Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Deepak Kumar Son Of Shri Ashok Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan (2023/Rjjp/004178) on 14 March, 2023
Author: Sudesh Bansal
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
[2023/RJJP/004178]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17092/2022
Deepak Kumar Son Of Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 22 Years,
Resident Of Village And Post Kawai, Tehsil Nadbai, District
Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Home, Through Its
Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi,
Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment And Promotion
Board), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Director General Of Police, C.i.d., I.b. Jaipur(Raj.)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15785/2022
Ramkishore Son Of Shri Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 22 Years,
Resident Of Village Itawa, Post Tejya Ka Bass, Tehsil Phulera,
District Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Home, Through Its
Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi,
Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Superintendent Of Police (Recruitment And Promotion
Board), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Commandant, 14Th Battalion, R.a.c. Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16241/2022
Dinesh Kumar Karad Son Of Shri Ram Kalyan Karad, Aged About
28 Years, Resident Of Shri Radhey Krishna Store, Hariom Nagar,
Rangwari Road, Kota (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Home, Through Its
Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi,
Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment And Promotion
Board), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Commandant, 2Nd Battalion, R.a.c., Kota (Raj.)
----Respondents
(D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM)
[2023/RJJP/004178] (2 of 16) [CW-17092/2022]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16284/2022
Chain Singh Nathawat Son Of Shri Dashrath Singh Nathawat,
Aged About 33 Years, Resident Of Thingla Road, Shiv Mandir Ke
Samne, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Home, Through Its
Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi,
Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment And Promotion
Board), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Superintendent Of Police, Kota Rural, Kota (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16316/2022
Manisha Kumari Meena D/o Kalu Ram Meena, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Village Dulawa, Po Pundarpapa, District Dausa
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Department Of Home, Government Secretariat,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur Rural, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16353/2022
Sumit Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma,
Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village And Post Sadaara, Tehsil And
Police Station Sawar, District Ajmer (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarters,
Near Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary, Ajmer.
4. Inspector General Of Police, Kota Renj, Kota (Rajasthan)
5. Superintendent Recruitment And Promotion Board,
Rajasthan, Jaipur, Off At - Dgp Office, Lalkothi, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16597/2022
Mohit Didel S/o Dharm Singh Choudhary, Aged About 21 Years,
(D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM)
[2023/RJJP/004178] (3 of 16) [CW-17092/2022]
R/o Didel Ki Dhani, Itawa Phulera, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Home
Department, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Director General Of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan
3. Commissioner, Rajasthan Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16827/2022
Pooja Gurjar D/o Ratiram Gurjar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 29 D,
Radha Vihar Colony, Hathoj, Kalwar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
3. The Director General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Additional Director General Of Police, Recruitment
And Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur Rural, District
Jodhpur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16976/2022
Sharvan Choudhary, S/o Shri Ram Ratan Choudhary, Aged
About 23 Years, R/o VPo Chouru, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur
3. The Director General of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur
4. The Additional Director General of Police, Recruitment
and Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur
5. The Superintendent of Police, Kota City, Kota
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17039/2022
Supriya Choudhary, D/o Shri Onkar Mal Choudhary, Aged About
23 Years, R/o Kacholiya Ki Dhani, Shri Govindpur, Tehsil Amer
District Jaipur
(D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM)
[2023/RJJP/004178] (4 of 16) [CW-17092/2022]
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Department Of Home, Government Secretariat,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Jaipur
3. Superintendent Of Police Intelligence, Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17247/2022
Rahul Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ramkesh Meena, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Datasuti, Tehsil Bamanwas, Danta Sooti
Sawaimadhopur Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary
Department Of Home, Government Secretariat,
Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. Director General Of Police Rajasthan, Jaipur
3. Superintendent Of Police, Telecommunication, Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17382/2022
Kamal Verma Son Of Shri Ramesh Kumar Verma, Aged About 22
Years, Resident Of Ward No. 07, Sed Ka Mohalla, Neem Ka
Thana, District Sikar- Rajasthan- 332713.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To Home
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Headquarter,
Jaipur.
3. Additional Director General Of Police, Recruitment And
Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17415/2022
Sanjana Saini D/o Hanuman Sahay Saini, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o 346, Heeda Ki Mori, Near Gurudwara, Surajpole Bazar,
Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur
2. The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government
Secretariat, Jaipur.
