated   12.03.2019
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P No.693 (SS) of 2019
and   the   order   dated   29.08.2019   passed   in   Special   Appeal
Defective   No.366   of   2019   by   the   Division   Bench   are   set   aside.
Consequently,   the   Writ   petition   No.693   (SS)   of   2019   titled
Pankaj Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Ors. stands dismissed.
12. The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
11

13. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.
..…………………….….………………………J.
( DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD )
                                        
…………………….……………………….J.   
(A.S. BOPANNA)
New Delhi,
November 18, 2021 
12