Rajasthan High Court

Jugal Kishor Gurjar S/O Ramawatar vs The State Of Rajasthan on 16 August, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                 BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5853/2022
Jugal Kishor Gurjar S/o Ramawatar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Bhairu Ki Dhani, Tehsil Neema Ka Thana, District Sikar,
Rajasthan.
                                                                ----Petitioner
                                Versus
1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,
       Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.     The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,
       Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.     Rajasthan Public       Service       Commission,         Through    Its
       Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                             ----Respondents

Connected with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6683/2022

Priyanka Kanwar D/o Jai Singh Nirwan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Fadanpura, Post Khirwa, District Sikar.

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Govt.

Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.

3. Superintendent Of Police, Recruitment And Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.

4. Inspector General Of Police, Kota Range, Kota.

5. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6062/2022

1. Banshi Lal Pargi S/o Laxman, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Badi Rel, Napla (Post), Napla, Kushalgarh, District Banswara, Rajasthan.

2. Dashrath Lal Meena S/o Ramlal Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Rajora, Post Avaleshwar, Tehsil And District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

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

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

                                       (2 of 41)                 [CW-5853/2022]


3.    Rajasthan Public       Service        Commission,        Through     Its
      Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                             ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6063/2022

1. Vikas Kumar Keer S/o Karu Lal Keer, Aged About 22 Years, R/o 81, Keer Mohalla, Bilesari, Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

2. Kuldeep Aanjana, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Village Rajora, Post Awleshwer, Tehsil And District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6065/2022 Chandraveer Singh S/o Kishan Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Jaisindhar Gaon, Godra Road, Barmer, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6070/2022

1. Rekha Choudhary D/o Ramesh Choudhary, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Chhan, Tehsil And District Tonk, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 864983)

2. Babita Bishnoi D/o Bhagwana Ram Bishnoi, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 3, Kakra, Bikaner, Rajasthan (Roll No. 353851)

3. Surbhi Pathak D/o Satya Prakash Pathak, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 98, Green Nagar, Durgapura, Tonk Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 710759)

----Petitioners Versus

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

2.    The Director General           Of    Police, Police Headquarter,


                                       (3 of 41)                 [CW-5853/2022]


      Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.    Rajasthan Public       Service        Commission,        Through     Its
      Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                             ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6071/2022 Rahul Khowad S/o Rajendra Khatik, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Govt. Ayurvedik Hospital Nitoda, Vpo Nitoda, Tehsil Pindwara, District Sirohi, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 530878)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6072/2022

1. Rahul Kaliya S/o Billu Ram Kaliya, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Khidarpur, Post Gotoli, Tehsil Tijara, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

2. Rajendra Kumar Jangoo S/o Kishan Lal Jangoo, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Mithariya, Tehsil Bajju, District Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6073/2022

1. Kishan Lal Meghwal S/o Magana Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Balwana, Post Bisalpur, Tehsil Sumerpur, District Pali, Rajasthan.

2. Kapil Dev Sharma S/o Vedi Prakash Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Mundanwara Khurd, Post Karni Kot, Tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar, Rajasthan.

3. Umed Kumar S/o Om Prakash, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Quarter No. 1, Residence Colony, Front Of Vc House, Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Nh-15, Nal Road, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

                                                               ----Petitioners
                                Versus



                                        (4 of 41)                 [CW-5853/2022]

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6092/2022 Chaman Lal Baswal S/o Dayaram Baswal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Jatwara, Tehsil Suroth, District Karauli, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6093/2022

1. Saroj Jat D/o Rewant Ram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Ricco Road, No. 6, Kayam Nagar, Rani Bazar Industrial Area, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

2. Shilpa Bishnoi D/o Ram Pratap, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Chahilawali, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan.