(D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM)
[2023/RJJP/004178] (5 of 16) [CW-17092/2022]
3. The Director General Of Police (Recruitment), Police
Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
4. The Additional Director General Of Police, Recruitment
And Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
5. The Commandant, 4Th Battalion, Rac, Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Petitioners present in person in
SBCWP Nos. 16827/2022,
16976/2022 & 17415/2022
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG with
Ms. Kinjal Surana
Mr. Rupin Kala, GC
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Judgment
14/03/2023
Reportable
1. At the outset, it may be noticed that Advocates have taken a
call to abstain from judicial work and not to appear in Courts since
20th February, 2023 onwards and today as well, no advocate for
and on behalf of petitioner(s) has put in appearance, therefore,
few of petitioners, who are present in person, have been heard.
Since grievances of petitioner(s) in these writ petitions, are
substantially similar, therefore, all these writ petitions have been
considered on merits as per material available on record and are
being decided by this common judgment.
2. It appears from record that petitioners having participated
and qualified written examination of Rajasthan Police Constable
Examination-2021, for appointment on the post of Constable in
different categories, but could not appear/qualify the Physical
Efficiency Test (hereinafter for short "PET") due to remaining
absent being unfit on the scheduled date(s) for such test, because
(D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM)
[2023/RJJP/004178] (6 of 16) [CW-17092/2022]
of suffering from either serious sickness or injury. And therefore,
petitioners have preferred these writ petitions, praying for an
another chance/opportunity for PET and to re-fix/reschedule dates
for their PET and consequently, to consider their candidature for
appointment on merits.
3. In support, petitioners have placed reliance on a judgment of
Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 24.08.2020 passed in SB
Civil Writ Petition No.17260/2019 titled Deepak Singh
Khatana Vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein the Court, after
placing reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case
of Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
[(2019) 13 SCC 706], in somewhat similar facts and
circumstances, in respect of recruitment for the post of Sub
Inspector, pursuant to advertisement dated 05.10.2016, declared
that since petitioner was suffering with dengue fever at the time of
scheduled date of his Physical Efficiency Test, therefore, he
deserved second chance to appear in PET/PST, and accordingly,
directed respondents to re-conduct the PET/PST for the petitioner.
It has also been stated by petitioners that since they have qualified the written examination and were eligible to appear for PET, however because of unwanted and unavoidable circumstances of suffering from serious sickness/injury, could not appear in the PET on the scheduled date(s), and it is not deliberate or negligent fault on part of petitioner(s), therefore, sympathetic view be taken in favour of petitioners and one more chance/opportunity to participate in the PET be accorded to (D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM) [2023/RJJP/004178] (7 of 16) [CW-17092/2022] petitioners, so that their candidature may be considered for appointment on merits in the present recruitment process-2021.
4. Learned counsel for respondents, while opposing writ petitions, contend that for appointment on the post of Constable in various districts, the recruitment process was initiated vide advertisement dated 29.10.2021 under provisions of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (as amended) (hereinafter for short "the Rules of 1989"). He has pointed out that in the advertisement itself it was specifically indicated that determination of vacant posts, qualification, eligibility and procedure of recruitment etc. would be governed as detailed out in Standing Order (S.O.) No. 29/2021 dated 03.09.2021, issued by the Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur. He has pointed out that Clause No.9 of the advertisement, prescribed the procedure of recruitment, which reads as under:-
9. भर्ती हरे चयन प्र्रकप्रक्रियर-
कांस्टबल पद पर चयन राजससान पललस अधअधीनसस सटेवा लनयम, 1989 कट लनयम 25 एेवं राजससान पललस अलधलनययम 2007 कट लनयम 28(3) कट पाेवधानसार लकया जायटगा। परअधीका कट स सभअधी चरचरण चरणों कट कल 200 अंक है लजनककी गरचरणा लनमनानसार ककी जाएगअधी:-
