Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Harish Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Suresh ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 May, 2019
Author: Alok Sharma
Bench: Alok Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 27088/2018
Harish Kumar Meena Son Of Shri Suresh Kumar Meena, Resident
Of Jmc 2636, Puranaghat, Near Sishodia Rani Garden, Agra
Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Government
Of Rajasthan, Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.
3. Commissioner Of Police, Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Madhusudan Singh Rajpurohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshal Tholia for Dr. VB Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA Order Date of Order :: 17th May, 2019 The petitioner having applied for appointment to the post of Constable under Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1989') pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.5.2018 passed the written examination and then successfully went through the next stages of Physical Standard Test (for short, 'PST') and Physical Efficiency Test (for short, 'PET'). Yet he was not appointed. A combined select list of (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 02:12:55 AM) (2 of 9) [CW-27088/2018] the candidates for being appointed as Constables in Commissionerate, Jaipur was published on the Police Department's website, by which the petitioner found that despite a higher aggregate mark 50.25, he was not appointed as a Constable (General) in Scheduled Tribe category even while those having lesser marks than the petitioner in ST male category were so appointed. The petitioner, in the circumstance approached this Court by way of the present writ petition.
Vide interim order dated 25.1.2019, this Court on the facts before it directed that petitioner's Physical Standard Test with reference to his height and chest measurements, be conducted by a Medical Board of three Doctors constituted by the Superintendent, SMS Medical College and Hospital, Jaipur. The petitioner was resultantly put through the Medical Board examination on 1.2.2019. The report of the Physical Examination of the petitioner by the Medical Board aforesaid has been received by this Court. Therefrom it is evident that the petitioner's height is 179.5 Cms. and his normal chest (deflated) is 82 Cms. and when inflated 88 Cms.
Reply to the writ petition has been filed. It has been submitted that at the time of PST, petitioner's normal chest was (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 02:12:55 AM) (3 of 9) [CW-27088/2018] 77.1 Cms. whereas as per requirement the chest (deflated) ought to have been 81 Cms. In this view of the matter, the petitioner was allowed to participate in PET only after relaxation in PST. The petitioner himself signed the sheet, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner qualified PST with relaxation. It has also been submitted that in note (1) of condition no. 8 (viii) of the advertisement dated 25.5.2018, it was categorically mentioned that in the event of non availability of SC / ST category candidates according to the prescribed physical standards, they would be entitled to 5 Cms. relaxation in height and chest. Since the candidates of requisite height and chest were available (without relaxation), therefore, under Rule 14(2) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1989') the candidature of petitioner who qualified PST with relaxation was not considered for appointment albeit he had secured an aggregate mark in the category higher than the mark of those appointed as such candidates had not availed relaxation in the PST.
There is no dispute with regard to the petitioner's height, which is admittedly 179.5 cms. and as per the prescribed standard for the PST.
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 02:12:55 AM)
(4 of 9) [CW-27088/2018] So far as the petitioner's chest measurements are concerned, counsel for the respondents submitted that if aggrieved of grant of relaxation in PST and being passed thereon, the petitioner should have at the relevant time filed an appeal, as provided for under the advertisement dated 25.5.2018. That he did not so do entails an inference that he admitted to the need for relaxation in his chest parameters to pass the PST at the relevant time and thereafter has set up a false case after being denied appointment for reason of vacancies in his category being filled up by those who passed the PST albeit with lesser aggregate mark but without relaxation.
Heard. Considered.
Admittedly the petitioner secured 50.25 marks for appointment to the post of Constable in Police Commissionerate, Jaipur which is well above aggregate marks on which appointment of Constables in the category to which the petitioner belongs were made. The petitioner was however not appointed for reasons of having been pushed down in the select list in terms of Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1989 for purportedly having been given relaxation on his PST for reason of his chest circumference at the relevant (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 02:12:55 AM) (5 of 9) [CW-27088/2018] time being purported found, when deflated 77.1 Cms. (less than the prescribed 81 Cms.).
The conclusion of the respondent Police Department at the petitioner's PST regarding the deflated chest measurement however stands falsified by the Medical Board's report dated 1.2.2019 drawn subsequent to the order dated 25.1.2019, from which it is quite apparent that the petitioner did not require any relaxation in his selection as Constable Male Category as was suo moto granted to him leading to his being pushed down in merit. That arbitraty action of the respondents has resulted in the non selection / non appointment of the petitioner.