3. Nirma Manda D/o Ramgopal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Rasisar, Badabas, Bikaner, Rajasthan.

----Petitioners Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6095/2022 Mahendra Singh Choudhary S/o Sitaram Choudhary, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Barkheda, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 707585)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

                                        (5 of 41)                 [CW-5853/2022]


3.    Rajasthan Public        Service        Commission,        Through     Its
      Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                              ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6096/2022 Kamal Khamokhriya S/o Ghanshyam Khamokhriya, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Near Ashish Public School, Sunny Nagar, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 162480)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6129/2022 Pradeep Singh S/o Mohan Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Vpo Shobhasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 470295)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6137/2022 Anju Chahar D/o Rajender Chahar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Baba Ramdev Mandir Road, Ward No. 10, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 320952).

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6160/2022 Mukesh Chandra Charpota Son Of Shri Shankar Lal Charpota, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Majiya, Post Nahil, District Banswara (Raj.)

(6 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Additional Director General Of Police, Recruitment And Promotion Board, Jaipur.

4. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

5. Inspector General Of Police, Jaipur Range Jaipur (Raj.)

6. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6181/2022

1. Rekha Daughter Of Shri Than Singh, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Kheru Gadasiya, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

2. Randheer Singh Son Of Shri Bhagwan Singh, Aged About 41 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Shekhpur, Tehsil Bayana, District Bharatpur (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Additional Director General Of Police, Recruitment And Promotion Board, Jaipur.

4. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

5. Inspector General Of Police, Jaipur Range Jaipur (Raj.)

6. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6184/2022 Seema Jat D/o Bheru Lal Jat, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village And Post Bachhjhera, Tehsil Shahpura, District Bhilwara, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

2. Director General Of Police, Recruitment And Promotion Board, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur.

                                                             ----Respondents


                                        (7 of 41)                 [CW-5853/2022]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6188/2022 Poonam Sharma D/o Prabhulal Sharma, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Parsoli, Tehsil Bari Sadri, District Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer, Through Its Secretary.

2. Director General Of Police, Recruitment And Promotion Board, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6190/2022 Lakshika Sharma D/o Gopal Sharma, Aged About 21 Years, R/o 18, Vijay Nagar, Behind NEB, Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 390816).

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6194/2022

1. Deepesh Rathore S/o Ambalal Rathore, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Near Ori Mata Mandir, Teliwara, Banswara, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 436257)

2. Pushpendra Katara S/o Mohan Lal Katara, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo Fefar, Tehsil Chhoti Sarwan, District Banswara, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 457351)

----Petitioners Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6195/2022 Padam Singh S/o Riju Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Sevaron Ka Tala, Kaprau, Tehsil Chohtan, District Barmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 439581)

----Petitioner Versus

(8 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6196/2022 Ganesh Ram Meena S/o Jeevit Ram Meena, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Char Pol Dola Ka Bas, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 728658)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6197/2022

1. Digpal Singh Chundawat S/o Mahipal Singh Chundawat, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 100, Rajput Parda Sakani, Village Parda Sakani, Post Sakani, District Dungarpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 861593)

2. Hitendra Singh Tanwar S/o Himmat Singh Tanwar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Boraj Tawaran, Malpur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 255006)

----Petitioners Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6235/2022 Sateesh Gurjar S/o Ram Avtar Gurjar, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Mukarpura, Syalawas Kalan, District Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 718475)

----Petitioner Versus

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

2.    The Director General            Of    Police, Police Headquarter,


                                        (9 of 41)                 [CW-5853/2022]


      Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.    Rajasthan Public        Service        Commission,        Through     Its
      Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                              ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6264/2022 Shubham Kumar S/o Amar Lal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Kaliyan, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 682244)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6268/2022 Jitendra Singh Rathore S/o Mahaveer Singh Rathore, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Sitaram Ki Dhani, Village Bhanisar (Tejsinghotan), Post Aabsar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 535924)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6275/2022 Naresh Kumar Meena S/o Tara Chand Meena, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Jyoti Nagar, Ward No. 19, Sikar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 930358)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6404/2022 Surendra Kumar S/o Prahlad Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o

(10 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

Vpo Majra, Tehsil Neemrana, District Alwar, Rajasthan.(Roll No.153194)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6423/2022 Vimla Bishnoi D/o Bhagirath Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Surta Ki Dhani, Sankar, District Jalore, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 535653)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6433/2022 Mukesh Kumar S/o Nimba Ram, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Railway Kua No. 3, Barmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 513585).

