Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Pal Singh Ranawat vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 20 February, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:8761] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2352/2024 Mahendra Pal Singh Ranawat S/o Kalyan Singh Ranawat, Aged About 51 Years, R/o Ward No. - 11, Anat, District - Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Through The Secretary, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director General Of Police, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General, Udaipur Range, Udaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Banswara.
5. Babar Khan S/o Jinayat Khan, Aged About 51 Years, Belt Number 415, Reserve Police Line, Baaswara.
6. Jitendra Kumar S/o Prem Shankar, Aged About 50 Years, Belt Number 134, Post At PS Anandpuri, Banswara.
----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshat Verma For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K.Bissa JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA Order 20/02/2024
1. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents have wrongly accorded zero marks to the petitioner in Physical Efficiency Test.
2. Learned counsel requested that the petitioner had completed 'run' in 13 minutes as against the requisite time allocated for said purpose (12 minutes).
(Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 09:00:07 PM)[2024:RJ-JD:8761] (2 of 3) [CW-2352/2024]
3. Learned counsel requested that the respondents be directed to produce videography of the 'run' taken during petitioner's Physical Efficiency Test and then appropriate direction be issued.
4. Mr. Bissa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -
State submitted that identical request made by similarly situated candidate (Surendra Sharma) has been turned down by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.01.2023 in the case of Surendra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. :
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5911/2015, while relying upon numerous other decisions.
5. In the case of Surendra Sharma (supra), a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held thus:-
"From the perusal of record, it is clear that in the recruitment process in question, the candidates were required to obtain minimum of 6 marks in the proficiency test notified vide Standing Order bearing No.4/2014 dated 29.06.2013 to become eligible to be considered for appointment on the post of Constable (Driver). The petitioner obtained 4 marks in the proficiency test which is less than the minimum marks prescribed and therefore, his name was not considered for appointment on the advertised post. In the writ petition, no allegation of bias has been levelled against the respondents in the questioned selection process.
In the considered opinion of this Court, cogent material has not been (Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 09:00:07 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:8761] (3 of 3) [CW-2352/2024] placed on record which warrant playing of videography of the proficiency test as suggested by the petitioner before this Court. Even otherwise, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has already held that summoning and showing/playing of videography while exercising extra ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 at the instance of candidates in each and every case is neither proper nor desirable as it will unnecessarily delay the selection process which would lead to opening of the flood gates for such requests.
Having considered the submissions advanced and after perusing the material available on record, the petitioner has failed to make out a case warranting indulgence by this Court.
In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with noorder as to costs.
6. Following the judgment passed in the case of Surendra Sharma (supra), the present writ petition is dismissed.
7. The stay application also stands dismissed, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J 15-akansha/-
(Downloaded on 20/02/2024 at 09:00:08 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)