Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Revant Ram Meghwal vs State Of Rajasthan on 27 November, 2018
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ No. 13731/2018
1. Revant Ram Meghwal S/o Dana Ram Meghwal, Aged
About 23 Years, Ward No. 4, Lunkha, Chhattargarh,
District Bikaner (Raj.).
2. Raju Ram Gurda S/o Munshi Ram Gurda,, Aged About 29
Years, Ward No. 21, Aguna Bass Sinthan, District Bikaner
(Raj.).
3. Chandra Prakash Meghwal S/o Dula Ram Meghwal,, Aged
About 33 Years, Village And Post Lohiya, Tehsil- Kolayat,
District Bikaner (Raj.).
4. Sundar Lal Goyal S/o Dula Ram,, Aged About 30 Years,
Near Baba Ramdev Mandir, Aguna Bas Sinthal, District
Bikaner (Raj.).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters,
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. The D.i.g. Of Police, 10 Th Battalion Rac, Bikaner (Raj.).
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner (Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ No. 13987/2018
Govind Singh Rathore S/o Shri Dilip Singh Rathore, Aged About
22 Years, R/o 115 Prem Nagar, Badgaon, Udaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarter, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
(2 of 22)
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Kota Range, Rajasthan.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Baran, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 13989/2018
Ram Chandra S/o Sukha Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Village
Gadhsuriya, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, District Kota.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 14362/2018
Kishan S/o Revet Ram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o 43, Raiko Ka
Bass, Benan, Pipar City, District Jodhpur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, District Udaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 14376/2018
Tilok Chand S/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 25 Years, Behind
Kishan Dharm Kanta Rora Road, Nokha, District Bikaner (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, District Baran.
(3 of 22)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 14390/2018
1. Teja Ram S/o Shankara Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Karna, Post Bhunka, Tehsil Sindhry, District
Barmer (Raj.).
2. Dharm Singh Prajapat S/o Kalu Ram Prajapat,, Aged
About 24 Years, Village And Post Jasota, Tehsil And
District Dausa.
3. Pradeep Lega S/o Kheta Ram,, Aged About 24 Years,
Village Uncharda Khurd, Post Bhuriyasani, Tehsil Merta
City, District Nagaur.
4. Mahendra Kerapa S/o Hari Ram,, Aged About 24 Years,
Village Kadarpura, Post Baran Gaon, District Nagaur.
5. Dharmveer Singh S/o Nathu Ram Saini,, Aged About 21
Years, Dhani-Churala, Post Natha Ki Nangal, District Sikar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Home
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, District Baran.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 14419/2018
Om Prakash S/o Pema Ram, Aged About 27 Years, Bishnoi Bas,
Village And Post Alay, District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
2. The Director General Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. The Superintendent Of Police, District Kota Rural
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 14449/2018
Ashoka D/o Shri Ram Lal, Aged About 19 Years, R/o Shiv Mandir,
(4 of 22)
Nedi Nari, Tehsil Dhorimanna, District Barmer.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Home
Department, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General Of Police, Kota.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Kota.
5. Police Commissioner, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 14531/2018
1. Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Rampal, Aged About 23 Years, By
Caste Jat, Village Bhirani, Tehsil Bhadra District
Hanumangarh.
2. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Hawa Singh,, Aged About 26 Years,
By Caste Jat, Village Bhirani, Tehsil Bhadra District
Hanumangarh.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Baran.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 14684/2018
Shrawan Ram Sinwar S/o Basti Ram Sinwar, Aged About 24
Years, Khamiyad, Tehsil - Ladnu, District- Nagaur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary , Department
Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj)
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters,
Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur (Raj.)
(5 of 22)
4. The D.i.g. Of Police, Ajmer (Raj.)
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Nagaur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 14701/2018
Bhagwan Chawla S/o Shri Girdhari Lal Khatik, Aged About 25
Years, Village Neemjhar, Post Kalesariya, Tehsil Deogarh, District
Rajsamand (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters,
Jaipur (Raj)
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. The Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur (Raj.)
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 14750/2018
Binjraj Singh S/o Shri Ranu Singh, Aged About 26 Years, Village
Sanwant Kua Kallan, Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters,
Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. The D.i.g. Of Police, Kota (Raj.)
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Baran (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 14823/2018
Om Prakash Saran S/o Todar Ram, Aged About 27 Years, B/c Jat,
Nathusar Bas, Gajner Road, Bikaner (Raj.)
