Vishwas Sinsinwar S/O Shri Yaduveer ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 3 September, 2020

[Cites 20, Cited by 3]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Vishwas Sinsinwar S/O Shri Yaduveer ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 3 September, 2020

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1629/2020

1. Vishwas Sinsinwar S/o Shri Yaduveer Singh, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Jaghina Gate, Gopalgarh, Distt. Bharatpur
(Raj.)
2. Khagendra Kumar Sanwariya S/o Shri Amar Chand, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Mig Fiat, Block No. A, Sector-7,
Transport Nagar, Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
3. Lekhraj Meena S/o Shri Nathu Lal Meena, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village Garh Ki Kothi, Post Garh, Tehsil Bassi,
Distt. Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Kailash Chand Yadav S/o Jagar Mal Yadav, Aged About 33
Years, R/o Village Poonchhlawali, Post Neem Ka Thana,
Distt. Sikar (Raj.)
5. Deepak Kumar Sharma S/o Ravi Kumar Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Kherli Rail Rural, Kathumar, Distt.
Alwar (Raj.)
6. Maur Kanwar D/o Shri Umed Singh, Aged About 30 Years,
R/o Village Sindhara, Tehsil Bhinmal, Distt. Jalore (Raj.)
7. Mata Deen Meena S/o Hargovind Meena, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village Bhopan Ki Dhani, Post And Tehsil
Baswa, Distt. Dausa (Raj.)
8. Bhoma Ram S/o Dhura Ram, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
38 Mile, Village And Post Dhadhaniya Sasan, Tehsil
Balesar, Distt. Jodhpur (Raj.)
9. Narendra Singh S/o Shri Bhanwar Singh, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Village Ladiya, Post Cheepalata, Tehsil Neem
Ka Thana, Distt. Sikar (Raj.)
10. Kanhaiya Lal Vaishnav S/o Jagdish Lal Vaishnav, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o Village And Post Karakala, Tehsil
Salumber, Distt. Udaipur (Raj.)
11. Kundan S/o Shri Bhagwana Ram, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o 70 Anand Vihar, Nagal Road, Jhothwara, Distt. Jaipur
(Raj.)
12. Shahrukh Khan S/o Shri Gulsher Ahmad, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Near Rest House, Ward No. 9, Anupgarh, Distt.
Sriganganagar (Raj.)
13. Mukesh Singh Bhatee S/o Vijay Singh Bhatee, Aged About

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(2 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

29 Years, R/o Village Bothiyawas, Post Abasar Tehsil
Sujangarh, District Churu (Raj.)
14. Ranveer Singh S/o Akshaya Singh, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village Shyampura, Post Poonia Ka Bas, Via Bissau,
District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
15. Yogendra Kumar Dhawal S/o Santosh Kumar Dhawal,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o Behind Gram Panchayat Shiv
Bari, Bikaner (Raj.)
16. Jagdish Narayan Choudhary S/o Ratan Lal Choudhary,
Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Rampura Bas Goner,
Post Badapadampura, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Police
Head Quarters, Jaipur.
3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.)
Through Secretary.
4. Mr. Sachin Mittal, Inspector General Of Police, Range
Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20163/2019
1. Lekhraj Meena S/o Shri Parmanand Meena, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Village And Post Kamkhera, Tehsil
Manoharthana, District Jhalawar
2. Gopal Singh S/o Raghu Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Bismillapura, Post Kotri, Tehsil Pirawa, District
Jhalawar
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Govt.
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head
Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Rajasthan,
Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(3 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Rajasthan, Ajmer,
Through Its Secretary
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1183/2020
Dharmendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Hazari Lal Meena, Aged
About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post Dolika, Tehsil Sikrai, District
Dausa.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Govt.
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head
Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment) Rajasthan,
Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Rajasthan, Ajmer,
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1241/2020
Sumit Kumar S/o Ram Niwas Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Old Bus Stand, Kund Road, Behror, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1242/2020
Maneesh Kumar Sharma S/o Brahamdatt Sharma, Aged About
30 Years, R/o Plot No. 12, Laxmi Vihar-B, Lalarpura,
Panchyawala, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(4 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1244/2020
Jyoti Sharma D/o Lalta Prasad Sharma, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o 2/296, Kala Kua, Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1408/2020
Yashpal Gahnoliya S/o Omprakash Gahnoliya, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Vpo Bhaislana, Via Jobner, Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1419/2020
Mohan Lal Yadav S/o Inderaj Mal Yadav, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Dhani Khati Wala, Post Mankari, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana,
District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(5 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1427/2020
Prem Kumar S/o Jaina Ram Choudhary, Aged About 33 Years,
R/o A-303, Bhrigu Apartment, Mansarovar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1577/2020
Kavita Jagrwal D/o Sh. Madanlal Jagrwal, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of B-14, Dev Narayan Colony, Ward No. 21, Chaksu,
Dist. Jaipur, Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.)
2. The Inspector General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Jaipur, Raj.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1656/2020
Ravi Kumar S/o Pooran Chand Verma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Mahadev Colony, Alwar Road, Kishangarhbas, District Alwar,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(6 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1775/2020
Ashok Kumar Son Of Shri Manohar Ram, Aged About 26 Years,
Resident Of Village And Post Nagrasar Tahsil Kolayat District
Bikaner.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary,
Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Jaipur.
3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1804/2020
Richa Kumari D/o Rambabu, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo
Dhanota, Tehsil And District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1837/2020
Rajesh Kumar Bhand S/o Madan Lal Bhand, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village Rudari, Post Hatiyana, Tehsil Kapasan, District
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(7 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1854/2020
Sita Kumari Jat D/o Shanker Lal Jat, Aged About 34 Years, R/o
Village Saropa, Post Languch, Tehsil Kapasan, District
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1928/2020
Jagdish Prasad Jat S/o Shri Nand Lal Jat, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of Village Post Radawas, Tehsil Shahpura, District
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police
Headquarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Jaipur Road, Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1941/2020
Rajveer Yadav S/o Leelaram Yadav, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village Gordhanpura, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(8 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1980/2020
Hemendra Singh Chouhan S/o Govind Singh Chouhan, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o Village Chouhano Ka Kanthariya, District
Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2007/2020
Seema Pal D/o Shri Janeshwar Pal W/o Shri Abhishek Kumar,
Aged About 31 Years, R/o 11, Deendayal Nagar, Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Police
Head Quarters, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer (Raj.)
4. Mr. Sanjeev Norjary, Inspector General Of Police Range-
Ajmer (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2096/2020
Rukamani D/o Bhanwar Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Salasar

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(9 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Residency, Plot No. C-186A, Bhura Patel Marg, Ayodhya Nagar,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2147/2020
Meenu Khakhal D/o Shri Virendra Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
B/c Jat (Obc), R/o Plot No. 45, Krishnam, Flat No. 102, Paschim
Vihar Extension, Loins Lane, Sirsi Road, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Phq Jyoti Nagar,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ghoonghara
Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2260/2020
Navratna Jat S/o Rameshwer Lal Choudhary, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Gujran Mohalla, Adarwa, Tehsil Dudu, Thana Naraina,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(10 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2357/2020
Surendra Kumar S/o Prahlad Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Vpo Majra, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2362/2020
Satyendra Singh S/o Shri Attar Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Behind Takshila School, Ward No. 10, Shikshak Colony, Tehsil
Behror, District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Police
Head Quarters, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer (Raj.)
4. Mr. Sachin Mittal, Inspector General Of Police, Range-
Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2363/2020
Amit Kumar Meena S/o Vijay Singh Meena, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o P. No. 12, Mahaveer Vistar Colony, Kartarpura, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(11 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2367/2020
Virendra Kumar Meena S/o Raja Ram Meena, Aged About 26
Years, R/o Village Jayram Ka Pura, Tehsil And Post Todabhim,
District Karauli, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2403/2020
Manohar Nayak S/o Narayan Lal Nayak, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Post Mungana, Tehsil Dhariyawadh, District Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan .
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2404/2020
Shobha Kumari Chaudhary D/o Hanuman Ram Riyad, Aged
About 29 Years, R/o 1277, Kajawa Ke Pass, Anandpur, Kalu With
Chak, District Pali, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(12 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2818/2020
Ranjana Matolia D/o Shri Shyam Sunder Sharma, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Ward No. 22, Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Home
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head
Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Rajasthan,
Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Rajasthan, Ajmer
Through Its Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3202/2020
Dev Kishan Gurjar S/o Narayan Gurjar, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Village Naya Ganv, Post Kethuda, Tehsil Nainwan, District Bundi,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3662/2020
Reena Yadav D/o Krishan Kumar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ahir
Bhagola, Post Ajarka, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(13 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6271/2020
Bhupendra Singh S/o Kana Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Village Hardayalpura, Post Takhalsar, Rajgarh Shekhawati,
Fatehpur Shekhawati, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7015/2020
Shankar Meena Son Of Shri Ramswroop Meena, Aged About 29
Years, Resident Of Dhani Meenawali, Village And Post Rajnota,
Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur
(Raj.)
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head
Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Inspector General Of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan (Raj.)
6. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(14 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7355/2020
Kiran Vishnoi Daughter Of Shri Ram Niwas Vishnoi, Aged About
24 Years, Resident Of D-25, Jamna Nagar, Path No. 3, Sodala,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur
(Raj.)
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head
Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Inspector General Of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan (Raj.)
6. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7367/2020
Ravi Prakash Meel S/o Sugriv Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o
Vpo Bhojasar, Jhunjhunu, Presently Residing At Room No. 33,
J.c. Bose Hostel, University Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7370/2020
1. Satya Narayan Meena S/o Shiv Ram Meena, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Vpo Rawajna Chaur, Tehsil And District
Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
2. Rajendra Prasad Meena S/o Harkesh Meena, Aged About

