Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rajpal vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 May, 2019
Author: Arun Bhansali
Bench: Arun Bhansali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 631/2019
Rambharosi S/o Roop Singh, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of
Village Dewara, Post Sabdwali, Tehsil Baswa, District Dausa
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Home
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 447/2019
1. Vinod Bishnoi S/o Banwari Lal, Aged About 34 Years, Chak
5 KD, VPO 5 SD, Tehsil Gharsana, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
2. Sandeep Bishnoi S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 28 Years,
Chak 16KD-B, VPO 10 KD, Tehsil Rawla Mandi, District Sri
Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, District Sri Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 670/2019
1. Raghuvir Singh S/o Naib Singh, Aged About 32 Years, VPO
Shapini, Tehsil Sangria, District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
2. Rajesh S/o Brij Lal, Aged About 25 Years, VPO Rodawali,
Ward No. 5, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan)
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:18:38 AM)
(2 of 14)
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2222/2019
Gori Shankar S/o Shri Brij Lal, Aged About 20 Years, R/o VPO
Khat Sajwar (10 SDS), Tehsil Sadul Shahar, District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2276/2019
1. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Atma Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village 5PPB, Post Ghamurwali, Tehsil Padampur, District
Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
2. Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Dharampal,, Aged About 32 Years,
R/o Village 21 GG (Burjwali), Post 20 Gg, Tehsil And
District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2282/2019
1. Manil Beniwal S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Ward No. 13, Village Peerkamadia, 19 NGC-A,
Peerkamadia, Tehsil Tibbi, District Hanumangarh,
Rajasthan.
2. Sunil S/o Shri Bhim Sain,, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Ward
No. 10, Chak 9 LLG, Post Panniwali Jattan, Tehsil Sadul
Shahar, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
3. Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Roshan Lal,, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Ward No. 7, VPO Kishanpura Dikhanda, Tehsil And
District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:18:38 AM)
(3 of 14)
4. Jaivardhan S/o Shri Santosh Kumar,, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Ward No. 05, VPO Tatarsar, Tehsil And District Sri
Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
5. Mukesh S/o Shri Dharmpal,, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Ward No.4, Bhagwan, Post Didas, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2871/2019
1. Ray Singh S/o Shri Bhaniram, Aged About 30 Years,
Resident Of Village Chainpura, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
2. Vinod Kumar S/o Hansraj,, Aged About 24 Years, Resident
Of Village Sangthia, Post Lalania, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarter, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2873/2019
1. Praveen Kumar S/o Mohanlal, Aged About 21 Years,
Resident Of 10 Sarkari Raghunathgarh, Tehsil Sri
Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar (Rajasthan).
2. Kaluram S/o Rajaram,, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of
Ward No. 4, Tehsil Sri Vijaynagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarter, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:18:38 AM)
(4 of 14)
4. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3478/2019
Manju D/o Shri Rampratap, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of
VPO Ladhuwala, Tehsil Sri Ganganagar, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4217/2019
Radhe Shyam S/o Ram Singh, Aged About 32 Years, 116-K,
Village 10 K.D.B., Rawla, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Personnel
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Secretary, Home Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
4. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.).
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner (Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4229/2019
Rajpal S/o Pokhar Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Ward
No. 13 Sri Karanpur, Tehsil Sri Karanpur, District Sri Ganganagar
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment) Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:18:38 AM)
(5 of 14)
4. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4399/2019
Manoj Kumar Soni S/o Shri Hari Ram Soni, Aged About 28 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 11 Goluwala Sihagan, Tehsil Pilibanga,
District Hanumangarh (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarter, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6268/2019
Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Bal Ram, Aged About 30 Years, Ward No.
01, Jakhranwali, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Headquarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Hanumangarh, District
Hanumangarh.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6317/2019
Deepak Kumar S/o Shri Ramji Lal, Aged About 30 Years, Resident
Of Chak 16 Krw, Dhani Khatsajwar, Tehsil Sadulshahar, District Sri
Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:18:38 AM)
(6 of 14)
4. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6319/2019
Ravinder Kumar S/o Shri Tiku Ram, Aged About 21 Years,
Resident Of Village 34 LNP, Post Ghamurwali, Tehsil Padampur,
District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6355/2019
Mahesh Kumar S/o Kailash Chandra, Aged About 20 Years,
Resident Of VPO Lalpur, Via Bagar, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu
(Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6364/2019
Rajender Singh S/o Shri Baldev Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
Resident Of Ward No. 2, Near Bhajan Singh Aara, Suratgarh,
Tehsil Suratgarh, District Sri Ganganagar (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:18:38 AM)
(7 of 14)
Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarter, Jaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Sri Ganganagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
------Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3575/2019
Amandeep Singh S/o Shri Mukhtyar Singh, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Chak 34 GB Tehsil Sri Vijay Nagar, District Sri
Ganganagar.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department
Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters,
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
4. The Inspector General Of Police, Range Bikaner.
5. The Superintendent Of Police/commandant, District Sri
Ganganagar-11
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6989/2019
Jawahar Lal S/o Shri Bhagwana Ram, Aged About 21 Years,
Village Udasar Chhota, Tehsil Rawatsar, District Hanumangarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary,
Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of
Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters,
Jaipur (Raj.).
