Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Sajjan Singh Gurjar And Ors vs State Of Raj & Ors on 11 November, 2013
Author: Mn Bhandari
Bench: Mn Bhandari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER 1.SB Civil Writ Petition No.18445/2012 Bablu Saini & anr versus State of Rajasthan & ors 2.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 5467/2011 Chander Mohan Sharma versus State of Rajasthan & ors 3.SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4274/2011 Sajjan Singh Gurjar & ors versus State of Rajasthan & ors 11.11.2013 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr RP Saini Mr Ram Rakh Sharma - for petitioner(s) Dr MS Kachhawa, Addl GC for respondents BY THE COURT:
The respondents issued an advertisement for selection to the post of Forest Guard. All the petitioners applied for the posts and participated in physical test. A dispute came up in regard to the physical test. One set of petitioners are those who have been declared fail alleging manipulation by one Mr Rishi Kumar Sharma, PTI. Another set of petitioners are those who have been declared pass in physical test but not given appointment.
This court passed an order on 16.9.2013 directing Chief Conservator of Forest to look into compact disc (CD) of physical test, which is reproduced hereasunder -
It is agreed by the parties that Compact Disc (CD) of physical test may be seen by the Chief Conservator of Forest in the presence of the petitioner in CW 5467/2011. He will then make a report as to which candidate could successfully completed and passed out the physical test or failed therein. The Chief Conservator of Forest would take assistance of an expert for that purpose and thereupon submit the report to this court for each candidate. Let report be submitted by the CCF within four weeks before this court. List this case accordingly on 17.10.2013.
A report has now been submitted pursuant thereto indicating that at certain places video is not so clear so as to give finding and at other places for cricket ball throw and 'paidal chaal' etc, it is not visible so as to find out the distance. Same finding has been given in regard to sit-ups.
One set of writ petitioners are those who have prayed for holding fresh physical test in regard to the petitioners and those who are beneficiary of manipulation by the PTI though aforesaid has been contested by other set of writ petitioners who were earlier declared pass in the physical test.
Learned counsel for the State prayed for physical test afresh so that a clear opinion may come and if any of the petitioners are declared pass, consequence of appointment would follow subject to their merit position. In view of above, prayer is made that all the candidates should be directed to appear in the physical test again.
The aforesaid is seriously opposed by Mr RP Saini, learned counsel for petitioner in CW 18445/2012. He has referred result where petitioners were declared pass thus a prayer is made to give appointment.
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, 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 mis-deeds, 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.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma All corrections made in the judgment/ order have been incorporated in the judgment/ order being emailed.
(BN Sharma) PS-cum-J