(6 of 22)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj)
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters,
Jaipur (Raj)
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur (Raj)
4. The D.i.g. Of Police, 10Th Battalion Rac, Bikaner (Raj)
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner (Raj)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 14932/2018
Anda Ram S/o Bharu Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village
Kerala, Post Chidiya, Tehsil Gida, District Barmer (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
2. The Director General Police, Headquarter, Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
3. The Superintendent Of Police, District Baran.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 14991/2018
Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Pala Ram, Aged About 21 Years, Village
Post Rampura, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment) Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Baran, District Baran.
----Respondents
(7 of 22)
S.B. Civil Writ No. 15076/2018
Surendra Karwasara S/o Shri Sunda Ram Karwasara, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Village Nalot, Jorawar Nagar, Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Additional Chief
Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarter, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Inspector Of Police, Kota Range, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 15281/2018
Lokesh Verma Bhand S/o Shri Manohar Lal Bhand, Aged About
27 Years, By Caste Sc, R/o Near Railway Station, Kunwariya,
Koaria, Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarters,
Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Head Quarters, Jaipur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 15390/2018
Ramesh S/o Mohan Ram, Aged About 20 Years, Village Uncharda
Khurd, Post Bhuryasani, Tehsil Merta City, District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur,
Rajasthan
2. The Director General Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur
(8 of 22)
3. The Superintendent Of Police, District Baran
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 16016/2018
1. Surendra Singh Ranawat S/o Sohan Singh Ranawat, Aged
About 24 Years, Near The Aostiya Gowshala Kankroli,
Distt. Rajsamand (Raj.)
2. Kamlesh Kumawat S/o Laxmi Lal Kumawat, Aged About
24 Years, 219, Naya Akhada Road, Near Mukharji Choraha
Kankroli, Rajasamand (Raj.)
3. Dinesh Chandra Dholi S/o Ram Lal Dholi, Aged About 25
Years, Vill- Jato Ka Dudaliya, Tehsil- Deorgarh, Dist.-
Rajsamand (Raj.)
4. Mukesh Barhath S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 25 Years, Vill
Jato Ka Dudaliya, Tehsil- Deorgarh, Dist.- Rajsamand
(Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.)
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters,
Jaipur
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Police Commissioner-Cum-Chairman, Selection Board For
Constable Recruitment, Udaipur (Raj.)
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Rajsamand (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 16274/2018
Dipendra Singh Kumpawat S/o Shri Hari Singh Kumpawat, Aged
About 20 Years, By Caste Rajput, R/o Quarter No. 72, Reserve
Police Line, Rajsamand, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department
Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarters,
(9 of 22)
Jaipur
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Head Quarters, Jaipur
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Rajsamand, Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 16393/2018
Om Prakash S/o Mr. Sugana Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Resident
Of Vpo Gajuwas Taranagar, District Churu 331304.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Home
Department, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General-Cum-Member Secretary Of Selection
Board For Constable Recruitment, Kota.
4. Police Commissioner-Cum-Chairman Selection Board For
Constable Recruitment, Kota.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 16509/2018
1. Dinesh Kumar S/o Mangla Ram, Aged About 30 Years,
Village And Post Chuntisara, Tehsil And District Nagaur
(Raj.)
2. Manoj S/o Arjun Ram, Aged About 23 Years, Near
Government Iti, Manasar, District Nagaur (Raj.)
3. Prahlad Ram S/o Urja Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Village
Shyamsar, Tehsil And District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan
2. The Director General Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. The Superintendent Of Police, Ajmer
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 16787/2018
1. Karan Singh Ranawat S/o Ray Singh Ranawat, Aged
About 22 Years, Vill. Ranawato Ka Guda, Tehsil
(10 of 22)
Nathdwara, Distt.- Rajsamand (Raj.).
2. Dheeraj Bagora S/o Krishna Kant Bagora,, Aged About 26
Years, Vill. Nathdwara, Teshil Nathdwara, Rajsamand
(Raj.).
3. Sangeeta Gurjar S/o Madhav Lal,, Aged About 20 Years,
Vill- Dovada, Teshil- Amet, Dist.- Rajsamand. (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters,
Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Police Commissioner-Cum-Chairman Selection, Board Of
Constable Recruitment, Udaipur, (Raj.).
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Rajsamand (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 17071/2018
Ram Jeevan S/o Shri Hardev Ram, Aged About 23 Years,
Resident Of Village Kherapa, Tehsil Baori, District Jodhpur
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment) Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Kota, District Kota.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 17156/2018
Kanhaiya Lal Kumawat S/o Babu Lal Kumawat, Aged About 21
Years, R/o Vill. Khatamala, Tehsil And Distt. - Rajsamand. (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
(11 of 22)
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. Police Commissioner-Cum-Chairman Selection Board For
Constable Recruitment, Udaipur, (Raj.).