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarters, Jaipur.
4. The Inspector General Of Police, Range Bikaner.
5. The Superintendent Of Police / Commandant, District
Sri Ganganagar-11.
----Respondents
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:18:38 AM)
(8 of 14)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Inderjeet Yadav.
Mr. S.R.Godara.
Mr. N.R.Budania.
Mr. Shardul Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kailash Choudhary for
Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order 29/05/2019 These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to re-schedule and re- conduct the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) of the petitioners and result of the re-scheduled PET may be considered for appointment on the post of Constable.
It is inter alia indicated in the writ petitions that pursuant to the advertisement dated 25/5/2018 the petitioners applied for the post of Constable and after passing the requisite written test, the petitioners were subjected to Physical Standard Test (PST), which was cleared by them and thereafter, they were required to undergo PET, consisting of a 5 km. run within maximum period of 25 minutes and the marks were awarded based on the performance at the said run out of 15 marks. The PET of the petitioners was held between 12/9/2018 to 15/9/2018 at Dr. Karni Singh Stadium, Near Bhimsen Circle, Bikaner.
It is alleged in the writ petitions that on the date of PET, the permanent track of 400 mtr. at the stadium was temporarily modified by the respondents to 385 mtr. so as to complete the requisite 5000 mtr. (5 km.) in 13 laps and for the said purpose, extra sand was placed on the temporary track. It is claimed that (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:18:38 AM) (9 of 14) due to the excessive soil deployment in 15 mtr. the temporary track was rugged, which was not conducive for the candidates to perform properly. The petitioners complained regarding the same but the track was not rectified because of which the petitioners could not complete the requisite run within the stipulated time.
It is submitted that whereafter final select list was prepared and issued by the respondents. It is claimed that when in Revant Ram Meghwal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 13731/2018 decided on 27/11/2018, this Court directed re-conduct of the PET for the petitioners therein on account of the ground involved therein affected by rain on the date of PET, the petitioners filed a representation requiring the respondents to hold fresh PET, which was not responded to, forcing the petitioners to file the present writ petitions.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the judgment in the case of Revant Ram Meghwal (supra) that it was least expected from the respondents to provide an appropriate running track for the candidates to complete their requisite run within the stipulated time, however, the track provided for was not upto the mark inasmuch as on a part of the track, with a view to reduce its length, sand was placed, which affected the performance of the petitioners and, therefore, the respondents be directed to re-conduct the PET.
Replies to few writ petitions have been filed by the respondents, wherein, objections have been raised regarding the petitioners approaching this Court with delay and as an after thought.
Further submissions have been made that the condition of the track was absolutely normal and at the relevant time no (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:18:38 AM) (10 of 14) objection whatsoever in this regard was raised by the petitioners and the petitioners on account of their failure to complete the run within the stipulated time, have now raised objections, which is not permissible in law and, therefore, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. Along with the reply, the performance of the petitioners at the PET has been placed on record.
Reliance was placed on Chairman, U.P. Jal Nigam & Anr. vs. Jaswant Singh & Anr. : 2007 AIR SCW 672, State of U.P. Vs. Arvind Kumar Srivastava & Ors. : 2014 AIR SCW 6519 and Shravan Kumar Choudhary vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.154/2019 decided on 22/5/2019.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
At the outset it may be noticed that despite specific denial by the respondents regarding condition of the track being rugged at a particular section, the petitioners have failed to place on record any material whatsoever to support the said contention. Even when the directions were given to the respondents to produce the photographs/videography of the run, as the static cameras were placed at the beginning/end of the run, nothing was visible regarding the condition of the track, which could fortify the submissions made by the petitioners in any manner and, therefore, even the fundamental allegation made in the petitions has not been established.