परअधीका का चरचरण कांस्टबल कांस्टबल चालक बैण्
सामानय/पललस
दूरसंचार
लललित परअधीका 150 150 लागू नहीं
शारअधीररक दकता परअधीका 30 20 20
दकता परअधीका लागू नहीं 30 30
लेवशटष योगयता (एन.सअधी.सअधी, होमगा््
एेवं पललस सट समबंलधत लेवषय चरणों म
ल्पलोमा/उपालध पाप) पमाचरण पत्र कट 20 लागू नहीं लागू नहीं
आधार पर आेवंल्त लकयट जानट ेवालट
अंक
अंक चरणों का योग 200 200 50
5. Learned counsel for respondents has placed on record, a copy of the S.O. No.29/2021 dated 03.09.2021 on record and has (D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM) [2023/RJJP/004178] (8 of 16) [CW-17092/2022] pointed out that as per Clause 9 of the same, it is clear that the process of selection for the post of Constable shall be as per provisions under Rule 25 of the Rules of 1989 and in Part-I, the manner and syllabus of written examination is prescribed and in Part-II, the manner of PET is prescribed. It has been provided in Part-II that all candidates, declared successful in written examination, shall undergo Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Physical Standard Test (PST) at a date and place specified by the DGP. PET will be held first followed by PST. In respect of PET, it is specifically stated that marks obtained in the PET shall be considered for determining the merit of successful candidates. The Candidates will undergo the PET at their own risk. Any candidate failing in PET will be disqualified. Only one chance shall be provided for PET. There will be no appeal for PET. Candidate shall be required to submit a Fitness Certificate issued by a Government Medical Officer, prior to appearing for PET. In respect of women candidates who are pregnant, it is stipulated that if a pregnant women candidate presents herself before the Board, the Board shall decide for extension of PET/PST after consideration of marks obtained in the written exam. The candidate so allowed shall submit an application for conducting PET/PST after a period of two months of her delivery. Failure to do so, will result in cancellation of her candidature.
6. Learned counsel for respondents contended that as per terms and conditions indicated in the advertisement dated 29.10.2021 as also in the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, it stands clear that there is no provision/rule to provide another (D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM) [2023/RJJP/004178] (9 of 16) [CW-17092/2022] chance/opportunity for PET, if candidate does not appear in PET on or between the scheduled date(s) for his/her PET. Only relaxation, in case of pregnant women candidates has been provided, subject to prescribed limits as indicated in the S.O. dated 03.09.2021. It has been submitted that indisputably, none of the petitioner(s) has/have appeared in the PET on or within the fixed time, date and scheduled for physical test. In absence of any provision/rule, the deferment and extension of PET beyond the prescribed schedule was not permissible and therefore, request of deferment of PET by petitioner(s), as per suitability of candidates, on acquiring their fitness, was not acceptable. Learned counsel submits that schedule of PET in respect of the present recruitment of Constable has over and the process of selection has already been completed. Learned counsel submits that prayer made by petitioner(s) is not liable to be acceptable and all these writ petitions are required to be dismissed.
7. Learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on order dated 18.09.2018 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.14086/2018 titled Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan which was affirmed by the Division Bench in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1685/2018 vide order dated 14.11.2018.
Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dated 30.01.2020 passed in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1310/2019 titled Dropadi Jyani Vs. State of Rajasthan.
(D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM) [2023/RJJP/004178] (10 of 16) [CW-17092/2022] Further the order/judgment dated 09.11.2022 passed by the Division Bench in DB Special Appeal Writ No.1129/20252 titled State of Rajasthan Vs. Bharat Yadav as also on the order dated 03.02.2023, passed by the Division Bench in DB Review Petition (Writ) No. 218/2022, affirming the order dated 09.11.2022, have also been placed on record. In all these cases, prayer for deferment of PET of the petitioner(s), was declined in absence of any provision either in the advertisement or in the relevant Rule or Standing Order.
