SC Denies PE&MT Reschedule for Unjustified Absence

Case Details: Commissioner vs. Uttam Kumar [2026] 185 taxmann.com 221 (SC)[02-04-2026]

Judiciary and Counsel Details

Dipankar Datta & Satish Chandra Sharma, JJ.
Ms Archana Pathak Dave, A.S.G., Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR, Garvil Singh, Kamal Digpaul, Ms Harshita Choubey & Padmesh Mishra, Advs. for the Appellant.
Ms Jagrati Singh, AOR, Shivanshu Bhardwaj, Rajpal, Surendar Kumar, Himanshu Bhardwaj & Raghuvansh Misra, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In a Constable recruitment, the advertisement clearly stated that the date for the Physical Efficiency & Measurement Test (PE&MT) was final and could not be changed. The candidate, Uttam Kumar, passed the first stage but did not appear on the scheduled PE&MT date, citing illness (fever, cough, body pain, etc.). He later sent representations requesting another chance, but there was no clear evidence that these requests were properly submitted or received.

The Tribunal and High Court earlier allowed him another chance, mainly because his requests were not answered. However, the Supreme Court of India disagreed. It noted that the candidate himself admitted he could move around the day before the test. So, at the very least, he should have gone to the test centre, informed authorities about his condition, and requested rescheduling there. Simply not showing up was not justified.

Supreme Court Held

The Court held that not replying to his representations does not give him a legal right to get a new date. His illness was not serious enough to be treated as an exceptional case. Also, belonging to a backward community cannot be the only reason to give special treatment. Therefore, the Supreme Court cancelled the orders of the Tribunal and High Court and upheld that marking him “ABSENT” was correct.