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6453/2022 Shivdan Ram Bugaliya S/o Giga Ram, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vp Altawa, Via Gachhipura, Tehsil Makrana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 445169)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

                                        (11 of 41)                [CW-5853/2022]


3.    Rajasthan Public        Service        Commission,        Through     Its
      Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                              ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6455/2022

1. Bharat Kumar Chawla Son Of Shri Nand Kishor Chawla, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of 35/118, Chawla Bhawan, Near Shiv Mandir Garden, Panchmukhi Road, Dadabari, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

2. Naresh Salvi Son Of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Salvi, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Balai Mohalla, Atoon, Bhilwara, District Bhilwara (Raj.)

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Additional Director General Of Police, Recruitment And Promotion Board, Jaipur.

4. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

5. Inspector General Of Police, Jaipur Range Jaipur (Raj.)

6. Inspector General Of Police, Bharatpur Range Bharatpur (Raj.)

7. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6460/2022 Samudra Singh S/o Hathil Singh, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Vpo Mahlana Utarada, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 884009)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6471/2022 Anada Ram Son Of Shree Tega Raj, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Mukhy Abadi, Village Khirodi, Post Akoli, Tehsil Chitalwana, District Jalor, Rajasthan.

                                                                 ----Petitioner
                                 Versus


                                        (12 of 41)                [CW-5853/2022]

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

2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

3. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur Rajasthan.

4. The Inspector General Of Police, Ajmer Range, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6476/2022 Kana Ram Meena S/o Ram Phool Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Khedaraniwas, Tehsil Kotkhawada, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 335050)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6479/2022 Arun Kumar Sharma S/o Mahesh Chand Sharma, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Jawahar Colony, Near Khadi Bhandar, Bhusawar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 977898)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6486/2022 Sadhana Fauzdar D/o Fauran Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 976, Gayatri Nagar, Mavli, District Udaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 788653).

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

                                          (13 of 41)                [CW-5853/2022]


3.     Rajasthan Public         Service        Commission,        Through     Its
       Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                                ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6497/2022 Devendra Kumar Yadav S/o Omprakash, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Village Nagla Manjhi, Borai, Kumher, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Lal Kothi, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Secretary, Ajmer, Rajasthan.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6498/2022 Rishi Raj Meena S/o Ram Swaroop Meena, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bardala, Tehsil Nadoti, District Karauli, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 858785)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6508/2022 Suresh Kumar S/o Ram Lal, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Sauon Ki Dhani, Jeltara, District Jalore, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 199601)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

                                         (14 of 41)                [CW-5853/2022]


3.     Rajasthan       Public   Service       Commission,        Through     Its
       Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                               ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6515/2022

1. Suresh Bhat S/o Ganpat Lal Bhat, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Bujara, Bada Varda, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 355442)

2. Manohar Nayak S/o Narayan Lal Nayak, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Pachli Tada, Mugana, District Pratapgarh, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 512361).

----Petitioners Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6559/2022 Maya Kumari D/o Ridmal Ram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Gora, Tehsil Sedwa, District Barmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 544864)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6575/2022 Guniram Sunda S/o Shiv Pal Sunda, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Sunda Ki Dhani, Post-Dungari Kalan, Tehsil Kishangarh-Renwal, Dist. Jaipur (Rural)

----Petitioner

(15 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Govt.

Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.

3. Superintendent Of Police, Recruitment And Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur.

4. Superintendent Of Police, District Bikaner.

5. Inspector General Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner.

6. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6605/2022 Mangala Ram S/o Karana Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Aam Chouhata, Mokhatara, Jalore, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 214464)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6612/2022 Jai Singh S/o Krishan Rawat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Vpo Paniyala, Tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 955846)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

                                                               ----Respondents



                                          (16 of 41)                [CW-5853/2022]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6641/2022 Madan Lal Jat Son Of Shri Shravanji, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Jato Ki Dhani, Vpo Chhota Narena, Tehsil Roopangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Additional Director General Of Police, Recruitment And Promotion Board, Jaipur.

4. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

5. Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range Jodhpur (Raj.)

6. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6647/2022 Parasa Ram S/o Sh. Om Prakash Bhamu, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Hanumanpura, Post - Khandelsar, Via - Ranoli, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar (Rajasthan) (Roll No. 177602).

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6776/2022 Gyan Chand Gurjar S/o Mala Ram Gurjar, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Village Meerapur, Post Dwarikapura, Tehsil Paota, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 926059)

----Petitioner

(17 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6793/2022 Anita Meena D/o Shri Jaymal Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Bhagatpura, Sati Mata Ka Mandir, Narayanpur, Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 330438)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6804/2022 Shantanu Kumar S/o Shri Pawan Kumar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Gudha, Tehsil Udaipurwati District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj)

2. Director General Of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur (Raj)

3. Additional Director General Of Police, Recruitment And Promotion Board, Jaipur

4. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi , Jaipur (Raj)

5. Inspector General Of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur (Raj)

6. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission Ajmer

(18 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

(Raj)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6907/2022 Vivek Tyagi S/o Dushyant Tyagi, Aged About 30 Years, R/o 69, New Shiv Nagar, Hiran Mangri, Sector 4, Udaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 200952)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6942/2022 Rakesh Kumar Boodgaya S/o Kalyan Shai Boodgaya, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Dewan, Tehsil Shahpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 101863)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6965/2022 Monika Bugaliya D/o Narendra Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Plot No. 126-E, Maa Karni Nagar, K.s. Academy, Benar Daulatpura Road, Khorabeesal, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 424169)

----Petitioner Versus

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

                                             (19 of 41)                   [CW-5853/2022]


2.       The Director General              Of    Police, Police Headquarter,
         Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.       Rajasthan     Public      Service        Commission,        Through       Its
         Secretary, Ajmer.
                                                                   ----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6968/2022 Pavitra Prem Butoliya S/o Prem Chand Butoliya, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 16, New Friends Colony, Jaipur Road, Alwar, Rajasthan (Roll No. 975099)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7026/2022 Punit Darji S/o Kantilal Darji, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Sadar Bazar, Kherwara Chawni, Tehsil Kherwara, District Udaipur, Rajasthan (Roll No. 476737)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7041/2022 Anita Devanda D/o Bhagirath Prasad Devanda, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Ward No. 25, Dhani Shiv Sagar, Shahpura, Jaipur.

                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
1.       State    Of     Rajasthan,          Through         Principal     Secretary



                                          (20 of 41)                [CW-5853/2022]


       Department        Of      Home,          Government          Secretariat,

Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur Road, Ajmer Through Its Secretary.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7107/2022 Ravi Sankhala Son Of Shri Kailash Sankhala, Aged About 28 Years, Resident Of Kishangarh Renwal, District-Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 931163)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7280/2022 Mohammad Rashid Sanwara S/o Gulam Nabi Sanwara, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 1825, Khanpura, Mohangarh, Part-4, Jaisalmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 495187)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7284/2022 Taroon Dan S/o Shaitan Dan, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village Bewta, District Jodhpur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

(21 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Chairman, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer.

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

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7291/2022 Shakir Ali S/o Shri Abdul Rahaman, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of 20, Masjid Ke Samne Gaav Mein, Mirchuni, District Alwar 301707, Rajasthan, Through His Next Friend Brother Kutbuddeen (Aged 40 Years) S/o Shri Abdul Rahaman, R/o 20, Masjid Ke Samne Gaav Mein, Mirchuni, District Alwar 301707, Rajasthan (At Present Confined In Central Jail Alwar).