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(15 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

28 Years, R/o Village Parma Ki Dhani, Post Kakrala, Tehsil
Bamanwas, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan.
3. Ramraj Chaudhary S/o Lakshman Lal Chaudhary, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Jakhado Ki Dhani, Katsura,
Madanganj, Tehsil Kishangarh, District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
4. Pradhan Kuri S/o Gopal Lal Kuri, Aged About 31 Years,
R/o Village Kishanpura, Post Dhasuk, Tehsil Kishangarh,
District Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7371/2020
Baboo Lal Chaudhary S/o Pema Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Ward No. 03, Near Indra Baba Ki Bagichi, Sujangarh, District
Churu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7377/2020
Asha Sharma D/o Makkhan Lal Sharma, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Near Shri Krishan Public School, Chomu Road, Village
Khejroli, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(16 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7397/2020
Shetan Singh Sarangdevot S/o Ummed Singh Sarangdevot, Aged
About 25 Years, R/o Village Nayatalab, Batharda, Post Modi,
Tehsi Ballabhnagar, , District Udaipur, Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7463/2020
Virendra Kumar Verma S/o Shri Sunil Kumar, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Village And Post Barsinghpura, Via Palsana, Tehsil
Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7466/2020
Veerendra Singh S/o Prabhu Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o
Village And Post Parmadra, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(17 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7487/2020
1. Lokesh Chauhan S/o Pushpendra Pal Singh, Aged About
24 Years, R/o A-169, Vijay Singh Pathik Nagar, Gurjar
Colony, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Gajendra Singh Beniwal S/o Ramesh Beniwal, Aged About
24 Years, R/o Vpo Kachroli, Tehsil Hindauncity, District
Karauli, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7494/2020
1. Yogesh Kumar Son Of Shri Tara Chand, Aged About 30
Years, Resident Of 96, Aravali Vihar Colony, Alwar (Raj.)
2. Honesh Tanwar Son Of Shri Shivji Ram Tanwar, Aged
About 32 Years, Resident Of 315, Sanjay Nagar-B,
Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Ramraj Khatik Son Of Shri Gheesha Lal Khatik, Aged
About 31 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Junia, Tehsil
Kekri, District Ajmer (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur
(Raj.)

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(18 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head
Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Inspector General Of Police, Jaipur Range, Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan (Raj.)
6. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7509/2020
Ravi Kumar Meena S/o Prahlad Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Vpo Manyapura, Post Dholkhera, Tehsil Mahwa, District Dausa,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7512/2020
Urmila Mahala Daughter Of Shri Jagdish Prasad Mahala, Aged
About 28 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Dayalpura, Tehsil
Deedwana, District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief
Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Secretariat,
Jaipur .
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police
Headquarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Rajasthan
Police Headquarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, Recruitment And Promotion
Board And State Public Information Officer, Rajasthan,
Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.
5. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Jaipur Road, Ajmer (Raj.)

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(19 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7515/2020
Jaspal Beniwal S/o Chutara Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Opposite Sadar Thana, Shastri Nagar, Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7516/2020
Hari Ram S/o Raja Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 1 G.d.s.m.,
Govindsar, Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7519/2020
Mahesh Kumar Rinwa S/o Bhanwar Lal Rinwa, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Village Rari, Post Barna, Tehsil Kishangarh, District
Ajmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(20 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7520/2020
Kanchan D/o Mukana Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o House No.
59, Tagore Nagar, Kartarpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7573/2020
Nitin Kumar Surela S/o Ramesh Chand Surela, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 29-B, Vijay Nagar, Neb, Alwar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7622/2020
Vimla Sharma W/o Bhanwar Lal Sharma D/o Shri Banshidhar
Sharma, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of 38, Khera Wali Dhani,
Bad Murlipura, Post Garudwasi Tahsil Kotkhawada, Jaipur
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary,
Department Of Home, Secretariat Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Rajasthan Police, Through Director General Of Police,
Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur Road, Ajmer
Through Its Secretary.

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(21 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7628/2020
Tara Chand Meena Son Of Shri Pooran Mal Meena, Aged About
30 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Harsora, Tehsil Bansoor,
District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur
(Raj.)
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head
Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Inspector General Of Police, Jaipur Range Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur Metropolitan, (Raj.)
6. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7640/2020
Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Ramnath Sharma, Aged About
31 Years, Resident Of Village Rampura Post Raithal, Via
Kaladera, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7750/2020
Sunita D/o Bhagirath Mal, W/o Vikram Singh, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Vpo Tanyee, District Jhunjhunu
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Govt.

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(22 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head
Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment) Rajasthan,
Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur
4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Rajasthan Ajmer,
Through Its Secretary
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7780/2020
Narendra Lal Meena Son Of Nathu Lal Meena, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Village Mahariya, Tehsil Lalsot, District Dausa,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Home Department Through It Home
Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Rajasthan Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter
Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7836/2020
Shankar Lal Yadav S/o Shri Rameshwar Prasad Yadav, Aged
About 33 Years, R/o Village Bhojyada, Tehsil Chaksu, District
Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Govt.
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head
Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment) Rajasthan,
Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Rajasthan Ajmer,
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7859/2020

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(23 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Krishna Kumar S/o Sitaram Sharma, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Plot No.-1, Jamdoli, Keshav Vidhya Peeth, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7878/2020
Garima Chaudhary D/o Anil Kumar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Plot No. 4, Flat No. 4, Vishvesariya Nagar, Gopalpura Bypass,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter
Rajasthan Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7879/2020
Shahnaz Hassan D/o Ali Hassan Panwar, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o F-66, Ram Nagar Vistar, Swej Farm, Sodala, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(24 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8022/2020
Mamta Devi Jat D/o Shri Prayagmal Jat, Aged About 37 Years,
Resident Of Village Basera, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur
(Raj.)
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head
Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur
(Raj.)
5. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8079/2020
1. Akansha Trivedi D/o Mangi Lal Trivedi, Aged About 29
Years, R/o 8-B, Badi Brahmpuri, District Pali, Rajasthan.
2. Mumal D/o Kishan Lal, Aged About 32 Years, R/o D-22,
Police Line Pali, Tehsil And District Pali, Rajasthan.
3. Kritika D/o Kapil Muni, Aged About 27 Years, R/o In Front
Of Hanuman Temple, Vivekanand Colony, Anadara Circle,
Sirohi, District Sirohi, Rajasthan.
4. Devendra Nath Chouhan S/o Kailash Nath, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Ulpura Magra Pachhla, District Rajsamand,
Rajasthan.
5. Dilaver Singh Chouhan S/o Kan Singh Chouhan, Aged
About 28 Years, R/o Village Gada Kumhariya, Post Movai,
Tehsil Aspur, Bankora, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(25 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8109/2020
Sunita Kumari Sharma D/o Ramavtar Sharma, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Pattisitarampura, Post Anoppura, Tehsil Amber,
District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Rajasthan),
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8118/2020
Jitendra Kumar Bairwa S/o Ladu Lal Bairwa, Aged About 35
Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Bairwa Ka Mohlla, Rppppura, District
Tonk-304024, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Comission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8179/2020
Ramphool Gurjar S/o Shri Nathu Ram Gurjar, Aged About 32
Years, R/o Jhiri Ka Devra, Post Jhiri, Tehsil Thanagaji, District
Alwar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat Jaipur Rajasthan.
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi,
Jaipur Rajasthan.
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head
Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur Rajasthan.
4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Rajasthan

