APHC010088682025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: Between: Putta Sonia Deepika The State Of Ap and Others Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. G SEENA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SERVICES I 1 W.P.No.4584 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3506] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO: 4584/2025 ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: G SEENA KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent(S): GP FOR SERVICES I CGR, J W.P.No.4584 of 2025 [3506] MONDAY ,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT(S) 2 CGR, J W.P.No.4584 of 2025 The Court made the following Order: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief/s:- “…pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in disqualifying the petitioner in 100 meters events under the guise of censor problem vide disqualified letter in Rc.No.161/SLPRB/Rect 2/2022, 03.01.2025 (Second Memo) though I have qualified by running with lesser time than required in the 100 meters event conducted on 03.01.2025 for the post of Police constable post Code.21 SCT PC (Civil) (Men and Women) pursuant to the notification in Rc No.161/SLPRB/Rect 2/2022 dt 28.11.2022 as illegal arbitrary and unjust and further direct the respondents to re conduct the 100 meters events and long jump to the petitioner as she is not responsible for the technical problem and to allow the petitioner for further process of selection and pass…” 2. Heard Sri KG.Seena Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader for Services-I for respondents. 3. The Court on 13.03.2025, has passed the following Order: “Learned Assistant Government Pleader has placed on record the written instructions, provided by the 2nd respondent, as per which, it is submitted that due to technical error, the petitioner’s results shown as qualified instead of disqualified and on verification of CCTV footage, the petitioner started hundred (100) meters running at 9 Hours 10 Minutes 40 Seconds and ended by 9 Hours 11 Minutes. Thereby, total time taken for completion of hundred meters is 21 Seconds, which is beyond the time specified for qualification. 3 CGR, J W.P.No.4584 of 2025 However, the learned counsel for the petitioner disputed the same and submits that the said CCTV footage should be produced before this Court for verification, without prejudice to his submissions. The written instructions do not state what exactly the technical error is, in recording the time. However, they sought to rely on CCTV footage. The CCTV footage is not the scientific method for determining the time of running. In order to facilitate the petitioner to know the said recording, the 2nd respondent is directed to produce the said CCTV footage and display it at the Office of learned Government Pleader on 20.03.2025 during Court working hours. The petitioner along with her counsel shall view the said CCTV footage, in the presence of learned Government Pleader and submit objections, if any, by the next date of hearing..” 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has gone through a video CC TV footage, which was displayed in the chamber of learned Government Pleader, which indicates that the sensor that was tied to legs of candidate had recorded that she has completed 100 meters run in 14.55 seconds, however, the CC TV footage record shows that the run got completed in 20.75 seconds. When there is a discrepancy in the time recorder of the sensor which is supposed to carryout the right method of measuring time, the petitioner cannot be disqualified basing on recordings in CC TV footage. The run has to be completed within 18 seconds. But however, the sensor recorded that the petitioner completed the run in 14.55 seconds and whereas CC TV footage 4 CGR, J W.P.No.4584 of 2025 recording shows that run was completed in 20.75 seconds for which the petitioner cannot be found fault. These discrepancies deserve benefit of doubt and therefore she has to be provided another chance of participating in 100 meters run. The writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 4 to re-conduct 100 meters event run once again and if the petitioner successfully completes the same within specified time of 18 seconds she shall be allowed to participate in the 2nd event of long jump and in case the petitioner successfully completes the same, she shall be considered for further process of selection in pursuance of the notification No.Rc.No.161/SLPRB/Rect.2/2022 dated 28.11.2022. Let respondents fix the date of time of run in advance by intimating to the petitioner atleast one week before the same is scheduled. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. ______________________________________ JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN Date: 24.03.2025 KKV 5 CGR, J W.P.No.4584 of 2025 92 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE CHALLA GUNARANJAN WRIT PETITION NO:4584/2025 Date: 24.03.2025 KKV 6 CGR, J W.P.No.4584 of 2025