Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Dharmendra Singh Gocher S/O Shri ... vs State Of Rajasthan Through Its Home ... on 27 May, 2019
Bench: Chief Justice, G R Moolchandani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 310/2019
Dharmendra Singh Gocher S/o Shri Ramcharan Gocher, Aged
About 28 Years, By Caste-Gurjar, R/o House No. 56, Gali No. 02,
Sarasawati Colony, Baran Road Kota,district-Kota (Raj.) Pincode-
324001, (For The Post Of Constable Driver Non-Tsp, Appl.id-
201804618235, Rollno. 2363925)
----Appellant
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Home Secretary, 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, Kota Range,kota (Raj.)
5. Superintendent Of Police, Kota City, Kota (Raj.)
6. Rohitash Kumar S/o Shri Prahlad Singh, Aged About 28
Years, By Caste - Jat (Obc), R/o Dhani Kajalan Kalyanpura
Thoi, Tehsil-Shrimadhopur, District-Sikar (Raj.) Pincode-
332719 (For The Post Of Constable Driver Non-Tsp
App.id-201804972325, Roll No. -2245734)
----Respondents
Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 311/2019 Chandrapal Singh S/o Shri Dhani Ram, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste- (Sc), R/o Village- Januthar, Post- Januthar, Tehsil- Deeg, Disttrict- Bharatpur(Raj.), Pincode-321206, (For The Post Of Constable Driver Non Tsp, App.id-201804467090, Roll No.2073886)
----Appellant Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Home Secretary, Govt.secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:22:08 AM) (2 of 12) [SAW-310/2019] Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Superintendent Of Police, Kota City, Kota (Raj.)
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 314/2019 Ramesh Kumar S/o Shri Ramnarayan Khedar, Aged About 26 Years, By Caste-Jat(Obc)R/o Ward No.03 Dhani Johra Wali, Post- Barsinghpura, Teh.-Khandela, Dist.-Sikar(Raj.)Pincode-332709
----Appellant Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Home Secretary, Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. Superintendent Of Police, Kota City, Kota (Raj.)
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 319/2019 Santa Devi Daughter Of Shri Ramso Siradhna, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Gurjar, Resident Of Kharera, Post Uchchain, Tehsil Roopwas, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Appellant Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Home Secretary, 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. Superintendent Of Police, Kota (Raj.)
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 344/2019 Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Radheshyam, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Jat (Obc), R/o Village Hejampura, Post Indali, Tehsil And District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Govt.
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:22:08 AM)(3 of 12) [SAW-310/2019]
2. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), P.h.q. Lalkothi, Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Of Police, Disrtict Bundi.
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 358/2019 Vikram Singh S/o Shri Mahipal Singh, Aged About 25 Years, B/c Nayak (Sc), R/o Village And Post Sonasar, Tehsil Malsisar, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Govt.
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), P.h.q. Lalkothi, Jaipur.
3. Commandant, 12Th Battalion, Rac, Delhi
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 471/2019
1. Rekha Bai Meena D/o Shri Ghanshyam Meena, Aged About 26 Years, By Caste- Meena(St), R/o Vill.-Hajipur, Post-Khudiyana, Dist.- Alwar (Raj.) Pincode-321607, (For The Post Of Constable Gen. Non Tsp, Application Id- 201804409523, Roll No.1164817)
2. Dharmendra Choudhary S/o Shri Mukhram Choudhary, Aged About 21 Years, By Caste- Jat(Obc), R/o Vill.- Mohabbatpur, Post-Beejwar Naruka, Teh.-Malakhera, Dist.- Alwar (Raj.) Pincode-322230, (For The Post Of Constable Gen. Non Tsp, Application Id-201803542561, Roll No.1152612)
----Appellants Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Home Secretary, 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. Commandant, Twelveth Battalion Rac, Delhi-50
----Respondents (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:22:08 AM) (4 of 12) [SAW-310/2019] D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 472/2019
1. Bajrang Lal Sepat S/o Shri Gyan Chand Sepat, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Village-Tilla Dham, Khachariyawas, Tehsil- Dantaramgarh, District- Sikar(Raj.) Pincode-332710, (For The Post Of Constable Gen. Non-Tsp, App.id-201804150202, Roll No.2040646)
2. Mahipal Singh S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, Aged About 29 Years, By Caste-Jat, R/o Village- Kalyanpura Via Thoi, Tehsil- Shrimadhopur, District- Sikar (Raj.) Pincode- 332719, (For The Post Of Constable Gen. Non-Tsp, App.id-201804390879, Roll No.-2246792)
3. Vikash Mundotia S/o Shri Mohan Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village-Dookiya, Palsana, Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Raj.) Pincode-332482, (For The Post Of Constable Gen. Non-Tsp, App.id-201804499425, Roll No.2044141)
----Appellants Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, 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, Kota Range,kota (Raj.)