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(26 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8219/2020
Manju Sharma D/o Shri Madan Lal Sharma, Aged About 31
Years, R/o 120, Pujariyo Ka Mohalla, Village Saiwar, Tehcil
Jamwaramgarh District Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Home
Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police Rajasthan, Police Head
Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment) Rajasthan,
Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.
4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Rajasthan, Ajmer,
Through Its Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8443/2020
Vishan Dutt Meena S/o Shri Om Prakash Meena, Aged About 27
Years, R/o Ward No. 8, Dhani Meena Ka Bass, Pratibha Nagar,
Gadrata, Tehsil Khetri, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director General Of Police,
Rajasthan, Police Headquarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.
2. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Rajasthan,
Police Headquarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commision, Rajasthan, Ajmer
Through Its Secretary.
----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8455/2020
Deepak Kumar S/o Jal Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village
Lohagarh, Post Naunera, Tehsil Kaman, District Bharatpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(27 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8483/2020
Guman Ram Mundel Son Of Shri Ganpat Mundel, Aged About 27
Years, Resident Of Gram Marwar Mundwa, Inana, District Nagaur,
(Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8667/2020
Rubina Khan Daughter Of Abdul Shankur Khan, Aged About 31
Years, Resident Of 32 A, Vijay Colony, Meenawal, Sirsi Road,
Jaipur-302034.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8802/2020
Vimal Meena Son Of Rajesh Meena, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Mal Ki Dhani, Omex City, Thikariya, Jaipur (Raj.)

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(28 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission
(Rpsc), Ajmer (Raj.)
3. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9624/2020

1. Bhagwan Singh S/o Khet Singh, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Lesuwa Bhachbhar, Police Station Barmer, District
Barmer, Rajasthan.
2. Sher Singh S/o Tan Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Village And Post Gangasara, Police Station Sewda,
District Barmer, Rajasthan.
3. Rakesh Kumar S/o Dudaram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Meghwalon Ka Bas, Dhelari, Tehsil Desuri, District Pali,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9626/2020

Lakhan Singh Jatav S/o Haricharan Jatav, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Room No. 17, Zone-V, Rajasthan Police Academy, Kawatiya
Circle, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(29 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9068/2020

Prashant Dagur S/o Dhanvir Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Village Nyamatpur, Hatizar, Tehsil Weir, District Bharatpur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9279/2020

Pooja Acharya D/o Ratan Lal Acharya, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Street Of Kalerji, Post Rajaji Ka Karera, Tehsil Mandal,
District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7877/2020

1. Jitendra Rathore S/o Shri Bhawani Singh Rathore, Aged
About 34 Years, R/o House No. 441/51, Near Balalji
Temple, Lohagle Road, Pilikhan, Distt. Ajmer (Raj.)
2. Mukesh Choudhary S/o Shri Rupa Ram Choudhary, Aged
About 31 Years, R/o Village And Post Rihindi, Tehsil
Parbatsar, Distt. Nagaur (Raj.)
3. Seema Meena D/o Ram Khiladi Meena, Aged About 30
Years, R/o Vpo Bada Bujurg, Tehsil Mahwa, Distt. Dausa
(Raj.)
4. Vishnu Dutt S/o Om Prakash Vishnoi, Aged About 30
Years, R/o 54, Lpn, Tehsil Padampur, Distt. Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.)
5. Deen Dayal Udwaria S/o Shri Dhoora Ram, Aged About

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(30 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

27 Years, R/o Village Jaita Ki Dhani, Post Sola, Tehsil
Khandela, Distt. Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary
Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Police Head Quarters, Jaipur.
3. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission,
Ajmer (Raj.)
4. Mr. Sachin Mittal, Inspector General Of Police Range-
Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah Adv., Mr. Hanuman
Choudhary Adv., Mr. Rajaram
Choudhary Adv., Mr. Akshit Gupta
Adv., Mr. Kamalesh Sharma Adv.,
Mr. Harendar Neel Adv., Mr. Yash Joshi
Adv., Mr. Arpit Jain Adv., Mr. Pukhraj
Chawla Adv., Mr. Padam Singh Gurjar
Adv., with Ms. Sheetal Gurjar Adv.,
Mr. R.K. Gouttam Adv., Mr. G.S.
Gouttam Adv., Mr. Jai Singh Rathore
Adv., Mr. Poonam Chand Sharma Adv.,
Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma Adv.,
Mr. Koslesh Kumar Bairwa Adv.,
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini Adv., Mr. Raghu
Nandan Sharma Adv., Mr. Dheeraj
Kumar Palia Adv., Mr. Sunil Kumar
Sharma Adv., Mr. Sunil Kumar Saini
Adv., Mr. Suresh Kumar Adv., Mr. S.L.
Sharma Adv.-through VC), Dr. T.N.
Sharma Adv., Mr. Santosh Singh
Shekhawat Adv., Mr. R.D. Meena Adv.,
Mr. Sandeep Garssa Adv., Mr. Kailash
Kumawat Adv., Mr. Tanuj Gupta Adv.-
through VC),
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta Adv.- through VC,
on behalf of Dr. V.B. Sharma-AAG,
Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv., Mr. Tushar
Pareek Adv., Mr. Avinash Choudhary
Adv., Mr. M.F. Baig Adv., Mr. P.S.
Naruka Adv., for Mr. Rupin Kala-GC,

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(31 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

03/09/2020
1. Since in the present batch of writ petitions, the grievance

raised by the petitioners is common & pertain to the self same

selection process, hence these petitions have been heard together

and are being decided by the present common order.

2. To examine the controversy raised in the present batch of

writ petitions, at the joint statement made by the counsels for the

parties, the facts contained in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.1629/2020 are being taken into consideration.

3. An advertisement dated 05.10.2016 was issued by the

respondents for holding selection for the post of Sub-Inspector

(AP), (IB) (RAC) (MBC) under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate

Service Rules,1989 and by corrigendums dated 19.11.2018 &

23.08.2019, the number of advertised vacancies were revised. As

per the criteria of selection, three stages were prescribed i.e. (i)

Written Examination (ii) Physical Efficiency Test (iii)

Interview. The written examination was conducted on 07.10.2018

and the result thereof was declared on 26.08.2019 in which the

petitioners were declared qualified for stage-II i.e. Physical

Efficiency Test (hereinafter to be referred as 'PET') and were

called for appearing in the PET which was conducted from

23.09.2019 to 27.09.2019 at different places for which respective

Boards were constituted by the respondents to have fairness and

transparency in the selection process. In all 9259 candidates

appeared in the PET, out of which 1926 candidates qualified in the

PET and result of PET was declared on 08.01.2020 in which the

petitioners were declared failed and being unsuccessful in the PET

have approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions.