8. Heard. Considered.
9. A copy of the advertisement dated 29.10.2021, whereby the recruitment process-2021 for appointment on the post of Constable was initiated and a copy of the S.O. No.29/2021 dated 03.09.2021, are available on record. A perusal of relevant Clause No.9 of the advertisement dated 29.10.2021 as mentioned hereinabove as also Clause 9 of the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, clearly indicates that the process of selection for the post of Constable shall be as per provisions under Rule 25 of the Rules of 1989. It is not in dispute that final merit list for selection for the post in question of Constable, is to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in written examination as well as in PET, therefore, it is essential for candidate to successfully qualify the PET/PST as per the prescribed criteria, for consideration of his/her candidature for selection on merit. In the advertisement dated 29.10.2021, it is specifically indicated in bold letters that the procedure for selection shall be governed and finalized as per the S.O. (D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM) [2023/RJJP/004178] (11 of 16) [CW-17092/2022] No.29/2021 dated 03.09.2021. In the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, it is stipulated that any candidate failing in PET will be disqualified and only one chance shall be given for PET and there will be no appeal for PET. As much as candidate shall be required to submit fitness certificate issued by the Government Medical Officer prior to appearing for PET. There is no provision in the advertisement/S.O for deferment or providing a second chance/opportunity for PET, except in case of pregnant women candidates. It is admitted case of petitioner(s) that he/she was/were given an opportunity to appear in the PET as per the schedule during which the PET was conducted by respondents. Petitioner(s) failed to appear in PET for which petitioner, states different reasons either because of suffering from serious sickness/injury or fever, for whatsoever reason may, but it is undisputed fact that petitioner(s) did not appear for PET on the scheduled time & date(s). As per scheme of preparing merit list, in absence of appearing in PET, the candidature of petitioner(s) cannot be considered for appointment on merits. Therefore, petitioner(s) has/have made prayer for an another chance/opportunity and to reschedule the date for their PET. But petitioner(s) have failed to point out any provision or rule under which they can claim another chance/opportunity for the PET, to enable them for consideration of their candidature for appointment on merits.
10. In case of Deepak Singh Khatana (supra) on which petitioners have placed reliance, learned Single Judge has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Mahendra Pratap Singh (supra). A perusal of judgment (D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM) [2023/RJJP/004178] (12 of 16) [CW-17092/2022] of the Apex Court, indicates that in the said case, the Competent Authority had issued a circular permitting candidates to participate in Physical Efficiency Test on any subsequent date, who have not participated in the Physical Efficiency Test on account of physical illness. The case of petitioner(s) in the said case was that though they were not physically fit to participate in the PET and yet, they were compelled to participate therefore, on the basis of circular issued by the Competent Authority fixing a subsequent date and deferring the physical test for those candidates who were unable to participate for physical test on account of their physical illness, petitioners sought a second chance. Under that peculiar facts and circumstances, prayer to grant second chance to petitioner(s) for PET/PST was acceded.
This Court cannot and does not disagree with the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mahendra Pratap Singh (supra), however, applying that ratio to the facts of case at hand, there is no provision neither in the advertisement dated 20.09.2021 nor in the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, by which indisputably the present recruitment process for appointment on the post of Constable-2021 is governed, for providing a second chance/opportunity for PET to candidates who did not/could not appear for PET on the scheduled time & date(s). Rather under Clause 9 of the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, it is specifically stipulated that "only one chance shall be given for PET". Thus in absence of any provision or rule for deferment or providing a second chance/opportunity of PET, in the present recruitment process, the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Mahendra Pratap Singh (D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM) [2023/RJJP/004178] (13 of 16) [CW-17092/2022] (supra), and the judgment of Coordinate Bench in case of Deepak Singh Khatana (supra) do not render any help/support to the case of petitioner(s).
11. On facts of the present case, the ratio of law as expounded in cases of Sunil Kumar (supra) & Dropadi Jyani (supra) stands squarely applicable. In case of Sunil Kumar (supra) vide order dated 18.09.2018, learned Single Judge has observed as under:
"The petitioner has participated in a recruitment process, where the appointments are required to be granted based on inter se merit of the candidates by including the marks obtained at Written Examination and PET subject to their fulfilling PST. Though unfortunate it is that the petitioner suffered accident and consequential knee surgery, the PET of the petitioner cannot be postponed indefinitely, i.e. till such time the petitioner declared fit to undergo PET.
A bare look at the requirements of PET indicates that the same is quite stressful, wherein a candidate is required to run for 5 kilometers within maximum 25 minutes, based on which, the marks are awarded. The Doctors have presently advised the petitioner to avoid running in any form for next 3 months and, therefore, it is absolutely speculative as to when the petitioner would gain medical fitness to undertake 5 kilometers running and, therefore, the plea seeking deferment of the PET of the petitioner cannot be countenanced."
The aforesaid order/judgment dated 18.09.2018 has been affirmed by the Division Bench in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1685/2018 vide order dated 14.11.2018 and held as under:
"Successfully clearing the written examination for being appointed as a Constable GD the problem which the appellant faced was of not being able to participate at the physical efficiency test to be held on 10.09.2018. During the physical efficient test, the petitioner was required to run 5 kms. in 25 minutes. The appellant suffered an accident and had to undergo operation of the left knee on 03.08.2018 he was advised not to run for the next three months.