Besides the above, at the directions of the Court, learned counsel for the respondents have produced a chart qua each petitioner indicating the laps completed by her/him and time taken. The chart produced reads as under:
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:18:38 AM)
(11 of 14) SBCWP Petitioner/s Respondent Laps Time No. completed taken 631/2019 Rambharosi State & Ors 13 25:15 447/2019 Vinod Vishnoi State & Ors 11 27:50 447/2019 Sandeep State & Ors 8 23:25 670/2019 Raghuveer Singh State & Ors 12 23:51 670/2019 Rajesh State & Ors 13 25:07 2222/2019 Gorishankar State & Ors 12 23:38 2276/2019 Sunil Kumar State & Ors 13 26:15 2276/2019 Pawan Kumar State & Ors 11 24:17 2282/2019 Manil Beniwal State & Ors 11 25:05 2282/2019 Sunil State & Ors 12 25:04 2282/2019 Manoj Kumar State & Ors 12 27:23 2282/2019 Jaivardhan State & Ors 11 26:07 2282/2019 Mukesh State & Ors 13 25:58 2871/2019 Ray Singh State & Ors 12 24:22 2871/2019 Vinod Kumar State & Ors 4 15:51 2873/2019 Praveen Kumar State & Ors 13 26:34 2873/2019 Kalu Ram State & Ors 13 25:05 3478/2019 Manju State & Ors 11 32:46 4217/2019 Radhe Shyam State & Ors 11 26:38 4229/2019 Rajpal State & Ors 10 23:23 4399/2019 Manoj Kumar Soni State & Ors 9 22:36 6268/2019 Sunil Kumar State & Ors 13 26:14 6317/2019 Deepak Kumar State & Ors 10 24:24 6319/2019 Ravinder Kumar State & Ors 11 26:43 6355/2019 Mahesh Kumar State & Ors 12 22:50 6364/2019 Rajendra Kumar State & Ors 13 26:17 3575/2019 Amandeep Singh State & Ors 11 24:45 6989/2019 Jawahar Lal State & Ors. 12 25:11 As already noticed hereinbefore, the run at Bikaner was held from 12/9/2018 to 15/9/2018, the present writ petitions have been filed, the earliest on 7/1/2019 and lastest on 17/5/2019. It is an admitted fact that all the petitioners at the relevant time i.e. immediately on completion of requisite run between 12/9/2018 to 15/9/2018 despite failing in PET, did not raise any objection (Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:18:38 AM) (12 of 14) whatsoever regarding the condition of the track. The averment made in the petitions regarding oral complaint has no basis. It is also established, based on the averments made in the writ petitions, that the petitioners filed the complaint pertaining to the condition of the track inspired by the decision of this Court in Revant Ram Meghwal (supra). The very fact that the complaints in this regard were not raised immediately/within reasonable time is clearly reflective of the fact that the entire exercise on part of the petitioners is by way of an afterthought only with a view to somehow seek one more opportunity to clear the PET, in which they had failed.
As noticed hereinbefore, the writ petitions have been filed beginning on 7/1/2019 till 17/5/2019 which clearly shows that the last writ petition has been filed after 08 months of the run, which exercise on the part of the petitioners is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court.
Further, a perusal of the table reproduced above would indicate that the petitions have been filed by majority of the candidates, who did not even complete 13 laps inasmuch as out of 28 petitioners only 08 had completed 13 laps and rest of the petitioners had completed 4, 8 , 9, 10, 11 or 12 laps only. Having miserably failed to even complete the requisite run, filing of the petitions are essentially for the sole purpose of taking a chance where none exists and the said tendency on part of the candidates cannot be appreciated, wherein, they keep on approaching the Courts without any substantive grounds only by relying on the judgment/s, which have no application to their facts.(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:18:38 AM)
(13 of 14) This Court in Shravan Kumar Choudhary : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 17928/2018 decided on 18/12/2018, on the petitioners therein approaching this Court after three months from the date PET was held, inspired only by the order in the case of Revant Ram Meghwal (supra) dismissed the writ petition on account of inordinate delay in approaching the Court without raising any objection at any stage.
The said order in Shrawan Kumar Choudhary (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench in Shravan Kumar Choudhary vs. State : D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 154/2019 decided on 22/5/2019 inter alia on additional grounds with the following observations:
"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.
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."(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:18:38 AM)
(14 of 14) The fact situation in the present case is squarely covered by the observations made in Division Bench judgment in the case of Shravan Kumar Choudhary (supra).
Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) observed that similar relief cannot be extended to fence-sitters who approach the Court only when their counter parts succeed in their efforts.
In the present case, it is an admitted fact indicated in the writ petitions itself that it is only after the judgment in the case of Revant Ram Meghwal (supra) that the petitioners even thought of raising the dispute pertaining to condition of the ground, therefore, in view of the judgment in the case of Arvind Kumar Srivastava (supra) also the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.
In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI),J 6 to 9 & 180 to 197 except 8, 181 & 188 baweja/-
(Downloaded on 28/06/2019 at 07:18:38 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)