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(32 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

4. Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted

that after conducting the PET the petitioners were orally told that

they have qualified in the PET. Counsels further submitted that the

respondents in a malafide manner have declared the petitioners

failed on the pretext that they have not secured minimum

qualifying marks i.e. 50 out of 100. Counsels further submitted

that action of the respondents is arbitrary in nature as they have

declared the petitioners failed only to accommodate the persons

who are already serving in the department as Constable. Counsels

further submitted that in the present circumstances, the

videography of PET is required to be summoned & perused by this

Court for examining the error committed by the respondents in

holding the PET. Counsels further submitted that Article 316 of the

Constitution of India mandates the recruiting agency to have

fairness in the process of selection. Counsel further submitted that

the respondents should have used the chip to maintain

transparency in the process of selection and lastly prayed that this

Court under Article 226 may examine the videography of the PET

conducted by the respondents or in the alternate direct the

respondents to conduct the PET for the petitioners afresh within

the stipulated period which this Court may deem proper. In

support of the contentions, counsels for the petitioners relied upon

certain judgments of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court :-

5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Bablu

Saini & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., (CWP-18445/2012) &

connected petitions, decided on 11.11.2013, held as under :-

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(33 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

"I have considered submissions of learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record.
It is a case where two sets of petitioners/
candidates exist. One set of petitioners are those who
appeared in the physical test and declared fail. The
allegation of manipulation in the record so as the result
has been made. Other set of petitioners are those who
have been declared pass in the physical test but were
not given appointment. Serious allegations have been
made in regard to the result inasmuch as candidates
did not complete sit-ups have been declared pass. The
allegation of manipulation has not been denied by
Dr MS Kachhawa, Addl Government Counsel.
After the direction of this court, a report has been
submitted by the Chief Conservator of Forest. In view
of the report, result of the test cannot be trusted rather
involvement of PTI for manipulation of the record is
coming out. Even for Govind Ballabh Sharma,
allegation exist for non-completion of sit-ups so as
throw of ball. In the background aforesaid and to avoid
complications and to have fair selection, respondents
are directed to hold physical test afresh for the
candidates against whom allegations exist and one of
such persons is party in the representative character. It
is keeping in mind that allegation against the PTI are
not denied by the official respondents. The aforesaid
would not otherwise affect any one because if one has
performed well in the physical test, there is no reason
not to perform it again. I am cautious of the fact that
some of the selected candidates are not party other
than few in the representative capacity. The fact,
however, remains that having seen the CD by none else
but the Chief Conservator of Forest, clear picture
thereof could not be made out. It becomes clear that
even the CD was taken in such a manner which may
not visualise clear picture. In the background aforesaid,

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(34 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

physical test needs to be conducted afresh. It is
required for fair and proper selection.
The respondents are further directed to take
action against those who have manipulated the result
or were part of misdeeds, if the action has not already
been initiated.
After declaration of the result of the physical test,
appointment would be given to the successful
candidates. The compliance of the order may be made
within a period of one month from the date of receipt of
copy of this order.
In view of directions/observations above, all the
writ petitions so as the stay applications are disposed
of."

6. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Murli

Manohar Chhangani Vs. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.690/2012, decided on 03.01.2014, held as

under :-

"6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties
and particularly after perusal of the aforesaid CD
having Video Recording of physical test, this Court is
satisfied that the rejection of petitioner's candidature
was improper and not sustainable and particularly
looking to his high merit having secured 93% of marks
in the written test. The prescribed number of 26 sit-ups
were completed by the petitioner before the prescribed
time of 43 seconds. In the Video Recording produced
before this Court, there is only one minor jerk the
petitioner suffered towards the end of the said round of
sit-ups, which he immediately recouped and completed
in next moment and thus, he completed all the 26 sit-
ups. The said minor jerk suffered by him in the process
cannot result into the rejection of his candidature
altogether. The respondents were always at liberty to

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(35 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

ask him to repeat such exercise even if they were not
satisfied, on the spot. Having not done that, the
respondent's claim that rejection on the said ground
was proper is not sustainable. Therefore this Court is of
the opinion that the present writ petition deserves to
be allowed. Accordingly, the present writ petition is
allowed and quashing the impugned order and the
subsequent orders justifying the same, this Court
directs the respondents to offer appointment to the
petitioner on the post of Forest Guard by creating a
supernumary, post if necessary, if existing vacancies of
Forest Guard are not available. The said process may
be completed within a period of three months from
today. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be sent
to the parties concerned forthwith."

7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Ashutosh

Sharma & Ors. Vs. RPSC Ajmer & Anr., S.B. Civil Writ

Petition No.4650/2017 & other connected petitions, decided on

10.04.2017, held as under :-

"I have heard counsel for the parties. In the
present case, time is essence as the process of
selection and issuance of appointment letters is near
conclusion.
Therefore, after hearing counsel for the parties,
present writ petitions are disposed of by issuing
following directions:-
(a) That Secretary of Rajasthan Public Service
Commission in respect of the complaint of the
petitioners and taking averments in the present writ
petitions, shall constitute a fact finding inquiry
Committee within three days from receipt of the
certified copy of this order. The fact finding inquiry
Committee so constituted, after taking help of video-
graphy of the examination centre, by examining the

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(36 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Superintendent of Examination Centre and other staff
shall decide whether petitioners could not undertake
examination because defective keyboards were
provided to them or not.
(b) That petitioners shall appear before the
Secretary of Rajasthan Public Service Commission for
constitution of fact finding inquiry Committee after
receipt of certified copy of this order.
(c) That the fact finding inquiry Committee after
hearing petitioners shall pass a detailed reasoned
speaking order, whether the grievances of the
petitioners are to be redressed or not.
(d) That upon receipt of the report of the fact
finding inquiry Committee, the Secretary, RPSC shall
pass appropriate orders within three days, thereafter,
whether in case of petitioners fresh type test is to be
conducted or not.
Counsel for the petitioners are granted liberty to
reapproach this court, in case, they are not satisfied
with the decision of the RPSC.
Copy of this order be handed over to Mr. Anand
Sharma, under the seal and signature of Court Master
for onward transmission and necessary compliance."

8. A Division Bench of Madras High Court at Madurai Bench in

the matter of Malarkodi Vs. The Member Secretary, Tamil

Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai &

Ors., W.A. [M.D.] No.1656 of 2018, decided on 29.01.2019,

held as under :-

"The Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner was
dismissed by the learned Single Judge. When the
appeal came up for hearing, taking into account the
report submitted by the respondents, we have passed
the following order on 18 December, 2018.

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(37 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

"The appellant challenged the result of the
Physical Efficiency Test on the ground that
though she completed 100 meters running race
within the prescribed time, it was wrongly
recorded as 18.03 seconds. She was
disqualified only on the ground that she finished
the 100 meters running race only after the cut-
off time.
2.When it was pointed out to the Learned
Additional Advocate General as to whether it is
possible to see the videograph of the events
taken, it was submitted that the videograph is
available. Accordingly, we directed the
respondents to produce the video clipping and
other documents relating to the Test conducted
for Physical Efficiency at Virudhunagar Centre
on 06.09.2018.
3.The third respondent produced the video
clipping and the Lap Slip for Physical Efficiency
Test signed by the Sports Official.
4.The video was witnessed by the
Appellant in the presence of the officials of the
third respondent and the learned Special
Government Pleader. We have also requested
Mr.N.Dilip Kumar, a learned member of the Bar,
who is present in Court to witness the video
and assist the Court. It was found that the
Appellant completed 100 meters race and she
fell down. However, the time was not recorded
in the video.
5.There is no mechanism evolved by the
Selection Committee for automatic recording
of the time taken by a particular candidate for
completing the Physical Efficiency Test,
including the running race. We are informed
by the officials that Sports Officer, who was
present used a Stop Watch to record the time
taken by the candidates. According to the
officials of the third respondent, there were
seven Sports Officials and each official
recorded the timings in relation to each of the
candidate. There were seven candidates.
However, the Lap Slip for Physical Efficiency
Test dated 06.09.2018 indicates that the very
same Sport Official signed in all the columns
relating to seven candidates, which is an
indication that the time was recorded only by
one official.
6.Since there are no documents with the
third respondent to show the actual time taken
by the appellant, we have once again played
the video, it was found that the appellant has
finished the race within 17 seconds. This
process was witnessed by the officials. We
have arrived at 17 seconds by calculating the

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(38 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

time in the video clippings, meaning thereby
the starting point and the ending point, which
took 17 seconds.
7. It is now clear that time was recorded
only manually. The authorities should adopt
scientific manner of recording timings. We are
very clear on the basis of the video that the
appellant has taken only 17 second to
complete the 100 meter race.

8.The Chairman, Sub-Committee, Tamil
Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board,
Virudhunagar District is directed to take a
decision in view of our finding that the
appellant completed 100 meters running race
in 17 second. The orders to that effect shall be
produced during the morning session on 19
December, 2018, failing which, the Deputy
Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range,
who is the Chairman of the Recruitment
Committee, shall appear before this Court at
2.15 p.m., on 19 December, 2018, along with
the records.

9.Post on 19 December, 2018.

