Supreme Court Sets Aside Relief Granting Second Chance in Police Recruitment; Holds No Right to Rescheduling of PE&MT

Case Name: Commissioner, Delhi Police & Anr. v. Uttam Kumar
Citation: 2026 INSC 314
Date of Judgment/Order: 02 April 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dipankar Datta; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Held: The Supreme Court held that a candidate in a public recruitment process has no enforceable right to seek rescheduling of a selection stage, such as the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test (PE&MT), when the governing advertisement expressly stipulates that the schedule is final, and that non-consideration of representations does not create such a right.

Summary: The case arose from a recruitment process for Constable posts in Delhi Police, where the respondent qualified the first stage but failed to appear for the PE&MT on the scheduled date citing minor illness. The respondent claimed to have submitted representations seeking rescheduling, which allegedly remained unaddressed. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed that he be allowed to participate in the test with a subsequent batch, and the High Court upheld this direction. Before the Supreme Court, it was noted that the recruitment advertisement clearly provided that the PE&MT schedule was final and not subject to alteration. The Court found that the respondent’s illness was not of such a nature as to prevent attendance, and that he had failed to even appear at the venue to seek accommodation. It also doubted the receipt of the representations due to lack of acknowledgment. The Court emphasized that public employment processes must maintain strict adherence to notified conditions to ensure fairness and equal opportunity, and that granting individual relaxation without exceptional circumstances would disrupt the entire selection framework. It further held that considerations such as belonging to a backward community cannot justify deviation from prescribed rules.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court granting the respondent a second opportunity to appear in the PE&MT, and held that no right to rescheduling existed under the recruitment terms, with parties directed to bear their own costs.