5. Superintendent Of Police, Bundi (Raj.)
6. Superintendent Of Police, Kota City (Raj.)
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 473/2019 Narayan Choudhary S/o Shri Dalu Ram Choudhary, Aged About 27 Years, By Caste- Jat(Obc), R/o Village-Baget, Post-Khudiyala, Tehsil-Mozambad, Disttrict- Jaipur(Raj.) Pincode-303008, (For The Post Of Constable Gen. Non TSP, Application Id- 201804157966, Rollno.2059244)
----Appellant Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary Govt.
Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:22:08 AM) (5 of 12) [SAW-310/2019]
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, Kota Range, Kota(Raj.)
5. Superintendent Of Police, Bundi, Bundi (Raj.)
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 475/2019 Vikas Kumar S/o Shri Ranveer Singh, Aged About 26 Years, By Caste Jat (Obc), R/o Village Tara Ka Bas, Post Chanana, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Govt.
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), P.h.q. Lalkothi, Jaipur.
3. Commandant, 11Th Battalion, Rac, Vajirabad, Delhi.
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 557/2019 Rajat Gharu S/o Shri Surendra Gharu, Aged About 21 Years, By Caste Harijan (Sc), R/o Ward No. 12, Near Ramdev Mandir, Parbatsar District Nagaur (Raj.)
----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Govt.
Of Rajasthan, Sceretariat, Jaipur
2. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), P.h.q. Lalkothi, Jaipur.
3. Commissioner, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 701/2019 Ajit Singh S/o Shri Dariya Singh, Aged About 28 Years, By Caste Jat (Obc), R/o Village And Post Gowala, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Appellant Versus (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:22:08 AM) (6 of 12) [SAW-310/2019]
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Govt.
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), P.h.q. Lalkothi, Jaipur.
3. Commissioner, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur.
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 185/2019 Ram Singh Son Of Shri Raghuveer Singh, Aged About 33 Years, By Caste Ravana Rajpoot, Resident Of Village Rotwara, Post Mandor, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur (Raj.) At Present Resident Of Plot No. 06, Shayam Vihar E, Kali Ka Khana Naale Ke Pass Sanganer, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Appellant Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Rajasthan, Phq Lalkothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Inspector General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Rajasthan, Phq Lalkothi, Jaipur.
4. The Superintendent Of Police, District Kota City, Rajasthan.
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 601/2019 Om Prakash S/o Shri Laturlal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Bandha, Post - Ranpur, Tehsil Ladpura, District Kota (Raj.)
----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
3. The Director General Of Police, (Recruitment), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. The District Superintendent Of Police, Kota City (Raj.) (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:22:08 AM) (7 of 12) [SAW-310/2019]
5. Shiv Prakash Khajotiyqa S/o Shri Asha Ram Khajotiya, aged about 23 years, R/o Hanuman Nagar, Dada Badi, Kota (Raj.).
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 336/2019 Anil Kumar Prajapat S/o Shri Ram Chandra Kumhar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village And Post Bhuteda Via Govindgarh, District Jaipur.
----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Govt.
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), P.h.q.
Lalkothi, Jaipur.
3. Superintendent Of Police, District Jaipur Rural-14
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 694/2019 Sarita Kumari D/o Ranveer Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village And Post Alipur, Via Bagar, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Appellant Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Govt.
Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur
2. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), P.h.q.
Lalkothi, Jaipur.
3. Commandant, 2Nd Battalion, Rac, Kota.
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 606/2019 Vishnu Kumar Son Of Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Village Barwara, Post Luhasha, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Appellant Versus (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:22:08 AM) (8 of 12) [SAW-310/2019]
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), Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Superintendent Of Police, District Bundi National (Raj.)
----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 608/2019 Dileep Singh S/o Shri Dalveer Singh, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village Nagla Bhagori (Naya Gaon Khyuro) Post Kanwar Tehsil Bayana District- Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Appellant Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, 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. Superintendent Of Police, Bharatpur (Raj.)