2. Subsequently, the respondents initiated the
proceedings for appointment and the same resulted in
giving an appointment order to the appellant on 25
January, 2019. We are informed by the learned
Counsel for the parties that the appellant joined
service on 26 January, 2019 and she was deputed to
training.
3. In view of the subsequent events relating to
the appointment of the appellant and her joining in
service, nothing survives for adjudication in this Writ
Appeal.
4.The Writ Appeal is disposed of, with the above
observation. No costs."

9. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramjit Singh Kardam &

Ors. Vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors., reported in 2020 SCC Online

SC 448, wherein it has been held as under :-

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(39 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

"4. The Petitioner No.1 of CWP No.15656 of 2010
pleaded that out of 62 Candidates who have been
appointed in district Yamuna Nagar, 61 are less
meritorious as compared to petitioner No.1. The
petitioner No.1 although secured 41.68 marks in
academic qualifications but could get only 8 marks in
the interview. Petitioner further pleaded that all other
petitioners secured good marks in academic
qualifications but they received less marks in
vivavoice due to which they could not be included in
the Select list.

9. Learned Single Judge after hearing the counsel for
the parties and after perusing the record allowed all
the writ petitions by judgment and order dated
11.09.2012. Operative portion of the judgment of the
learned Single Judge is as follows: -

"...These writ petitions are thus allowed. The
purported selection made by the Haryana Staff
Selection Commission in pursuance to the
advertisement No.6/2006, result whereof was
published on 11.04.2010 relating to category
No.23 for the posts of PTIs, is hereby quashed.
A direction is issued to the Haryana Staff
Selection Commission to hold a fresh selection,
in accordance with law, within a period of five
months from the date of receipt of certified copy
of this order.
Photocopies of the original noting files produced
in Court as also the purported criteria laid down
by the Commission dated 03.08.2008 have been
got prepared, kept in a sealed cover and placed
on the records of CWP No.15656 of 2010 to be
opened only on Court orders. Produced original
records be handed over to Mr. Harish Rathee,
learned Senior Deputy Advocate General,
Haryana.

13. While entertaining the SLP No.35373 of 2013,
Ramjit Singh Kardam and others versus Sanjeev
Kumar and others, and other special leave petitions,
this Court passed following order on 29.11.2013: -

"Issue Notice.

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(40 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Returnable in three weeks.
Status Quo, as on today shall be maintained in
the meantime."
14. These appeals were heard on various dates by
this Court. On 22.01.2020, this Court passed following
order: -

"Hearing to continue tomorrow (23.01.2020).
"Learned counsel for the State may produce the
original record of selection."
15. Further, when the matter was heard on
23.01.2020, learned counsel for the State as well as
Commission produced certain original records on
which date following order was passed: -

"Learned counsel for the State today placed
before this Court an original tabulation register
of the result sheet, selection list register,
interview marks register of the member as well
as of expert, which indicate that marking have
been done separately. The letter dated
03.08.2008, in original, has also been placed
before the Court, which was also placed before
the High Court.
Heard in part.
List for continuation of arguments on
29.01.2020.
Learned counsel for the State shall produce rest
of the original records on the next date of
hearing i.e. 29.01.2020."

18. For the appellants, we have heard Shri Kapil
Sibal, learned senior counsel, Shri V.Giri, learned
senior counsel, Shri Ravindra Srivastava, learned
senior counsel, Shri Navneeti Prasad Singh, learned
senior counsel, Shri Rameswar Malik, learned senior
counsel and other learned counsel. Shri Manoj
Swarup has appeared for the respondent writ
petitioners. We have also heard other counsel
appearing for respondent writ petitioners. Shri A.K.
Sinha and other counsels for intervenors. We have
heard Shri Anil Grover, Additional Advocate General

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(41 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

for State of Haryana as well as Haryana State
Selection Commission.

19. Learned counsel for the appellants challenging
the judgment and order of both learned Single Judge
and Division Bench of the High Court submits that
there were no sufficient grounds and materials before
the High Court to set aside the entire selection, which
was held for 1983 posts of PTI. It is submitted that
the respondent writ petitioners have participated in
selection without any demur or protest, hence, they
are not entitled to challenge the selection after
having been declared unsuccessful. On the principle
of estoppel, they are precluded from challenging the
selection.

20. It is submitted that criteria for selection was
uniformly applied to all the candidates and
respondent writ petitioners having not challenged the
criteria of selection cannot be allowed to challenge
the criteria after declaration of the select list.

21. It is submitted that there are no allegations of
any mala fide against the Chairman or any member
of the Commission or any candidate. The High Court
committed error in accepting the grounds of
challenge by the writ petitioners that those
candidates who secured good marks in Academics
were deliberately given less marks in the viva-voice
so that they may go out of select list. Insofar as not
holding of the written examination it is submitted
that there were grounds for scrapping the written
examination which was held on 01.02.2007.

22. The Commission decided not to hold the written
examination and proceeded to hold the selection on
the basis of criteria which was applied in the earlier
selection i.e. 2003 selection i.e. 60 marks for
Academics and qualification and 30 marks on the
Vivavoice to which no exception can be taken by

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(42 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

respondent writ petitioners. The criteria which was
applied in the Selection was signed by all members of
the Commission on 03.08.2008 to which no exception
can be taken by the respondent writ petitioners.

23. The Courts cannot start looking on the marks
allocated in Viva-voice nor the same is in the domain
of the Court. The appellants are now over age and
having worked for 10 about years, at this stage, they
cannot be displaced. Increase of marks from 25 to 30
for viva-voice was not violative of any norms.
Jurisdiction under Article 226 is not an investigative
jurisdiction but it is adjudicatory jurisdiction.

31. Shri Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing
for appellant in his rejoinder submits that even
though 1496 candidates got high marks in the
academics, they are only 10% of the total number of
candidates and only few hundreds got 20-27 marks in
the viva-voce. From where High Court got the
material to hold that 90 percent candidates who
performed poorly in the Academics got higher marks
in the vivavoce? The Commission has said that marks
of the Academics and qualifications were not before
the Interview Board. All 8 members of the
Commission cannot be said to have conspired to
follow a pattern of work.

32. From the pleadings on the records and
submissions made by the learned counsel for the
parties, following points arise for consideration: -

i) Whether the respondent writ petitioners who
had participated in the selection were estopped
from challenging the selection in the facts of the
present case?
ii) Whether the respondent writ petitioners could
have challenged the criteria of selection applied
by Commission for selection after they had
participated in the selection?

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(43 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

iii) Whether the decision dated 30.06.2008 to
cancel the written examination and the decision
dated 11.07.2008 to call the candidates for
interview 8 times number of vacancies on
minimum percentage of marks as fixed therein
and the decision dated 31.07.2008 to call all the
eligible candidates for interview were arbitrary
decision to change selection criteria published on
28.12.2006, which have effect of downgrading
the merit in the Selection?
iv) Whether it was obligatory for the Commission
as a body to take all decisions pertaining to
Selection on the post of PTI including the
decision of not holding written examination,
decision to screen on the basis 8 times of
vacancies and decision to call all eligible
candidates and whether aforesaid decisions were
taken by the Chairman alone?
v) Whether on 03.08.2008, a decision was taken
by the commission fixing the criteria for the
selection on the post of PTI which was signed by
all the members on 03.08.2008 as claimed by
the Commission?
vi) Whether without there being any specific
allegations of mala fide against the Chairman
and members of the Commission and without
they having been impleaded by name as party
respondents, the writ petitioners could have
challenged the allocation of marks in vivavoce
and High Court was right in accepting the claim
that candidates who got highest marks for
academic qualifications ranging between 40 to
48.74 marks have been awarded just 7 to 9
marks in the viva-voce and as against it there
are hundreds of selected candidates who have
been awarded 20 to 27 out of 30 marks in the
viva-voce to ensure that they outclass the
academically bright candidates?
vii) Whether no fresh selection can be held as
directed by learned Single Judge since as per
2012 Rules, the post of PTI has been declared as
a dying cadre and the post has merged into the
post of TGT Physical Education?

36. Learned counsel for the appellant at very outset
contended that the writ petitions filed by the
respondent challenging the select list dated
10.04.2001 ought not to have been entertained by the
High Court since the respondent having participated in
the selection without any demur or protest, they are

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(44 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

estopped from challenging the selection. The
submission is refuted by the respondent contending
that the above principle of estopple is not applicable in
the facts of the present case. The petitioner being not
even aware of the criteria, which was to be applied for
selection, which they came to know only after select
list was published, there was no occasion to make any
challenge by the respondents before the above date.

