Rajasthan High Court
Arfeena W/O Sh. Mohd. Jaikam D/O ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 30 November, 2021
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14147/2019
Arfeena W/o Sh. Mohd. Jaikam D/o Sh. Hukkal Khan, Aged
About 29 Years, Resident Of Plot No. 26, Tulera Housing Board,
Bapu Nagar, Alwar (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary (Home),
Ministry Of Home Affairs, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Jaipur.
2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Tonk
Road, Jaipur.
3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Rajasthan,
Jaipur.
4. The District Superintendent Of Police, Bhilwara,
Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vivek Goyal
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prakhar Gupta for
Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Order
30/11/2021
This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated
30.05.2019 passed by the respondent no.4 whereby, her
representation to permit her to undertake PET/PST Examination in
pursuance of Constable Recruitment Examination, 2018, has been
rejected.
The facts in brief are that the petitioner applied for
appointment as Constable in pursuance of advertisement dated
25.05.2018. The petitioner qualified the written examination and
(2 of 4) [CW-14147/2019]
was scheduled to appear on 06.09.2018 for PET/PST Examination.
At the relevant time, the petitioner was having pregnancy of 26
weeks and hence, she moved an application dated 31.08.2018 in
the office of Deputy Inspector General of Police with a request to
extend the time for taking PET/PST but, when no heed was paid,
she filed a writ petition bearing no. 2106/2018 before this Court
which came to be decided vide order dated 18.09.2018 in the light
of judgment of this Court in case of Anita Kumari Vs. State of
Rajasthan and Ors.: SBCWP No.2150/2014, decided on
20.02.2014. Vide application dated 08.04.2019, she requested the
respondent no.4 to subject her to PET/PST Examination but, vide
order impugned dated 30.05.2019, her request has been turned
down.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the
respondent no.4 erred in rejecting her prayer taking pedantic
approach that in case of Anita Kumari (supra), this Court has
granted a fixed window of two months to reappear in the PET/PST
whereas, no such specific period was provided therein. Referring
the prescription dated 20.01.2019 (Annexxure-12), learned
counsel submitted that the respondent no.4 has overlooked that
she was advised complete bed rest as she was suffering from
severe anemia and she applied for physical test immediately after
being rendered physically fit. He, therefore, prayed that the order
impugned dated 30.05.2019 be quashed and set aside and the
respondents may be directed to subject the petitioner to PET/PST
and accord her appointment, if she falls in the merit list.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposing the
prayer submitted that the petitioner approached the respondents
(3 of 4) [CW-14147/2019]
with request to subject her to PET/PST in pursuance of direction of
this Court, with inordinate delay and hence, her request was not
acceded to. He submitted that the recruitment process in
pursuance of advertisement dated 25.05.2018 already stands over
and now, even otherwise also, no direction can be issued for
consideration of the petitioner for PET/PST Examination as also
her appointment.
Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the
record.
The petitioner has given birth to the baby child on
01.12.2018 and she has approached the respondents with a
request to subject her to PET/PST vide her application dated
08.04.2019 i.e. after 128 days from the date of delivery of the
child. In view of the judgment of this Court in case of Anita
Kumari (supra), by no account, this can be reckoned as
reasonable period for test PET/PST Examination.
True that the judgment of this Court in case of Anita Kumari
(supra) does not prescribe any rigid time period of two months for
approaching the authorities with a request of PET/PST
Examination from the date of delivery but, the tenor of the
judgment prescribes this is to be a reasonable period within which
such a request has to be made after birth of the child. Even
otherwise also, some reasonable period has to be fixed for such
request otherwise, it may be endless process seriously prejudicing
the recruitment process which can not be permitted to be dragged
on for very long period. Contention of the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the delay occurred as she was suffering acute
anemia and was advised bed rest vide prescription slip dated
(4 of 4) [CW-14147/2019]
20.01.2019, cannot be taken into consideration as the same was
not placed before the respondent no.4 alongwith her application
dated 08.04.2019, for his perusal. The order impugned herein
dated 30.05.2019 has been passed on the basis of material
furnished by the petitioner with does not suffer from any infirmity.
The physical fitness certificate dated 30.03.2019 does not reflect
that prior to this date, she was physically unfit and was rendered
fit on that day only. It is trite law that validity of an order has to
be adjudged on the basis of material placed before the authority
passing it for its consideration and not on basis of some
extraneous material. It is fairly admitted by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that the prescription slip dated 20.01.2019 was
not placed for consideration before the respondent no.4. As a
matter of fact, the learned counsel for the petitioner could not
show that any such material was placed before the respondent
no.4 to show that the petitioner was unfit prior to 30.03.2019 for
undertaking PST/PET. In view thereof, this Court finds no illegality
in the order dated 30.05.2019 warranting interference.
There is another important aspect to the matter. As
contended by the learned counsel for the respondents and not
refuted by the petitioner, the entire recruitment process in
pursuance of advertisement dated 25.05.2018 has already come
to an end and now, even otherwise also, the petitioner cannot be
extended any relief.
The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
MADAN/131
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
