Revant Ram Meghwal vs The State Of Rajasthan
2021 Latest Caselaw 10769 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Review Petition No. 8/2020

IN

D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.124/2019

Revant Ram Meghwal S/o Dana Ram Meghwal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ward No. 4, Lunkha, Chattargarh, District - Bikaner Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Headquarters, Jaipur (Raj).

4. The Dig Of Police, 10Th Batallion RAC, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

5. The Superintendent Of Police, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

6. Raju Ram Gurda S/o Munshi Ram Gurda, Aged About 29 Years, Ward No. 21, Aguna Bass Sinthan, District - Bikaner, Rajasthan.

7. Chandra Prakash Meghwal S/o Dula Ram Meghwal,, Aged About 33 Years, Village And Post Lohiya, Tehsil - Kolayat, District - Bikaner, Rajasthan.

8. Sundar Lal Goyal S/o Dula Ram,, Aged About 30 Years, Near Baba Ramdev Mandir, Aguna Bas Sinthal, District - Bikaner.

                                                                  ----Respondents



                                            (2 of 4)             [WRW-8/2020]




For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Shreyansh Mardia Advocate

Mr. Sanjeet Purohit Advocate through Video Conferencing

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

14/07/2021

Petitioners have filed the review petition for reviewing the

order dated 31.07.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

order under challenge was liable to be reviewed as all the material

facts had not been taken into consideration. Learned counsel for

the petitioners has further submitted that, in Para 10 of the order

under challenge, although, reliance has been made on the decision

given in the case of Shravan Kumar Choudhary Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special. Appeal (Writ) No. 154/2019

decided on 22.5.2019) but the portion reproduced from the said

judgment has been, in-fact, taken up from another judgment.

Admittedly, Special Leave Petition filed against the order

dated 31.07.2019 has been dismissed by the Apex Court.

Although, in Para 10 of the impugned order, the reproduction has

not been correctly made, as the same does not relate to the case

titled Shravan Kumar Choudhary (supra). However, we have gone

through the judgment titled Shravan Kumar Choudhary (supra) in

D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.154/2019 decided on 22.05.2019,

wherein it was observed as under:-

"9. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court, in the

opinion of the Court is not applicable. It is primarily

(3 of 4) [WRW-8/2020]

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,

as the second whereby those who approach the Court

are given a second chance, resulting in their

competing in favorable conditions), in the same

selection process, which is inherently untenable and

contrary to Article 14 and cannot be permitted".

(4 of 4) [WRW-8/2020]

Thus, the appeal filed by the State was allowed on the

ground that out of 151 candidates who had participated in the

Physical Efficiency Test (PET) nearly 55% i.e., 82 candidates had

qualified. Therefore, it could not be said that the facts showed

manifest unfairness or arbitrariness in the case of the review

petitioners. All the candidates had participated in the test and a

sizeable had qualified. Merely because the review petitioner had

not qualified would not be a ground to set-aside the result of

Physical Efficiency Test (PET). In the under challenge, all the

submissions raised by the review petitioners have been duly

considered.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the

opinion that no ground for review of the order dated 31.07.2019 is

made out.

Dismissed.

                                   (DINESH MEHTA),J                                               (SABINA),J


                                    2-Ravi Kh/-









Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)