41. The Division Bench of the High Court is right in its
conclusion that the selection criteria, which saw the
light of the day along with declaration of the selection
result could be assailed by the unsuccessful candidates
only after it was published. Similarly, selection process
which was notified was never followed and the selection
criteria which was followed was never notified till the
declaration of final result, hence, the writ petitioners
cannot be estopped from challenging the selection. We,
thus, hold that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners
could not have been thrown on the ground of estoppel
and the writ petitioners could very well challenge the
criteria of selection applied by the Commission, which
was declared by the Commission only at the time of
declaration of the final result. We, thus, answer point
Nos. 1 and 2 as follows:-

(i) The writ petitioners, who had participated in
the selection are not estopped from challenging
the selection in the facts of the present case.
(ii) The writ petitioners could have very well
challenged the criteria of selection, which was
declared by the Commission only in the final
result declared on 10.04.2010.

46. As per the notification extracted above it is the
Commission, who "shall devise the mode of selection
and fix the criteria for selection." The said power has to
be exercised in a reasonable and fair manner to
advance the purpose and object of selection. Even if it
is assumed for the sake of the argument that the

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(45 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

Commission can change the criteria of selection from
time to time, the said power has to be exercised not in
an arbitrary manner.

50. When there are no statutory rules regarding
allocation of business of the Commission or delegating
its business to members or Committee, the
Commission could very well by its resolution devise its
own mode of exercising such power or function, which
preposition has been laid down by this Court by a
Constitution Bench in Naraindas Indurkhya Vs. The
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, (1974) 4 SCC
788 wherein in paragraph 17 following was stated:-

17. ........................... Now we do not dispute the
general proposition that when a power or
function is given by the statute to a corporate
body and no provision is made in the statute as
to how such power or function shall be
exercised, the corporate body can by a
resolution passed at the general meeting devise
its own mode of exercising such power or
function, such as authorising one or more of the
members to exercise it on behalf of the
Board....................."

57. We having held that change in criteria of selection
was never notified by the Commission and about the
change in process of selection candidates were kept in
total dark and for the first time the criteria applied in
selection process was published along with result dated
10.04.2008, the writ petitioners cannot be estopped in
challenging the arbitrary criteria so applied. The
submission of Shri Sibal cannot be accepted. The
petitioners have never questioned the criteria which
was published on 28.12.2006 i.e. written test of 200
marks and viva voce of 25 marks, merely because they
participated in the process of selection after the change
of criteria, their right to challenge the arbitrary change
cannot be lost. Estopping the petitioners from
challenging the change of criteria will be giving seal to

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(46 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

arbitrary changes affected by Chairman as noted
above.

60. There cannot be any dispute to the above
preposition of law reiterated by this Court as above. We
have noticed from the array of the parties in the writ
petition that neither Chairman nor the members of the
Commission were personally impleaded nor there are
any specific allegations of mala fide against the
Chairman or the members of the Commission.

61. The present is not a case of malice in fact. The
"malice in fact" and "malice in law" are two wellknown
concepts in law. In Ratnagiri Gas and Power Private
Limited (supra), this Court has dealt with both the
concepts, i.e., "malice in fact" and "malice in law".
Dealing with the conceptual difference between "malice
in fact" and "malice in law", this Court laid down
following in paragraphs 30, 31 and 32:-

"30. ............................The conceptual difference
between the two has been succinctly stated in
the following paragragh by Lord Haldane in
Shearer v. Shields, 1914 AC 808 (HL) quoted
with approval by this Court in ADM, Jabalpur v.
Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521: (SCC p.
641, para 317)
"317. ... 'Between "malice in fact" and "malice in
law" there is a broad distinction which is not
peculiar to any system of jurisprudence. The
person who inflicts a wrong or an injury upon
any person in contravention of the law is not
allowed to say that he did so with an innocent
mind. He is taken to know the law and can only
act within the law. He may, therefore, be guilty
of "malice in law", although, so far as the state
of his mind was concerned he acted ignorantly,
and in that sense innocently. "Malice in fact" is a
different thing. It means an actual malicious
intention on the part of the person who has done
the wrongful act.'" (Shearer case, 1914 AC 808
HL, AC pp. 813-14)
31. Reference may also be made to the decision
of this Court in State of A.P. v. Goverdhanlal
Pitti, (2003) 4 SCC 739 where the difference
between "malice in fact" and "malice in law" was

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(47 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

summed up in the following words: (SCC p. 744,
paras 12-13)
"12. The legal meaning of 'malice' is 'ill will or
spite towards a party and any indirect or
improper motive in taking an action'. This is
sometimes described as 'malice in fact'. 'Legal
malice' or 'malice in law' means 'something done
without lawful excuse'. In other words, 'it is an
act done wrongfully and wilfully without
reasonable or probable cause, and not
necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite.
It is a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of
others.' (See Words and Phrases Legally Defined,
3rd Edn., London, Butterworths, 1989.)
13. Where malice is attributed to the State, it
can never be a case of personal ill will or spite
on the part of the State. If at all it is malice in
legal sense, it can be described as an act which
is taken with an oblique or indirect object."
(emphasis supplied)
32. To the same effect is the recent decision of
this Court in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. Collector,
(2012) 4 SCC 407 wherein this Court observed:
(SCC p. 431, paras 47-48)
"Malice in law

47. This Court has consistently held that the
State is under an obligation to act fairly without
ill will or malice in fact or in law. Where malice
is attributed to the State, it can never be a case
of personal ill will or spite on the part of the
State. 'Legal malice' or 'malice in law' means
something done without lawful excuse. It is a
deliberate act in disregard to the rights of
others. It is an act which is taken with an
oblique or indirect object. It is an act done
wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or
probable cause, and not necessarily an act done
from ill feeling and spite.
48. Mala fide exercise of power does not imply
any moral turpitude. It means exercise of
statutory power for 'purposes foreign to those
for which it is in law intended'. It means
conscious violation of the law to the prejudice of
another, a depraved inclination on the part of
the authority to disregard the rights of others,
where intent is manifested by its injurious acts.
Passing an order for unauthorised purpose
constitutes malice in law. (See ADM, Jabalpur v.
Shivakant Shukla, (1976) 2 SCC 521, Union of
India v. V. Ramakrishnan, (2005) 8 SCC 394
and Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant
Vimalnath Narichania, (2010) 9 SCC 437.)"

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(48 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

62. The malice in law has been dealt as "something
done without lawful excuse". The malice in law is also
mala fide exercise of power, exercise of statutory power
for purposes foreign to those for which it is in law
intended. In the present case, the power to device the
mode of selection and fix the criteria for selection was
entrusted on the Commission to further the object of
selection on merit to fill up post in State in consonance
with the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. When the alteration of criteria has
been made, which has obviously affected the merit
selection as we have found above, the allegations which
have been made in the writ petition against the
Commission in conducting the selection are allegations
of malice-in-law and not malice-in-fact.

63. The High Court had summoned the original records
of the Commission including the marks awarded to the
candidates both on basic qualification as well as
essential qualification as well as viva voce. The
observations, which have been made by the Division
Bench in paragraphs 34 and 36 were inferences drawn
by the High Court based on pattern of the marks
allocated to some of the selected candidates and
nonselected candidates. The observation of the High
Court that "it cannot be a mere co-incidence that 90%
of the meritorious candidates in academics performed
so poorly in viva voce that they could not secure even
10 marks out of the 30 marks or that the brilliance got
configurated only in the average candidates possessing
bare eligibility" where inferences drawn from result
sheet and re-affirms the allegations of malice-in-law.
The inferences drawn by the High Court, thus, cannot
be said to be unfounded nor are based on no material or
perverse so as to call for any interference by this Court

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(49 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

in these appeals. We, thus, do not find any substance in
the submission of Shri Sibal that since no specific
allegations against Chairman and members have been
made and they being not impleaded as the parties, the
allegations in the writ petition regarding allocation of
marks in viva voce cannot be looked into by the High
Court. Point No.6 is answered accordingly.

