[2023:RJ-JD:32929-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 586/2021
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Chief Conservator Of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Udaipur.
----Appellants Versus Sakar Chand Bhakariya S/o Takat Ram Bhakariya, Aged About 40 Years, Village Dheekliya, Tehsil Phalasiya, District Udaipur (Raj.)
----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Advocate-cum-
AAG with Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT Judgment / Order 05/10/2023 The matter comes up for consideration of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act preferred on behalf of the appellants with a prayer for condoning the delay of 429 days in filing the instant appeal.(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:00:36 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:32929-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-586/2021] Despite service of notice of application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, nobody has appeared on behalf of the sole respondent.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and after going through the contents of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we are of the view that the appellants have satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the instant appeal. Hence, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed and the delay of 429 days in filing the instant appeal is condoned.
Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned AAG has submitted that as per the directions given by the learned Single Judge, the sole respondent was medically examined on 25.11.2021 and as he has failed in the said medical examination, therefore, appointment on the post of Forest Guard could not be given to him. It is further submitted that for the practical purposes, the present appeal has become infructuous, however, the State is aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge because the learned Single Judge has held that as per Condition No.8.2 of the advertisement, ones a candidate has undergone measurements and physical efficiency test, then, he is not required to attend the medical examination test. Mr. Shah has submitted that while holding this, the learned Single Judge has completely ignored Condition No.8.5 of the advertisement. Learned counsel for the appellants has also submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in observing that the Condition No.8.2 of the advertisement speaks about medical fitness and physical measurements etc., whereas the Condition No.8.2 of the advertisement is in respect of (Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:00:36 AM) [2023:RJ-JD:32929-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-586/2021] measurements and physical efficiency test and not for medical fitness. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that as per the conditions of the advertisement running from Condition Nos.8.2 to 8.5, after clearing measurements and physical efficiency test, a candidate is required to go for medical fitness test also.
Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, submitted that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside.
Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the material available on record.
The Condition Nos.8.2 to 8.5 of the advertisement are reproduced hereunder :
"8-2 ekirksy ,oa 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk%& fyf[kr ijh{kk esa p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ekirksy ,oa 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk ds fy;s vkeaf=r fd;k tk;sxkA tks vH;FkhZ n{krk ijh{kk esa vuqRrh.kZ gksaxs mUgsa vfxze p;u izfØ;k esa 'kkfey ugha fd;k tk;sxkA 8-3 lk{kkRdkj%& mijksDr nksuksa ijh{kkvksa esa lQy vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq vkeaf=r fd;k tk;sxkA lk{kkRdkj nl vadksa dk gksxkA 8-4 p;u lwph%& lk{kkRdkj esa lQy vH;fFkZ;ksa dh p;u lwph tkjh dh tk;sxhA 8-5 LokLF; ijh{k.k%& esfMdy cksMZ ls fpfdRldh; ijh{k.k esa mi;qDr ik;s tkus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ekuk tk;sxkA"(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:00:36 AM)
[2023:RJ-JD:32929-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-586/2021] The Condition No.8.2 of the advertisement is with regard to measurements and physical efficiency test, whereas the Condition No.8.5 of the advertisement is with respect to medical fitness test. After attending the measurements and physical efficiency test, a candidate found suitable, is required to attend the interview and, thereafter, a select list is to be issued by the respondents and after that, the medical fitness test is required to be conducted.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that after attending the measurements and physical efficiency test, a candidate is not required to go for medical fitness test.
Hence, this Special Appeal is allowed. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.
No order as to costs.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J 35-msrathore/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2023 at 07:00:36 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)