Daula Ram vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 11995 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5812/2020

1. Daula Ram S/o Shri Hapu Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Sambadia, Bilara, Jodhpur (Belt No. 2298).

2. Lekhraj S/o Shri Malla Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Chak Piglod, Rupangarh, District Ajmer (Belt No. 256).

3. Sahi Ram S/o Bhoma Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Fateh Sagar, P.s. Lohawat, Tehsil Lohawat, District Jodhpur (Belt No. 1577).

4. Jagdish S/o Shri Khinya Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Lawari, P.s. Borunda, Jodhpur (Belt No. 1579)

5. Omprakash S/o Shri Dhima Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Rampura, Phalodi, Jodhpur (Belt No. 1580).

6. Sudhir S/o Shri Kishana Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Bhinyasar, Bhojasar, Jodhpur (Belt No. 1608).

7. Thana Ram S/o Shri Dalaram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Sajiyali Padam Singh Partham, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer (Belt No. 1615).

8. Purkha Ram S/o Shri Dhanna Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o V/p Kumpaliya, Tehsil Gira, District Barmer (Belt No. 1624).

9. Jaya Ram S/o Shri Bhagirath Ram, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Sewadi, P.s. Bagoda, District Jalore (Belt No. 1631).

10. Bhawani Singh S/o Shri Ummed Singh, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Osian, P.s. Osian, District Jodhpur (Belt No. 1655).

11. Lun Singh S/o Chain Singh, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Gada, P.s. Shergarh, District Jodhpur (Belt No. 1138).

12. Desa Ram S/o Shri Mohan Ram, Aged About 37 Years, R/ o Village Haniya, Post Khindakaur, Tehsil Osian, District Jodhpur (Belt No. 1753).

13. Sharwan Ram S/o Shri Asu Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/ o Digarana, Tehsil Jaitaran, District Pali (Belt No. 374).

14. Shyam Sundar S/o Shri Sohan Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Gotan, P.s. Gotan, District Nagaur (Belt No. 1664).

15. Shri Ram S/o Shri Mana Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Doli, Tehsil Luni, Jodhpur (Belt No. 1967).

16. Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Brij Mohan, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Hajibass, P.s. Jaitaran, District Pali (Belt No.

923).

17. Jagaram S/o Shri Ram Narayan, Aged About 34 Years, R/ o Village Ugen, Post Bachhola, Tehsil Nainwa, District

(2 of 4) [CW-5812/2020]

Bundi (Belt No. 279).

18. Munni Thadol D/o Shri Surja Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Jayal, District Nagaur (Belt No. 685).

19. Narsingh Ram S/o Shri Kewal Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Riya Setha Ki, Police Thana Pipar Sehar, District Jodhpur (Belt No. 1641).

20. Anita Bharti W/o Pardhuman Singh, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Maderana Colony, In Front Of Laxmi Narayan Temple, Bhadwasiya, Jodhpur (Belt No. 845).

21. Laxmi D/o Shri Buda Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Ddp Nagar, Madhuban Housing Board, Basni, Jodhpur (Belt No.

945).

22. Sushil Jaipal D/o Ram Dayal Jaipal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Badabass Osian, P.s. Osian, District Jodhpur (Belt No.

339).

23. Hitendra Singh S/o Shri Bajrangh Singh, Aged About 38 Years, R/o 48, Hb, Bjs Colony, Jodhpur (Belt No. 1875).

24. Jivan Ram S/o Shri Soma Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o Kudi, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer (Belt No. 708).

25. Kishore S/o Shri Jetha Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Village Didaniya, P.s. Pokaran, Tehsil Pokaran, District Jaisalmer (Belt No. 764).

26. Moju Ram S/o Shri Arjun Ram, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Sitapura, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachhawara, District Dausa (Belt No. 820).

27. Ganpat Lal S/o Shri Shankar Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Village Ratanpura, P.s. Gudamalani, District Barmer (Belt No. 1021).

28. Chandra Kishore S/o Shri Nawab Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o P.s. Udyog Nagar, District Alwar (Belt No. 897).

29. Duda Ram S/o Shri Pema Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Bagawas, Tehsil Pachpadra, District Barmer (Belt No. 1842).

30. Pema Ram S/o Shri Lala Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Rayamalbada, P.s. Osian, District Jodhpur (Belt No. 1776).

31. Surendra Singh S/o Deep Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/ o P.s. Fatehpur Sagar, District Sikar (Belt No. 1807).

----Petitioners Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Commissioner Of Police, Police Commissionerate, Jodhpur.

3.    The    Deputy        Commissioner              Of      Police,    Police


                                          (3 of 4)                  [CW-5812/2020]


        Commissionerate, Jodhpur.
                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Kuldeep Mathur, through Cisco
                               Webex App
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG
                               Mr. Kailash Choudhary


                     JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

                                    Order
02/08/2021

1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioners have sought a

direction to the respondents to conduct a fresh physical efficiency

test for promotion to the post of Head Constable against the

vacancies of the year 2016-17.

2. The facts appertain for the present purposes are that the

petitioners who were Constable at the relevant time, were eligible

to be promoted to the post of Head Constable.

3. Vide order dated 23.09.2016, the respondents initiated

process for promotion to 82 posts of Head Constable for the year

2016-17.

4. The petitioners took part in the written examination,

however and despite clearing the same, chose not to take part in

the physical efficiency test.

5. Thereafter, pursuant to judgment dated 30.05.2017 passed

by Jaipur Bench of this Court in bunch of appeals (writ) led by DB

SAW No.1004/2015, the vacancies for promotion to the post of

Head Constable for the year 2016-17 were increased by 56 posts.

6. The petitioners have raised a grievance that since, at the

time of declaration of result of written examination, there were

only 82 posts available for promotion, the petitioners assumed

that, since many candidates senior to them have cleared the

(4 of 4) [CW-5812/2020]

written examination, those candidates would be accommodated

against 82 posts so notified and the petitioners would hardly have

any chance of getting promotion.

7. It is only after the increase in number of seats, that the

petitioners realised that, had they taken part in the physical

efficiency test, they would have been promoted, consequent to

increase in number of vacancies.

8. Indisputably, other candidates had taken part in the physical

efficiency test and on increase of number of posts, they have been

considered and promoted.

9. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioners who had taken a

calculated risk of not appearing in physical efficiency test for

whatever reasons, cannot now claim that fresh physical efficiency

test be held for them.

10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

more particularly because some of the similarly situated

Constables, who have taken part in physical efficiency test have

been promoted against those 56 additional vacancies (added

pursuant to the order of this Court), this Court does not find any

reason to grant indulgence to the petitioners who have at their

own will and volition opted out of the promotion. The same would

naturally disturb the rights and seniority of those candidates who

had faced the physical efficiency test.

11. The writ petition, therefore, fails.

12. Stay petition also stands dismissed accordingly.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 7-Amar/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)