Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Suman Khateek vs State Of Rajasthan on 4 August, 2022

Bench: Arun Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4896/2022 Suman Khateek D/o Bhagwati Lal Khateek W/o Sanjay Khateek, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of Shahpura Darwaja, Sanganer, District Bhilwara (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Director General Police, Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Additional Superintendent Of Police, (Recruitment), Sub-Inspector Combines Competitive Examination-2021, Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. The Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.

5. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commissioner, Ajmer.

                                                                ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)         :    Mr. Pawan Singh.
For Respondent(s)         :    Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG.


        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
                       Order
04/08/2022

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved

against non-grant of further extension for undergoing physical

efficiency test (PET) pursuant to the Sub-Inspector / Platoon

Commander Recruitment, 2021.

It is inter alia indicated in the petition that pursuant to the

recruitment 2021, the petitioner after having qualified the written

examination, was called for PST/PET on 18.2.2022, on which date,

as the petitioner was in 9th month of pregnancy, she moved an

application with the respondents seeking time, based on which,

the petitioner was accorded time.

Whereafter, the petitioner was called for PST/PET on

1.5.2022, however, on that particular date also, the petitioner filed

an application (Annex.17) seeking further 5 months' time or one

(2 of 5) [CW-4896/2022]

more opportunity to undergo PST/PET. The prayer made by the

petitioner apparently was not accepted by the respondents.

Feeling aggrieved, the present petition has been filed.

On 15.7.2022, learned counsel for the respondents was

directed to find out the disposal of the representation (Annex.17)

made by the petitioner. In response thereof, an order dated

3.8.2022 passed by the competent authority has been produced

inter alia indicating that there is no provision for re-holding PET

and consequently, her representation has been rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that on

1.5.2022, when the petitioner was again called for PET, she was

not fully physically fit on that date and, therefore, moved an

application seeking extension of time, which was not responded to

and has further referred to a certificate issued by the doctor

indicating that the petitioner was unable to undergo any physical

activity for 6 months and, therefore, the respondents be directed

to now permit the petitioner to undergo PET pursuant to the

recruitment 2021.

Learned AAG opposed the submissions. It was submitted

that the State, despite there being no provision in the Rules, in

view of the judgment of this Court, has accorded relaxation to the

candidates, who were pregnant at the time of initial PET, based on

which, the petitioner was again provided opportunity on 1.5.2022,

on which date, the petitioner though appeared, moved an

application seeking further 5 months' extension, which could not

have been granted to the petitioner so as to keep the recruitment

pending for all this period and, therefore, the petition deserves

dismissal.

(3 of 5) [CW-4896/2022]

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel

for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

The recruitment for the post of Sub-Inspector / Platoon

Commander requires the candidates to undertake a written

examination and, in case, they appear in merit, they are subjected

to physical standard test (PST) and physical efficiency test (PET).

The petitioner having appeared in the written examination

and obtaining marks higher than the cut-off was called for

PST/PET on 18.2.2022 (Annex.6), on which date as the petitioner

was pregnant, she sought postponement of the PET, though the

respondents did not pass any order permitting the postponement,

however, on account of several orders passed by this Court for

candidates like petitioner and other candidates, who on account of

COVID etc. could not appear for PET on the date fixed, were

granted extension and were then called for PET on 1.5.2022.

On that date also, the petitioner moved application inter alia

seeking further 5 months' time for undergoing PET.

The application filed by the petitioner reads as under:-

"lsokesa] Jheku iqfyl egkfunZs'kd egksn;

t;iqj ¼jktLFkku½ fo"k; & S.I. 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk fnol dks esjs fMyhojh dks 2 ekg gksus ds dkj.k 'kkjhfjd n{krk ifj{kk esa vleFkZ gksus ds dkj.kA egksn;] mi;qDr fo"k;kUrxZr vkils vuqjks/k gS fd esa lqeu [kVhd D/o Hkxorh yky [kVhd tks fd R.P.S.C. vtesj }kjk vk;ksftr S.I. lh/kh HkrhZ ifj{kk&2021 dh fyf[kr ifj{kk lQy dj yh gS ftlds jksy ua- 878097 gS esjh fMyhojh dks 2 ekg gksus ds dkj.k esa S.I. dh 'kkjhfjd n{krk ifj{kk nsus esa vleFkZ gw¡A vr% Jheku th ls fuosnu gS fd eq>s 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk gsrq 5 ekg ;k fu;ekuqlkj le;kof/k c<+kus dh d`ik djs vFkok ,d vfUre volj iznku djs izkFkhZ vkids bl egku dk;Z ds fy, vkHkkjh jgaqxh

(4 of 5) [CW-4896/2022]

Date 1&5&2022 [email protected]& uke & lqeu [kVhd D/o Hkxorh yky [kVhd jksy ua- 878097 ifj{kk & S.I. 'kkjhfjd n{krk ifj{kk&2021"

A perusal of the application would reveal that the petitioner

except for indicating that as she had delivered 2 months back she

was unable to appear in PET, has not indicated any other reason

and further sought 5 months' time to undergo the PET.

The medical certificate produced at page 93 of the paper-

book apparently is of no use, inasmuch as, the said certificate

does not bear any date and the doctor has simply indicated that

the petitioner has delivered on 1.3.2022 and she is unable to

undergo any physical activity for next six months, even the

terminus has not been indicated by the doctor. The said certificate

is only self-serving and it cannot become basis for seeking further

extension.

This Court in the case of Raju Devi v. State of Rajasthan &

Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13486/2018, dated 28.9.2018

filed as part of Annex.10 by the petitioner, in similar

circumstances pertaining to Constable recruitment, had indicated

as under:-

"In view of the above discussions, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are allowed. The denial of the respondents to extend the period for undergoing PST/PET by the petitioners on account of their pregnancy is not sustainable. The respondents are directed to extend the time for PST/PET by sixty days from the date of their delivery.

It would be required of the petitioners to present themselves before the respondents for PST/

(5 of 5) [CW-4896/2022]

PET within a period of sixty days from the date of actual delivery alongwith requisite proof regarding the date of delivery and their physical fitness to undertake the PET and after undergoing the PST/PET, if the petitioners qualify as per the standard laid down under the Rules and find place in the order of merit in their respective category, they may be considered for appointment in terms of the advertisement dated 25.05.2018."

(emphasis supplied)

A perusal of the above would reveal that this Court had

directed extension of time for 60 days from the date of delivery

and had ordered that if the petitioners present themselves before

the respondents within a period of 60 days from the date of actual

delivery, they may be permitted to undergo PET.

Admittedly, in the present case, as the date of delivery of the

petitioner was 1.3.2022 and she was called for PET on 1.5.2022,

the petitioner got 60 days from the date of delivery and,

therefore, her seeking further extension without indicating any

further reason except for the fact of her delivery, could not be a

reason enough for the respondents to thereafter extend the period

to undergo the PET.

There is substance in the submission made by learned AAG

that the recruitment could not be kept pending on account of the

application made by the petitioner seeking further 5 months'

extension.