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Rajsamand, (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ No. 15403/2018
Ganesh Ram S/o Sh. Jhabar Mal, aged about 23 years, resident
of Village Dheerwas Bara, Tehsil Taranagar, District Churu
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through its Additional Chief
Secretary, Home Department, Government of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters,
Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. The Inspector General Of Police, Rajasthan, Kota.
5. The Superintendent of Police, Kota.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V.R. Choudhary, Mr. V.S. Bhati, Mr.
S.S. Choudhary, Mr. Hanuman Singh,
Mr. VLS Rajpurohit, Mr. Inderjeet
Yadav, Mr. Hemant Dutt, Mr. M.S.
Deora, Mr. Shreyansh Mardia, Mr. P.K.
Poonia, Mr. G.R. Bhari, Mr. K.R.
Saharan, Mr. Sanjay Nahar.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.R. Singh, AAG with Ms. Depika
Purohit.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 27/11/2018 (12 of 22) These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to re-schedule and re- conduct the Physical Efficiency Test ('PET') of the petitioners and based on result of such PET, they may be appointed on the post of Constable (General) / Constable Driver etc. The recruitment for the post of Constable was initiated by the respondents by advertisement dated 25.05.2018, wherein District / Unit-wise posts under various categories were indicated. The procedure for recruitment envisaged a written examination followed by Physical Standard Test ('PST') and Physical Efficiency Test ('PET'). The PET envisaged a 5 km. run to be completed maximum in 25 minutes for candidates other than Ex-serviceman and those belonging to Shahariya & SC/ST of TSP area for whom the maximum time provided was 28 minutes and 30 minutes respectively.
The petitioners after qualifying in the written examination, were called for PST/PET by uploading their admit cards. The PET was scheduled on various dates and at designated stadiums where all the petitioners appeared, passed PST and then participated in the 5 km. run for PET, wherein the petitioners failed.
In all the petitions, the allegations made are that there were heavy rains during the period the PET was scheduled, resulting in the running track getting muddy due to rain water, the candidates faced problems and could not perform to their potential. It is alleged that despite such condition of the stadium / track, the PET was conducted which resulted in the petitioners failing in PET.
All the petitions contained omnibus averments irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner/petitioners could complete the 5 km. run or not, in some writ petitions news-papers cuttings and (13 of 22) certain photographs of the stadiums were annexed to substantiate the allegations made in this regard. However, by merely looking at the photographs etc., the authenticity and/or whether the status indicated therein had any relevance to the PET undertaken by the petitioner could not assessed.
Reply to the writ petitions were filed and the averments made therein were disputed.
Submissions were also made that irrespective of the rains, the ground conditions were not such so as to hamper the candidates in undertaking the 5 km. run; several other candidates had participated in the PET and cleared the same. Submissions were also made based on certain data produced for perusal of the Court indicating the ratio of the successful candidates being more or less, the same during the entire period when the PET was conducted i.e. 04.09.2018 to 13.09.2018 irrespective of the ground being rain effected.
In view of the highly disputed state of pleadings and the material available on record, when during course of submissions respondents indicated that they were in possession of videography pertaining to the various PETs, the following order, inter-alia, was passed by the Court on 09.10.2018:-
"In the facts and circumstances of the case, wherein there is a dispute between the petitioners and the respondents qua the condition of the ground as to whether the same was fit for use for run / PET, which aspect apparently cannot be decided based on the averments made in the writ petitions and the counter affidavit / submissions made by learned AAG.
As videography of the each particular run is available, it would be appropriate to appoint a Commissioner to go through the videography to be produced by the respondents pertaining to the particular day when the run of each petitioner was held and to make a report to the Court pertaining to the condition of the ground as visible from the videography and the run undertaken / PET held at the said stadium.
(14 of 22) For the said purpose, Mr. Sharad Kothari, Advocate is appointed as Commissioner.
Learned AAG would make available all the recordings either on a CD or on a pen drive to the Commissioner date-wise qua each stadium and the Commissioner would after going through the same would make a report qua each date / stadium as noticed above.
Respective counsel for the petitioners / respondents would be free to attend such screening by the learned Commissioner.
