Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Rakesh Kumar vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors on 3 December, 2021
Bench: Vijay Bishnoi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4991/2018
Rakesh Kumar Son Of Shri Shishpal, Resident Of Village
Bhunnawali Dhani, P.o. Munda, Tehsil And District Hanumangarh
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan Through The Secretary, Home
Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Churu.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ravindra Singh Champawat
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bissa, A.G.C.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI
Judgment
03/12/2021
The matter comes up for consideration of application for
early hearing of the writ petition.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the
matter is heard finally.
In pursuance to the advertisement dated 14.7.2013, the
petitioner applied for recruitment on the post of Constable in SC
category. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner
is to the effect that the petitioner secured 67.5 marks in the
examination whereas as per the information supplied by the
Superintendent of Police, Churu, the cut off marks for SC category
candidate was 62.875. Learned counsel for the petitioner has
(2 of 3) [CW-4991/2018]
submitted that though the petitioner has secured more marks
than the last person selected in the SC category in the recruitment
for the year 2013, the respondents have illegally not provided
appointment to him.
Reply to the show cause notice was filed on behalf of the
respondents wherein it is stated that as the petitioner has failed to
pass the physical efficiency test, therefore, he could not be
provided appointment though he secured more marks than the
person last selected in the SC category. It is submitted that as
per Rule 14 of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules,
1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1989'), a male
candidate is eligible for recruitment on the post of Constable, if his
height is 168 cm, whereas at the time of physical efficiency test,
height of the petitioner was 164 cm. It is also submitted that as
per Rule 14 of the Rules of 1989, a male candidate is required to
have measurement of deflated chest as 81 cm and measurement
of inflated chest as 86 cm. It is submitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the deflated chest of the petitioner was
found 79.2 cm whereas the measurement of his inflated chest was
found as 84.20 cm.
Learned counsel for the respondents has, therefore,
submitted that in the above facts and circumstances of the case,
the department has not committed any illegality in not providing
appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable.
It is noticed that no rejoinder to the reply has been filed by
the petitioner.
Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner had
failed to pass the physical efficiency test, I do not find any
illegality in the action of the respondents of not providing
(3 of 3) [CW-4991/2018]
appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable. The
vacancies were advertised in the year 2013 whereas the petitioner
has filed the writ petition in the year 2018. It is informed by the
learned counsel for the respondents that selection process
pursuance to the advertisement in question has been completed
long back and all the candidates have already been provided
appointment.
In view of above discussion, the writ petition is dismissed.
The stay application as well as the application for early hearing of
the writ petition are disposed of.
(VIJAY BISHNOI),J
26-Babulal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