2. The appellant made a request to defer he being subjected to the physical efficient test, the department refused because this would have delayed drawing up to the final merit list and those who had cleared the written examination and had also cleared the physical efficient test. The appellant filed a writ petition (D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM) [2023/RJJP/004178] (14 of 16) [CW-17092/2022] relying upon clause 12 of the standing order, which reads as under:
12. Medical Examination:-
Immediately after the declaration of the merit list, candidates whose names appear in the merit list shall be required to undergo a Medical Test by a Government Medical Officer. The Appointing Authority shall move the Chief Medical and Health Officer/Principal Medical Officer concerned to detail one or more medical officers, as required, for this purpose as per enclosed proforma (Annexure E).
Candidates who are found temporarily unfit and whose defect can be rectified within 6 months as per the opinion of the Medical Officer shall be eligible for appointment after the said period provided they are found fit by medical board. Candidates who fail to conform to the prescribed standards of medical fitness even on re-examination within stipulated time shall be declared medically unfit for appointment and their candidature shall stand cancelled.
3. The learned Single Judge has correctly pointed out that the said clause pertained to the requirement of government servants to be declared medically fit after being medically examined before they are to joint government service. The clause simply records that those fond temporarily medically unfit and whose defects can be rectified within six months, shall be eligible for appointment after said period provided they are found to be fit by the medical board. The clause does not relate to deferment of undergoing physical examination test." (Emphasis Supplied)
12. The Division Bench, in case of Dropadi Jyani (supra), followed and placed reliance on the observations made in case of Sunil Kumar (supra), dismissed the special appeal vide order dated 30.01.2020, declining to accord any second chance for the Physical Test.
13. The ratio of law as expounded in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra) of learned Single judge and in case of Dropadi Jayani (supra) of the Division Bench, have been followed by the Division Bench, recently in case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Bharat Yadav & Anr. in DB Special Appeal Writ No.1129/2022 vide order dated 09.11.2022 wherein the order of learned Single Judge, allowing writ petition and issuing direction to respondents to re-conduct the PET of petitioner in respect of (D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM) [2023/RJJP/004178] (15 of 16) [CW-17092/2022] recruitment for the post of Constable, was quashed and special appeal was allowed. Further, Review Petition (Writ) No. 218/2022 preferred to review the final order dated 09.11.2022, came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2023 and while dealing the alternative argument of learned counsel for review petitioner, which has also been made here that since petitioner had qualified the written examination, but could not appear in PET due to meeting with an accident and suffering an injury/illness, therefore, sympathetic view to allow him in PET be taken. The Division Bench has observed as under -
"We find no force in the alternative argument of the counsel for the Review Petitioner that sympathetic view be taken in favour of the petitioner. Sympathy alone cannot be a ground to grant relief to the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that sympathy which is not within the precincts of law, cannot be the basis to grant something which is otherwise impermissible. The relief sought for cannot be granted to the review petitioner by adopting a sympathetic view."
14. At this juncture, this Court deems it just and proper to make a clarification that in case of Sunil Kumar (supra), the appellant relied upon the Clause 12 of the Standing Order, seeking deferment of Physical Efficiency Test and the Division Bench, in its order dated 14.11.2018, has observed that the Clause 12, extracted in the order itself, does not relate to deferment of undergoing Physical Efficiency Test. In the present S.O. dated 03.09.2021, Clause 12 pertains to medical examination in similar terms finds place, but such Clause talks about medical examination of those candidates who have declared successful on merits after qualifying the written test and PET/PST. The medical examination, conducted under Clause 12 is not applicable before (D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM) [2023/RJJP/004178] (16 of 16) [CW-17092/2022] completion of selection process and at the stage of appearing for PET. Thus, it is made clear that the Clause 12 of the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, does not come to rescue to the petitioner(s) for seeking deferment of the PET.
15. For the reasons and discussions made hereinabove, the prayer of petitioner(s) to provide second chance/opportunity for PET is not acceptable and instant writ petitions, having no substance, are hereby dismissed. No costs.
16. Interim stay order(s) passed in favour of petitioner(s), if any, stand(s) vacated accordingly.
17. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
18. Copy of this judgment be placed in each file.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J SACHIN/ 56, 57, 65, 67, 68, 69, 72, 75, 79, 80, 81, 82 & 83 (D.B. SAW/405/2023 and 2 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:14 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)