The material shall be delivered by learned AAG by 12.10.2018 or as soon as possible to the Commissioner, who would do the needful on 15.10.2018 at 10:00 a.m. and in case required on 16.10.2018 and the report be produced by learned Commissioner on 22.10.2018 in a sealed cover with the CD/ Pen drives."
In terms of the above directions, the Commissioner undertook the exercise in presence of counsel representing the parties and submitted his report dated 22.10.2018 alongwith external hard disk and 04 Pen Drives made available to him by the State. The report was taken on record and the Commissioner was requested to supply a copy of the report on Pen Drive to counsel representing the petitioners. Parties were granted opportunity to file objections to the report, if any, before the next date.
Despite grant of opportunity to file objections to the Commissioner's report, no objection whatsoever has been filed by any of the parties.
Submissions were made by learned counsel for the parties, during which, both the parties to the extent the report was in their favour, relied on the report of the Commissioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on Sudhakar Pandey v. The State of U.P. : Writ petition No.5254/2011, decided on 01.11.2013 by Allahabad High Court and State of U.P. v. Sudhakar Pandey : Special Appeal No.149/2013, decided on 30.07.2014 by Allahabad High Court.
(15 of 22) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the Commissioner's report.
The learned Commissioner indicated that exhaustive material qua each date / stadium was provided by the State, the video provided mostly captured the PET from 03 vantage points, 02 front cameras at the starting point and 01 back camera at the finishing point. No videography footage was provided in relation to overall running track / ground and as such, the Commissioner was able to gauge and report the condition of the track at the start / finish section. The Commissioner being aware of the fact that he was not required to draw inference as to whether the condition of the track was impeding enough so as to restrict the candidate from finishing the run in given time frame and therefore, he followed doctrinal approach by surveying the available material.
Based on the approach adopted by the Commissioner qua the available material having gone through the same in presence of the counsel for the parties / representatives of the parties, the Commissioner after producing screen shots of each impugned run from available cameras, made following observations qua the PET pertaining to each writ petition :-
Petition No. Date, Venue & Time Observations of Commissioner SBCWP 29.08.2018 Only the start/finish section of the No.13731/2018 Jaipur track is visible in the video. The 4:02 P.M. videography reveals existence of water on the track. Though it is difficult to extrapolate the condition of the entire track but by looking at the feet of the candidates, it can be said that the track got reasonably sticky.
SBCWP 29.08.2018 Only the start/finish section of the
No.14823/2018 Jaipur track is visible in the video. The
08:46 A.M. videography does not reveal
existence of significant water on the
track. Though it is difficult to
(16 of 22)
extrapolate the condition of the
entire track but on the face of it, the
condition of track looks reasonably
dry & firm.
SBCWP 07.09.2018 Only the start/finish section of the
No.14684/2018 Ajmer track is visible in the video. The
SBCWP 10:49 A.M. videography reveals slightly wet
No.16509/2018 matting (laid for the purposes of
monitoring the time of candidates)
which dries as the run progresses.
Though it is difficult to extrapolate
the condition of the entire track but
on the face of it, the condition of
track looks dry & firm.
SBCWP 07.09.2018 Only the start/finish section of the
No.14390/2018 Kota track is visible in the video. The
SBCWP 9:21/22 A.M. videography reveals slight patches
No.15390/2018 of wetness on matting (laid for the
SBCWP purposes of monitoring the time of
No.14376/2018 candidates) at the beginning of the
SBCWP run, which dries as the run
No.14932/2018 progresses. Though it is difficult to
extrapolate the condition of the
entire track but on the face of it, the
condition of track looks dry & firm.
SBCWP 08.09.2018 Only the start/finish section of the
No.13987/2018 Kota track is visible in the video. The
12:48 P.M. videography reveals submerged
track leading to troughs / ditches on
the track. There were heavy rains
on this day and part of the run was
even conducted during the
downpour. The track ex facie looks
swampy, muddy & potholed.
SBCWP 09.09.2018 Only the start/finish section of the
No.14750/2018 Kota track is visible in the video. The
SBCWP 02:16 P.M. videography reveals muddy track.
No.14991/2018 Though it is difficult to extrapolate
SBCWP the condition of the entire track but
No.14531/2018 a look at the feet of the candidates
SBCWP suggest that the entire track could
No.16393/2018 be pretty muddy.
SBCWP 10.09.2018 Only the start/finish section of the
No.13989/2018 Kota track is visible in the video. The
SBCWP 09:02/03 A.M. videography reveals that the race
No.15403/2018 began on a track which was dry-
SBCWP muddy but over the course of the
No.17071/2018 run, due to precipitation, the track
got wet-muddy. Though it is difficult
to extrapolate the condition of the
entire track but on the face of it, the
condition of track looks slightly
muddy.