75. In view of the foregoing discussions and
conclusions, we dispose of these appeals with the
following directions:

(i) The Commission shall conclude the entire
selection process initiated by the advertisement
No.6 of 2006 as per criterion notified on
28.12.2006 i.e. holding objective type written
test of 200 marks and viva voce of 25 marks.
All the applicants who had submitted
applications in response to the above
advertisement including those who were
selected shall be permitted to participate in the
fresh selection as directed.
(ii) The candidates who have been selected and
have worked on the post of PTI shall not be
asked to refund any of the salary and other
benefits received by them as against their
working on the posts. No refund shall also be
asked from those candidates who after their
selection worked and retired from service.
(iii) The entire process be completed by the
Commission within a period of five months from
the date Commission starts working after the
present lockdown is over, which was the time
fixed by the learned Single Judge for completing
the process.
(iv) The costs imposed by the Division Bench in
paragraph 54 of the judgment of the High Court
are deleted except the costs imposed on the
Commission.

10. Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners further

submitted that the respondents should have maintained fairness in

the process of selection and in support of submission relied upon

the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(50 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

of Kanpur University & Ors. Vs,. Samir Gupta & Ors.,

reported in AIR 1983 Supreme Court 1230, wherein it has been

held as under :-

"15. The findings of the High Court raise a question of
great importance to the student community. Normally,
one would be inclined to the view, especially if one has
been a paper setter and an examiner, that the key
answer furnished by the paper setter and accepted by
the University as correct, should not be allowed to be
challenged. One way of achieving it is not to publish the
key answer at all. If the University had not published
the key answer along with the result of the test, no
controversy would have arisen in this case. But that is
not a correct way of looking at these matters which
involved the future of hundreds of students who are
aspirants for admission to professional courses. If the
key answer were kept secret in this case, the remedy
would have been worse than the disease because, so
many students would have had to suffer the injustice in
silence. The Publication of the key answer has
unravelled an un-happy state of affairs to which the
University and the State Government must find a
solution. Their sense of fairness in publishing the key
answer has given them an opportunity to have a closer
look at the system of examinations which they conduct.
What has failed is not the computer but the human
system.
17. Students who have passed their Intermediate Board
Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test
for admission to the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain
books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board
Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the
students have is derived from what is contained in those
text-books. Those text-books support the case of the
students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would
have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(51 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be
unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer
which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with
an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong."

11. Counsel further referred the order dated 09.09.2019

Annx.AA/1 by which respective Boards were constituted at

different places and also referred to the order dated 20.09.2019

which prescribed the detailed instructions for conducting the PET

and in particular clause-20 of the said order.

12. Counsel further submitted that the PET has been conducted

in an arbitrary manner and the track where the PET was

conducted was also muddy.

13. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted

that the petitioners are estopped to challenge the process of

selection since they have participated in the process of selection

and they did very well know about the procedure being adopted

by the respondents in holding the selection process.

14. Counsel further submitted that though the petitioners have

alleged about malafide but no specific allegation has been levelled

against any of the person/member of the Board constituted at

different places.

15. Counsel further submitted that during pendency of the

present writ petitions the respondents have filed the additional

affidavit and explained the purpose of videography i.e. (i) to

ensure that the police personnel deputed at different test centres

would not favour any particular candidate (ii) to avoid

impersonation (iii) to keep a vigil on law and order situation if

such a situation would arise.

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)
(52 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

16. Counsel further submitted that during pendency of the writ

petitions, a committee was constituted by the respondents vide

order dated 06.08.2020 and the said committee examined the

marks obtained by the petitioners and found that no irregularity

has been committed by the respondents in conducting the PET.

17. In support of the contentions, counsel for the respondents

relied upon certain judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

18. In the matter of Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr. Vs. K. Sivasubramaniyan & Ors., reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454 it has been held as under :-

14. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra.

15. In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585, a similar question came for consideration before a three Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but on his failure to get appointed, the petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held:(SCC p.591, para 15) "15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview (Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (53 of 64) [CW-1629/2020] raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal's case where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting: (AIR p.432, para 9) '9. ..."It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point."

16. In Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of JΚ & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486, similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that: (SCC p.493, para 9) "9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the (Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (54 of 64) [CW-1629/2020] interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla1 it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.

17. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed: (SCC p.584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition."

18. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309, recently a Bench of this Court following the earlier decisions held as under: (SCC p.320, para 24) "24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived (Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (55 of 64) [CW-1629/2020] their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."

19. In the matter of D. Sarojakumari Vs. R. Helen Thilakom & Ors., reported in (2017) 9 SCC 478, it has been held as under:-

"11. As far as the present case is concerned an advertisement was issued by Respondent No.6 inviting applications for the post of Music Teacher in Samuel LMS High School. Respondent No.1 did not raise any objection at that stage that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment and she should be considered for promotion. Not only that, she in fact, applied for the post and took part in the selection process. After having taken part in the selection process and being found lower in merit to the appellant, she cannot at this stage be permitted to turn around and claim that the post could not be filled in by direct recruitment. The reasoning of the learned Single Judge in rejecting the objection is not in consonance with the law laid down by this Court. In view of this we need not go into the other issues raised."

20. In the matter of Rajneesh Khajuria Vs. Wockhardt Limited & Anr., reported in (2020) 3 SCC 86, it has been held as under :-

17. In another judgment reported as Prabodh Sagar v.

Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. 7 , it was held by this Court that the mere use of the expression "mala fide" would not by itself make the petition entertainable. The Court held as under: (SCC p.640, para 13) (Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (56 of 64) [CW-1629/2020] "13. ... Incidentally, be it noted that the expression "mala fide" is not meaningless jargon and it has its proper connotation. Malice or mala fides can only be appreciated from the records of the case in the facts of each case. There cannot possibly be any set guidelines in regard to the proof of mala fides. Mala fides, where it is alleged, depends upon its own facts and circumstances. We ourselves feel it expedient to record that the petitioner has become more of a liability than an asset and in the event of there being such a situation vis-à-vis an employee, the employer will be within his liberty to take appropriate steps including the cessation of relationship between the employer and the employee. The service conditions of the Board's employees also provide for voluntary (sic compulsory) retirement, a person of the nature of the petitioner, as more fully detailed hereinbefore, cannot possibly be given any redress against the order of the Board for voluntary retirement. There must be factual support pertaining to the allegations of mala fides, unfortunately there is none. Mere user of the word "mala fide" by the petitioner would not by itself make the petition entertainable. The Court must scan the factual aspect and come to its own conclusion i.e. exactly what the High Court has done and that is the reason why the narration has been noted in this judgment in extenso. ..."

19. In a judgment reported as Union of India & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. 10, it has been held that allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 770, para 21) "21. Doubtless, he who seeks to invalidate or nullify any act or order must establish the charge of bad faith, an abuse or a misuse by the authority of its powers. While the indirect motive or purpose, or bad faith or personal ill will is not to be held established except on clear proof thereof, it is obviously difficult to establish the state of a man's mind, for that is what the employee has to establish in this case, though this may sometimes be done. The difficulty is not lessened when one has to (Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (57 of 64) [CW-1629/2020] establish that a person apparently acting on the legitimate exercise of power has, in fact, been acting mala fide in the sense of pursuing an illegitimate aim. It is not the law that mala fides in the sense of improper motive should be established only by direct evidence. But it must be discernible from the order impugned or must be shown from the established surrounding factors which preceded the order. If bad faith would vitiate the order, the same can, in our opinion, be deduced as a reasonable and inescapable inference from proved facts. (S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab [(1964) 4 SCR 733 : AIR 1964 SC 72] .) It cannot be overlooked that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. As noted by this Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. [(1974) 4 SCC 3 : 1974 SCC (LŠ) 165 : AIR 1974 SC 555] courts would be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before them by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. (See Indian Rly. Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar

21. In the matter of M.V. Thimmaiah & Ors., Vs. Union Public Service Commission & Ors., reported in 2008(2) SCC 119, it has been held as under :-

"19. So far as the allegation of mala fide against Shri B.S.Patil is concerned, he was not impleaded as a party. Therefore, the allegation of mala fide could not be entertained by the Tribunal. As such, the allegation of mala fide against Shri B.S.Patil could not be taken into consideration and rightly so, by the High Court as well as by the Tribunal. The allegation of mala fide is very easy to be levelled and it is very difficult to substantiate it, specially in the matter of selection or whoever is involved in the decision making process. People are prone to make such allegation but the (Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (58 of 64) [CW-1629/2020] Courts owe a duty to scrutinize the allegation meticulously because the person who is making the allegation of animus sometimes bona fidely or sometimes mala fidely due to his non-selection. He has a vested interest. Therefore, unless the allegations are substantiated beyond doubt, till that time the Court cannot draw its conclusion. Therefore, we reject the allegation of mala fide."