----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Vijay, Mr. Rajendra Singh, Mr. Chaman Singh, Mr. Sanjay Mehla, Ms. Komal Kumari Giri, Mr. Shivendra Singh Rathore, Mr. K.C. Sharma & Mr. Satyapal Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Harshad Tholia for Dr.V.B. Sharma, AAG HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G R MOOLCHANDANI Judgment 27/05/2019 Misc.Application Nos.10605/2019 in SAW No.310/2019, Misc.Application No.10593/2019 in SAW No.311/2019, Misc.Application No.18220/2019 in SAW No.471/2019, (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:22:08 AM) (9 of 12) [SAW-310/2019] Misc.Application No.18223/2019 in SAW No.472/2019, Misc.Application No.18218/2019 in SAW No.473/2019 & Misc.Application No.5376/2019 in SAW No.185/2019:-
The applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC stand disposed of.
Misc.Application No.406/2019 in SAW No.601/2019:-
The application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
DBSAW Nos.310/2019, 311/2019, 314/2019, 319/2019, 344/2019, 358/2019, 471/2019, 472/2019, 473/2019, 475/2019, 557/2019, 701/2019, 606/2019, 608/2019, 185/2019, 601/2019, 336/2019 & 694/2019:-
1. In all these appeals a common ground urged is that the Single Judge by various orders fell into error rejecting writ petitions only on the ground of delay.
2. All the writ petitioners were candidates for selection to the post of Constable in the Rajasthan Police. After clearing the written examination, they were asked to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) on various dates in different venues. A common complaint was that the tracks where they were asked to run for 5 kms. were in poor condition, being subjected to rainfall and the ground was muddy. The writ petitions were dismissed on the ground that the appellants had approached the court belatedly.
3. The appellants in support of their arguments draw the attention of the court towards the Division Bench's ruling in Ravi Kumar Khateek Vs. The State of Rajasthan : DBSAW No.1907/2018 and contend that in somewhat similar circumstances a re-test or the second PET has been ordered.
4. This Court is of the opinion that Ravi Kumar Khateek cannot be treated as a precedent per se because it is not based upon the principle but on a re-appreciation of the facts, which has been considered by the Single Judge. The Single Judge in that case had considered the track conditions after examining the Commissioner's report in each case and concluded that in similar (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:22:08 AM) (10 of 12) [SAW-310/2019] circumstances only what relief was permissible. However, the Division Bench enlarged on the following reasons:-
"8. A look at the data detailed by the learned Single Judge gives a vital information which appears to have been overlooked by the learned Single Judge. At Jaipur, on 29.08.2018 the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted in the morning and in the evening. The condition of the track as of 08:46 A.M. is the same of 04:02 P.M. and this shows the level to which the track had got affected. At Kota, Physical Efficiency Test was conducted at 09:00 A.M., 12:00 Noon and 02:00 P.M. on 07.09.2018, 08.09.2018 and 09.09.2018. The data shows that on all three dates the track was affected due to rainfall. The date of the Physical Efficiency Test held on 10.09.2018 at 09:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. shows same position. Physical Efficiency Test conducted in Kota on 11.09.2018 and 13.09.2018 also shows the same position. At Udaipur, Physical Efficiency Test conducted on 07.09.2018 and 08.09.2018 at 11:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. likewise shows the track to be affected due to rainfall.
9. Under the circumstances the nuanced distinction drawn by the learned Single Judge as noted above is too tenuous. There is enough material to show that on all the dates the tracks were badly affected due to rainfall and merely because at a given time extent of damage to the track was more vis-a-vis other occasions would be no ground to drawn the distinction as has not been drawn by the learned Single Judge."
5. This Court by Single Bench in resent order in Shravan Kumar Choudhary Vs. The State of Rajasthan : DBSAW No.154/2019 decided on 22.05.2019 has held 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 (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:22:08 AM) (11 of 12) [SAW-310/2019] 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 (Downloaded on 27/05/2019 at 02:07:00 PM) (6 of 7) [SAW- 371/2019] 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 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 (Downloaded on 27/05/2019 at 02:07:00 PM) (7 of 7) [SAW-371/2019] process, (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:22:08 AM) (12 of 12) [SAW-310/2019] which is inherently untenable and contrary to Article 14 and cannot be permitted.
11. For the above reasons, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed."
6. The above reasoning would squarely apply to the facts of these cases as well because directing a fresh re-test can result in inequity, especially to non-parties, since they accepted the so- called poor conditions and would be now deprived of another opportunity (which the appellants would get, were they to succeed in these appeals) because they are not before the Court.
7. For the foregoing reasons, it is held that the appeals lack merit; they are dismissed.
(G R MOOLCHANDANI),J (S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ Anil Goyal-tn/33-44, 6, 15, 19, 22, 70 &71 (Downloaded on 29/06/2019 at 04:22:08 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)