(17 of 22)
SBCWP 10.09.2018 Only the start/finish section of the
No.15076/2018 Kota track is visible in the video. The
10:31 A.M. videography reveals that the run
took place on slightly muddy albeit
firm track. Though it is difficult to
extrapolate the condition of the
entire track but a look at the feet of
the candidates would reveal that the
entire track would have been
somewhat muddy.
SBCWP 11.09.2018 Only the start/finish section of the
No.14449/2018 Kota track is visible in the video. The
10:32 A.M. videography does not reveal
existence of significant water on the
track. Though it is difficult to
extrapolate the condition of the
entire track but on the face of it, the
condition of track looks reasonably
firm & settled.
SBCWP 13.09.2018 Only the start/finish section of the
No.14419/2018 Kota track is visible in the video. The
12:35 P.M. videography does not reveal
existence of significant water on the
track. As a matter of fact, this is the
only run, which was conducted in
partly sunny weather. Though it is
difficult to extrapolate the condition
of the entire track but on the face of
it, the condition of track looks
reasonably firm & dry.
SBCWP 07.09.2018 Only the start/finish section of the
No.14362/2018 Udaipur track is visible in the video. The
11:19 A.M. videography does not reveal
existence of significant water on the
track. Though it is difficult to
extrapolate the condition of the
entire track but on the face of it, the
condition of track looks reasonably
firm.
SBCWP 08.09.2018 Only the start/finish section of the
No.14701/2018 Udaipur track is visible in the video. Since, it
SBCWP 12:42 P.M. rained before the run was held, the
No.15281/2018 wetness is apparent on the visible
SBCWP track. Though it is difficult to
No.16016/2018 extrapolate the condition of the
SBCWP entire track but a look at the feet of
No.16274/2018 the running candidates would show
SBCWP that the condition of track would not
No.16787/2018 have been wet-muddy.
SBCWP
No.17156/2018
Though the Commissioner has not reported specifically qua SBCWP Nos. 16509/2018, 16393/2018, 17071/2018, (18 of 22) 16274/2018, 16787/2018 & 17156/2018, as the said writ petitions were filed after the Commissioner had undertaken the exercise, learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that their petitions may be decided based on the Commissioner's report qua the respective dates and therefore, in the above table, these writ petitions have been included against the respective dates of PET at the specific submissions of counsel for the parties, who have gone through the Commissioner's report in this regard.
A bare look at the observations made by the Commissioner qua each run and the report prepared by him with screen shots, indicates a meticulous exercise undertaken by the Commissioner, wherein with the available material, a report exhaustive in all respects has been prepared so much so that none of the parties have raised any objection rather both the sides have relied on the Commissioner's report.
The learned Commissioner in his report, which is evident from the screen shots, has made varied observations qua the condition of the track in relation to the each PET conducted by the respondents. The same can be categorised in two groups, wherein the Commissioner has found the condition of the tracks reasonably dry & firm etc. and where he has found the condition of the tracks as reasonably sticky / swampy, muddy & potholed / pretty muddy / slightly muddy / somewhat muddy. Besides the above qua one track making observation that 'the condition of the tracks would not have been wet-muddy.' It would be observed that the PET required to be conducted by the respondents as part of the recruitment to the post of Constable involving a 5 km. run, essentially is one of the most important ingredient of the recruitment exercise wherein the (19 of 22) physical efficiency of a candidate is tested to the hilt and the best available candidate can be recruited.
For the purpose of having a fair recruitment, inter-se the candidates and qua each individual candidate, it is the duty of the recruiting agency also to provide a reasonably normal conditions so as to ensure that the candidate is able to participate in the recruitment exercise to best of his ability and is not hampered on account of extraneous conditions. Providing of a reasonably good running track for undergoing the PET is one of such condition. It is true that change of climatic conditions like rains, storms etc. cannot be accurately predicted, but once on account of such climate, the condition of the track deteriorates to the extent that the efficiency of the candidates is hampered, it cannot be said that the recruiting agency would then be justified to continue with its exercise of undertaking PET irrespective of the condition of the track.
The Commissioner has observed qua the condition on 08.09.2018 at 12:48 p.m. at Kota that there were heavy rains on the day and part of the run was conducted during the downpour, which clearly indicates a totally insensitive attitude on part of the recruiting agency. The mere fact that even during such kind of run in adverse conditions, few candidates could succeed in achieving the required landmark i.e. completing 5 km. run in 25 minutes cannot be a reason enough for concluding that all was well.
