Allahabad High Court

GAUTAM SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 23 September 2026
Bench: MANISH KUMAR NIGAM

Holding

The petition lacks merit and the exclusion of the petitioner’s roll number stands, so the writ petition is dismissed.

Summary

The petitioner, Gautam Singh, filed a writ petition seeking certiorari to quash the rejection order and result notification that excluded his roll number from the list of qualified candidates for the post of Enforcement Constable, and also sought mandamus for the production of raw CCTV footage and electronic logs of his Physical Efficiency Test (PET) to verify the number of laps completed. The petitioner alleged that the RFID chip malfunctioned, leading to an incorrect count of laps, and claimed the CCTV footage was tampered. The High Court noted that the matter was factual and directed the Selection Commission to verify the claim within four weeks in an earlier petition, after which the respondents issued an order confirming the petitioner’s failure to qualify. Upon review, the Court found no merit in the petitioner's allegations of tampering and held that the exclusion was lawful. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition for lack of merit.

Issues considered

Whether the rejection order and result notification excluding the petitioner’s roll number are illegal and liable to be quashed.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to mandamus directing the production of raw CCTV/video footage and electronic timing logs of the PET.
Whether the alleged malfunction of the RFID chip and alleged tampering of CCTV footage warrant setting aside the selection commission’s decision.

Subjects

certiorari
mandamus
Physical Efficiency Test
recruitment examination
CCTV evidence
administrative law
public service appointment

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - A No. - 15532 of 2026

Gautam Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shailendra Singh, Vikash Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Siddharth Singhal

Court No. - 33
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. Vakalatnama filed today by Shri Saurabh Tripathi, Advocate on behalf of
respondent no.2 is taken on record.

2. This writ petition has been filed seeking following relief :-

"1. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for
the records and quashing the Impugned Rejection Order No. 1229/02/तीन
(परी0-1)/2026/खण्ड-5 dated 24.08.2026 issued by Respondent No. 2, as
well as the Impugned Result Notification No. 7/13/Computer Section
(Twelve)/2023-26/04-Exam/2023 dated 30/04/2026 passed by Respondent
No. 2, to the extent that it illegally excludes the Petitioner's Roll Number
(00011772) from the list of qualified candidates selected for document
verification for the post of Enforcement Constable under Advertisement
No. 04-Exam/2023.

II. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding Respondent No. 2 to deposit and produce the original,
untampered Master CCTV/Video Recording (raw uncut camera feeds,
original DVR/NVR hard drives) and complete raw server electronic
timing logs of the PET held on 25/02/2026 before this Hon'ble Court in a
sealed cover.

III. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing
that the said original CCTV/video footage, master DVR hard drives, and
electronic logs be transmitted to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory
(CFSL) or Uttar Pradesh State Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) or an
independent expert committee appointed by this Hon'ble Court, for
comprehensive forensic video authentication, timestamp integrity
verification, and frame-by-frame analysis.
WRIA No. 15532 of 2026
2

IV. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding the Respondents to declare the Petitioner 'PET Qualified
upon confirmation of 12/13 completed laps by independent forensic
analysis, integrate his Roll Number (00011772) into the merit list,
conduct his document verification, and consider him for final
appointment to the post of Enforcement Constable under SC category
with all corisequential service benefits.

V. Pass an interim order directing Respondent No. 2 to keep 1 (one) post
of Enforcement Constable strictly vacant under the Scheduled Caste (SC)
category under Advertisement No. 04-Exam/2023 until final disposal of
this writ petition."

3. Earlier petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ A No.10166 of 2016
which was disposed of by order dated 16.7.2026. The order dated 16.7.2026
is reproduced as under :-

"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed for the following relief :-

"I. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
Impugned Result Notification No. 7/13/Computer Section (Twelve)/2023-
26/04-Exam/2023 dated 30/04/2026 issued by Respondent No. 2, to the
extent that it illegally excludes the Petitioner's Roll Number (00011772)
from the list of 3,165 qualified candidates selected for document
verification.

II. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the
subsequent consequential Notification No. 139/13/Computer Section
(Twelve)/2023-26/04-Exam/2023 dated 08/07/2026 issued by Respondent
No. 2, to the extent that it deprives the Petitioner from logging into the
official portal and uploading his certificates during the active window of
13.07.2026 to 12.08.2026.

III. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus
commanding Respondent No. 2 to produce the entire raw electronic timing
chip (RFID) data logs and the complete, untampered official Video
Recording/CCTV footage of the Petitioner's Physical Efficiency Test (PET)
conducted on 25/02/2026 at 35th Vahini PAC Mahanagar, Lucknow, before
this Hon'ble Court for independent judicial scrutiny.

IV. Issue a writ, order, or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing
the Respondents to correct the Petitioner's PET status based on ocular
WRIA No. 15532 of 2026
3

video verification, integrate his Roll Number (00011772) into the selection
process, and accept his physical/online documents for final selection."

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that after qualifying the written
examination, the petitioner has participated in the Physical Efficiency Test and the
petitioner has been declared unsuccessful.

4. On the basis of instructions, learned counsel appearing for Selection Commission, has
submitted that the petitioner has taken eleven lapses instead of twelve lapses as required.

5. This fact has been vehemently denied by learned counsel for the petitioner and
submitted that the chip which was fixed was not functioning properly and therefore, wrong
entry has been made and therefore, video may be summoned to verify as to how many
lapses have been taken by the petitioner.

6. Since the question relates factual aspect of the matter, it would be appropriate that the
Selection Commission itself may look into the grievance of the petitioner and verify the
aforesaid fact from the material available with the Selection Commission, within four
weeks, after intimating the same to the petitioner.

7. With the aforesaid direction, this petition stands disposed of. "

4. In compliance of the aforesaid order, after considering the C.C.T.V. footage,
which was also shown to the petitioner, the order dated 24.8.2026 has been
passed by the respondents' authorities that petitioner fails to qualify for
reasons mentioned in the order. Now, contention of learned counsel for the
petitioner is that it appears that the said footage has tampered. There is no
foundation for such an allegation.

5. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

September 24, 2026
Rishabh
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)

Digitally signed by :-
RISHABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…