As far as the petitioner signing the PST participation list recording that he had passed it with relaxation is concerned, I am of the considered view that this fact cannot operate to the petitioner's detriment. For one the petitioner had been declared pass. To expect candidates at the recruitment of constables, who largely come from a rural background with the minimum education and of the quality it is ordinarily available in the hinterland, to appreciate the nuance between pass and pass with relaxation is a little unjust and unfair. And so is for them to appreciate that (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 02:12:55 AM) (6 of 9) [CW-27088/2018] despite a "pass" in the PST an appeal could be filed. That is a level of understanding which even those with a better educational background upto class X but without an understanding of law may lack.
Employment has an inextricable connection to the right to livelihood. Denial of employment despite better comparative merit over those appointed has to be for reasons categorically communicated at the relevant time. Inferences of the reasons in such situations cannot be countenanced more so in the context of appointments in the lowest cadre of Government services where success at each stage of the appointment process is a matter of relief and even celebration with the prospect of escaping from an uncertain and difficult life for the candidate in view of his current socio-economic status. Grant of relaxation at the PST in the course of recruitment of Constable indeed entails a prejudicial statutory consequence of being pushed down in the merit list despite a higher aggregate marks than the cut off marks on which appointments are made and denial of appointment to the candidate concerned. The relevant advertisement should as compliant with the principles of natural justice in the circumstances clearly should have declared and notified all (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 02:12:55 AM) (7 of 9) [CW-27088/2018] candidates of the deleterious consequence of relaxation and also inform them of the appeal provision qua a PST pass with relaxation. Candidates at the level of Constable recruitment cannot be expected to understand on reading of the Rules of 1989 the nuance of PST pass per se on the one hand, PST pass with relaxation on the other--and to comprehend, that when passing PST with relaxation, the right to appeal would still be available and advisedly availed. The ambiguity obtaining, as recorded above, could have very easily been clarified in the advertisement dated 25.5.2018. That was admittedly not done. Further instead of stamping PST pass on the petitioner's admit card for the PST/ PET, the respondents should have stamped PST pass with relaxation such that the petitioner would have been put to notice of his precarious status and be cognizant of the his right to appeal in that regard. That was also not done. Yet all the burden of allegedly not filing an appeal, despite passing the PST as stamped on the petitioner's admit card, is sought to be shifted on him - one not too well educated (and lacking in capacity to appreciate legal nuances) and seeking appointment at the lowest rank of the police force.
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 02:12:55 AM)
(8 of 9) [CW-27088/2018] For reasons recorded above in the exercise of the extraordinary equitable jurisdiction, this Court when faced with issues of livelihood and life--as employment entails--cannot countenance a situation as obtains in the present case. The non- filing of appeal by the petitioner against being passed on his PST with relaxation--cannot be of any consequence in the facts of the case to hold that the writ petition as laid is not maintainable - as has vociferously submitted by Mr. Harshal Tholia for the repondent
- Police Deapartment. The respondent-police department instead should get its act in order and where SC/ ST candidates are given the benefit of relaxation at the PST they should clearly and categorically be so informed including by way of the stamp on the admit card for PST/ PET reflecting PST pass with relaxation and notifying the right to appeal.
Further in the context of the volume of candidates at the PST errors in the course thereof cannot be discounted and the exercise cannot be sanitized from the "inevitable human error". That error which appears to have been occasioned in the petitioner's PST now stands rectified by the report (dated 1.2.2019) of the 3 Doctor Medical Board constituted under the order of this Court.
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 02:12:55 AM)
(9 of 9) [CW-27088/2018] Resultantly I would allow this petition and direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Constable in Police Commissionerate as per his merit in the select list at the recruitment of Constables in 2018. This is consequent to the finding of this Court for reasons recorded above that the petitioner had the requisite physical standards prescribed under the Rules of 1989 both on height and chest requirements and did not require any relaxation under Rule 14 (2) of the Rules of 1989 resulting his being pushed down in the select list despite a higher aggregate mark of 50.25 viz-a-viz other candidates with lesser requisite mark in the ST category.
Necessary steps for the petitioner's appointment be taken within a period of four weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall however be entitled only to notional benefits.
(ALOK SHARMA),J DILIP KHANDELWAL (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 02:12:55 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)