Besides the above, the other side of the picture also needs to be taken into consideration wherein, merely because it had rained a day earlier, during some part of the day, the said reason also cannot be sufficient to come to a conclusion that the candidates were not made available appropriate conditions for undertaking (20 of 22) the PET. The Commissioner, in his report, qua several runs, regarding which complaint has been made, has observed that irrespective of some wetness on the matting placed for monitoring the time of the candidates, the condition of the track appeared dry & firm and therefore, in those conditions the candidates only on account of the fact that they failed in achieving the landmark cannot succeed in getting another opportunity to undergo a fresh PET.
Allahabad High Court in the case of Sudhakar Pandey (supra), in somewhat similar case, directed holding of fresh PET, which order of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench in an appeal filed by the State of U.P. (supra).
Learned counsel for the parties, essentially conceded to the report of the Commissioner qua most of the writ petitions, however, counsel in SBCWP No.14701/2018 and other matters pertaining to the PET held on 08.09.2018 at Udaipur at 12:42 p.m. sought to contest the observations made by the Commissioner and made submissions that as only start and finish on the track was visible in video and wetness was apparent on the track, the same was sufficient to come to a conclusion that the candidates were not provided reasonable conditions to undertake the PET and therefore, the observation made by the Commissioner that "the condition of the track would not have been wet-muddy"
is not in sync with by the conditions available at the site.
Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the finding and submitted that the finding recorded by the Commissioner is based on the material available on record and nothing contrary has been placed on record to substantiate the (21 of 22) finding and therefore, the submissions made in this regard cannot be accepted.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties in relation to the particular run.
The Commissioner has provided six screen shots of the run, 02 at the beginning, 02 during the run and 02 at/around end of the run. The mattings meant for recording the time of candidates, appear wet, however, the end of the run picture, is quite clear and is representative of the status of the track. The candidate visible in the picture is wearing white sport shoes, which in the pictures are 'sparkling white' at the end of the 5 km. run. The entire visible portion of the shoes from both the cameras indicate that apparently no mud had stuck the said white shoes and therefore, the observations made by the Commissioner i.e. "look at the feet of the running candidates shows that the condition of the track would not have been wet-muddy" cannot be faulted.
In view thereof, the submissions sought to be made by learned counsel for the parties qua only one run has no substance.
Generally it may be observed, that though the condition of the track essentially is a question of fact which could not have been adjudicated on account of conflicting versions by the petitioners and the respondents but for the availability of the videography and the court having taken assistance of the Commissioner, whose observations made in this regard have been accepted by most of the petitioners and the respondents and contents thereof not at all in dispute, the same has facilitated the resolution of the issues raised by the petitioner. The efforts made by learned Court Commissioner Mr. Sharad Kothari, Advocate in presenting a report complete in all respects deserves appreciation.
(22 of 22) In view of the above discussion, based on the report of the Commissioner, which has been accepted by the parties, and qua one report the feeble objections raised have been rejected by the Court, the cases wherein the track has been found dry & firm / reasonably firm & settle / reasonably firm and the condition of the track was not found as wet-muddy, the petitions filed by the petitioners have no substance, the petitions wherein the condition of the track has been found as reasonably sticky /swampy, muddy & potholed / pretty muddy / slightly muddy / somewhat muddy, the candidates deserve one more opportunity to undergo the PET.
Consequently, SBCWP Nos.13731/2018, 13987/2018, 14750/2018, 14991/2018, 14531/2018, 16393/2018, 13989/2018, 15403/2018, 17071/2018 & 15076/2018 are allowed, the result of the petitioners in these petitions pertaining to the PET conducted by the respondents is quashed and set- aside. The respondents are directed to hold fresh PET for the petitioners on 15.12.2018 at Rajasthan Police Training Centre, Mandore Road, Jodhpur and based on the performance of the petitioners, if they pass the PET and appear in the merit-list, they shall be granted appointment from the date other candidates were granted appointment pursuant to the recruitment with actual benefits from the date of appointment. SBCWP Nos.14823/2018, 14684/2018, 16509/2018, 14390/2018, 15390/2018, 14376/2018, 14932/2018, 14449/2018, 14419/2018, 14362/2018, 14701/2018, 15281/2018, 16016/2018, 16274/2018, 16787/2018 & 17156/2018 are dismissed.
No order as to costs.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J Rm/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)