22. In the matter of All India State Bank Officers' Federation & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1997) 9 SCC 151, it has been held as under :-

"21. In view of the aforesaid explanation of the respondent bank, which we see no reason to disbelieve, it is clear that the petitioners have made baseless and reckless allegations of mala fides. Respondents 4 and 5 obviously had no direct or indirect role to play either in the formulation of the policy or in the memorandum being placed as a table item to be taken up for consideration in the meeting held on 7th March, 1989. The modification was approved by the Chairman and all the Directors who were present in the meeting of the Board. For an allegation of mala fide to succeed it must be conclusively shown that respondents 4 and 5 wielded influence over all the members of the Board who were present in the said meeting. No such allegation has been made. The decision to modify the promotion policy was taken by a competent authority, namely, the Central Board in a duly constituted meeting held on 7th March, 1989 and we are unable to accept that this change in the policy was brought about solely with a view to help respondents 4 and 5.

22. There is yet another reason why this contention of the petitioners must fail. It is now settled law that the (Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (59 of 64) [CW-1629/2020] person against whom mala fides are alleged must be made a party to the proceeding. The allegation that the policy was amended with a view to benefit respondents 4 and 5 would amount to the petitioners contending that the Board of Directors of the Bank sought to favour respondents 4 and 5 and, therefore, agreed to the proposal put before it. Neither the Chairman nor the Directors, who were present in the said meeting, have been impleaded as respondents. This being so the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise the allegations of mala fide, which allegations, in fact, are without merit."

23. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of the State of Rajasthan Vs. Maldev Dewasi, reported in 2019 (4) WLC (Raj.) 235, wherein it has been held as under :-

"10. Another reason, which this court has to take note of is that among the 77 odd unsuccessful candidates, only a handful have come forward, claiming prejudice. Granting the facility of a re-test to these candidates who approached the court, in the opinion of the court would mean at one stroke denying similar treatment to others who have no grievance, and more importantly creating an entirely different set of circumstances, from the one under which the rest of the candidates participated, including those who successfully cleared the PET. This aspect was highlighted recently by this court in the context of recruitment to the post of police constable, where the complaint was that the weather conditions for the 5 km run were not conducive, on account of rain, resulting in the candidates' inability to complete the PET successfully. A Division Bench of this court, held in Shravan Kumar Choudhary vs. The State (Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (60 of 64) [CW-1629/2020] of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 154/2019 Decided On: 22.05.2019) as follows:

"7. Quite apart from the ground on which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, i.e. delay, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the selection process or the impugned order. When a complaint such as the present one with respect to less than ideal conditions or poor conditions in which candidates are made to perform take up PET is confronted by the Court, it needs to carefully analyse the facts since intervention in judicial review has larger repercussions which affect non-parties.

8. The state has placed material on record to suggest that whatever be the circumstances, rain moisture or ideal track conditions, of the total number of candidates who participated on the basis of prevailing conditions, 45.42 qualified. The additional affidavit (concededly which is not part of the present appeal record as it is a part of the record in D.B. Civil Appeal No. 228/19) shows that the variation between the days like the one when the appellant was made to participate and other days when there was no rain, was not so significant as to result in arbitrariness. The chart which is produced alongwith the said additional affidavit shows that on an average on the best days - when weather conditions were normal, the number of qualified candidates were in the range of 63-64%; the lowest in such range was about 25%. In between, there were days on which the conditions were not ideal as in many venues it appeared to have rained. Having regard to all these factors, it cannot be said that the conditions under which the present appellant was made to participate in the PET were so poor as to deny him a level playing field. What is a matter of record is that 579 candidates did participate of whom 263 were successful and did qualify. In these circumstances, unless the result shows an extremely startling result where it can be discerned plainly that no candidate or a very insignificant number of candidates could qualify, the Courts should be very circumspect in returning a finding of arbitrariness.

9. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court, in the opinion of the Court, is not applicable. It is primarily based on the reasoning that change in weather conditions result in the change in the rules of the game i.e. introducing rules later after the (Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (61 of 64) [CW-1629/2020] commencement of the recruitment process. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court, with respect, in the opinion of the court, does not correctly lay down the law.

10. One more consideration persuades this Court to decline relief. It is that out of the 579 who participates, some were successful and some were not. Yet all of them did participate and accepted the conditions, as it were. Permitting the petitioner/appellant or any other candidate thereafter to take a re-test by directing the State to hold a fresh PET would itself be an unfair procedure as it would not only allow a few candidates who approach the Court to have a second shot or attempt, or a second innings as it were, but also create an unfair advantage inasmuch as the conditions would be entirely different and perhaps favorable to the candidate. This would result in two yardsticks, being injected into (one whereby all others accept participate and are assessed under poor conditions, and the second whereby those who approach the Court are given a second chance, resulting in their competing in favorable conditions), in the same selection process, which is inherently untenable and contrary to Article 14 and cannot be permitted."

24. Counsel further submitted that the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramjit Singh Kardam (supra) is not applicable in the fact situation of the present matter as in the matter of Ramjit Singh Kardam (supra) the criteria of selection was changed during the process of selection and initially there was written test + interview, lateron the written test was scraped by the recruiting agency and in place of written test new criteria was adopted/changed i.e. marks of the educational as well as of professional qualification and the writ petitioners were kept in dark about the change of criteria and apart from it, in those petitions, the selected candidates were also made party to the proceedings whereas in the present selection process the criteria was not changed and the petitioners were well (Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (62 of 64) [CW-1629/2020] aware about method being adopted in the present process of selection and there was no change of criteria during the process of selection.

25. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

26. The first argument raised by counsel for the petitioners with regard to malafide in the process of selection is not acceptable as from the material on record including the additional affidavit filed by the respondents it is clear that in as much as 9259 candidates were called for PET out of which 1926 candidates qualified in the PET and that reflects that a number of candidates have been able to participate effectively and remained successful in the PET and only a few candidates about 129 having been unsuccessful have approached this Court and prior thereto the petitioners have not raised any grievance with regard to malafide to the respondents by submitting representation just after appearing in the PET and also in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajneesh Khajuria (supra), the contention of the petitioners' counsel regarding malafide is not acceptable.

27. The second argument raised by counsel for the petitioners that they have secured qualifying marks in the PET as informed by the respondents just after completion of PET is also not acceptable as the petitioners nowhere in their writ petitions have given name of any person who has informed them in this regard.

28. The third argument raised by counsel for the petitioners with regard to summoning the videography is also not acceptable as the respondents have disclosed in their additional affidavit the purpose of videography i.e. (i) to ensure that the police personnel (Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) (63 of 64) [CW-1629/2020] deputed at different test centres would not favour any particular candidate (ii) to avoid impersonation (iii) to keep a vigil on law and order situation if such a situation would arise.

29. So far as the judgments passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court are concerned, the facts of those cases are entire different in nature and therefore the same are not applicable in the facts of the present matter.

30. After the petitioners have participated in the selection process, they cannot be allowed to question the selection process in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr. (supra).

31. So far as the judgment referred by counsels for the petitioners, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ramjit Singh Kardam (supra) is concerned, the same is not applicable in the fact situation of the present matter as in those matters the criteria of selection was changed during the process of selection whereas there is no change of criteria in the present process of selection, which has been conducted in accordance with the Scheme of Rules.

32. The another argument raised by counsel for the petitioners with regard to favouring the persons who are already serving in the department is also not acceptable for the reason that some of them who failed in the PET have also approached this Court by filing their writ petitions.

33. The other argument raised by counsel for the petitioners regarding the track being muddy, holds no factual foundation or material in support.

(Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM)

(64 of 64) [CW-1629/2020]

34. In view of the entire discussion made hereinanbove, these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.

(INDERJEET SINGH),J V.S. SHEKHAWAT /231-302, 96, 97, 110, 111 & 303 (Downloaded on 05/09/2020 at 09:04:06 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur