Madhya Pradesh High Court
Alka Patel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 27 June, 2022
Author: Maninder S Bhatti
Bench: Maninder S Bhatti
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S BHATTI
ON THE 27th OF JUNE, 2022
WRIT PETITION No. 13792 of 2022
Between:-
ALKA PATEL D/O CHHOTELAL LAL SINGH ,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
STUDENT WARD NO. 2 SIHORA DISTRICT
JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI R.K.PANDEY - ADVOCATE )
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT
MANTRALAYA VALLABH BHAWAN BHAVAN
BHOPAL M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE MADHYA
PRADESH BHOPAL DISTRICT BHOPAL M.P.
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE JABALPUR
DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE JABALPUR
DISTRICT JABALPUR M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)
5. PROFESSION EXAMINATION BOARD THROUGH
ITS CHAIRMAN CHAYAN BHAWAN MAIN ROAD
NO. 1 CHINAR PARK (EAST) BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI GIRISH KEKRE - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)
This petition coming on for admission. this day, the court passed the
Signature Not Verified
SAN following:
Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR
ORDER
LALWANI Date: 2022.07.01 13:50:16 IST The petitioner in the present petition has prayed for following reliefs :-
2"1. The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ directing to the respondents to provide a chance to the petitioner for long jump of physical test of Police Constable recruitment considering her representation (Annex.P/3 and P/4) in the interest of justice.
2. To grant any other relief which may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
The contention of the petitioner is that the Professional Examination Board initiated process of selection of Constables in pursuance of which, the petitioner has also applied and she was required to undergo physical Proficiency Test. The petitioner appeared in the Physical Proficiency Test on 06.06.2022, however, during the process of test, she sustained injury and thus, could not qualify.
The contention of the petitioner is that the factum with regard to injuries during the process were duly highlighted by way of representation, however, despite that the petitioner has not been given second chance to appear in the Physical Proficiency Test. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in an identical petition writ petition No.11972 of 2022 (Shailesh Kumar Tiwari vs. The State of M.P. and others), the other candidates have been permitted to appear in the Physical Proficiency Test which has been postponed on account of extreme weather condition. Thus, while claiming similarity with the order in that case, petitioner has prayed that the same relief may be extended to her and she be Signature Not Verified SAN permitted to undergo the Physical Proficiency Test.
Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMARPer contra, State counsel submits that there is no provision of second LALWANI Date: 2022.07.01 13:50:16 IST 3 chance to appear in Physical Proficiency Test and the stand on which such chance is being sought, is misconceived.
Having heard the counsel for the parties, as per the averments made in para-5.4 of the petition, the contention of the petitioner is that during the process of selection when she participated in the process of Long jump, she sustained injury, thus, could not qualify. As per conditions of selection, there is no provision for giving a second change to appear in the Physical Proficiency Test on being injured. Thus, in the considered opinion of this court, the petitioner has no right to seek a second chance to appear in the process of Physical Proficiency Test and, the parity which has been claimed by the petitioner, on the basis of order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.11972 of 2022 which is an interlocutory order was passed taking note of the fact that the department itself decided to postpone the process of Physical Proficiency Test on account of extreme Weather condition, the same is not applicable in the case at hand, inasmuch as, the petitioner in the present case, as per her own admission, sustained injuries during the process of Physical Proficiency Test. It is also needless to emphasis that possibilities of sustaining injuries during Physical Proficiency Test cannot be ruled out. Thus, the same is not a ground to claim a second chance. Thus, this Court find no force in the submission made by counsel for the petitioner.
The petition being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.
(MANINDER S BHATTI) Signature Not Verified JUDGE SAN MKL Digitally signed by MANOJ KUMAR LALWANI Date: 2022.07.01 13:50:16 IST