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7320/2022 Jeevan Dan S/o Ratan Dan, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Railway Kua No. 3, Barmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 846967)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7448/2022 Jay Pal Singh Chouhan S/o Dheerendra Singh Chouhan, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Bambora, Moriya Talab, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

(Roll No. 853934)
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                      Versus


                                          (22 of 41)                [CW-5853/2022]

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7473/2022 Prakash Chand Chanwala Son Of Shri Ramkaran Chanwala, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Vpo-Raisar, Tehsil - Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 303109.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Director General Of Police, Government Of Rajasthan, Police Head Quarters, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7537/2022 Rahul Karva Son Of Shri Ounkar Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Chandpura, Post Jiliya, Tehsil Kuchamancity, District Nagaur (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj

2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur (Raj.)

3. Additional Director General Of Police, Recruitment And Promotion Board, Jaipur.

4. Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

5. Inspector General Of Police, Ajmer Range Ajmer (Raj.)

(23 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

6. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer (Raj.)

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7550/2022 Satish Kumar Chanwla Son Of Shri Ramkaran Chanwla, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Vpo- Raisar, Tehsil-Jamwaramgarh, Jaipur Rajasthan - 303109

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Director General Of Police, Government Of Rajasthan, Police Head Quarters, Jaipur (Raj.).

3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.).

4. The Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Comission, Ajmer (Raj.).

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7572/2022 Jyoti D/o Sanjey, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Sakta Khera, Tehsil Mandi Dabwali, District Sirsa, Haryana. (Roll No. 713826)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7627/2022 Jyoti Sharma D/o Lalta Prasad Sharma, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Vpo Malakhera, Tehsil Malakhera, District Alwar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 341164)

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,

(24 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8207/2022 Udit Sharma D/o Yogendra Sharma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Flat No. T2, Avenue 15, Plot No. 15, Giriraj Vihar, Gandhi Path, Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 587036)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8236/2022 Palu D/o Shri Sohan Lal, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Nedinadi, Dhorimana, Barmer (Raj.)

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Behind Nehru Place, Lal Kothi, Jaipur

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Recruitment Cell, Police Head Quarter, Behind Nehru Place, Lal Kothi, Jaipur

4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9480/2022 Junjhar Singh S/o Tejmal Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Laxmipura Rai Colony, Barmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 556875)

----Petitioner

(25 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11495/2022

Narendra Singh S/o Surendra Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Village Chhiparwara, Tehsil Ahore, District Jalore, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 836167)

----Petitioner Versus

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

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

3. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10880/2022

1. Vijay Kumar Damor S/o Shri Lalit Kumar Damor, Aged About 31 Years, Resident Of Mukam Wagdari, Amali Pahla, Post Satirampura, Doongarpur (Raj.)

2. Naitik Pandya S/o Shri Lokendra Pandya, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Mukam Post Tamtiya, Tehsil Sagwada, District Doongarpur.

----Petitioners Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

2. The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Behind Nehru Place, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.

3. The Inspector General Of Police, Recruitment Cell, Police

(26 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

Head Quarter, Behind Nehru Place, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.

4. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ghooghra Ghati, Ajmer.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini.

Mr. Devanshu Sharma.

Ms. Komal Giri Goswami.

Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma.

Mr. Tanveer Ahamad.

Mr. Giriraj Rajoria.

Mr. Aamir Khan.

Ms. Monica Gaur.

Mr. Pradeep Sharma.

Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Yaduvanshi. Mr. Karni Ola.

Mr. Shovit Jhajharia.

Mr. Martand Pratap Singh.

Mr. Ravi Shanker Sharma.

Mr. Mahipal Singh Kharra.

Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat.

Mr. Bal Ram Vashishth.

Mr. Vikramaditya Ujjwal.

Mr. Avinash Choudhary.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG assisted by Mr. Udit Sharma.

Mr. Rupin Kala, GC.

Mr. M.F. Baig.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

16/08/2022

1. These writ petitions since involve common question, hence

with consent of the parties, have been heard together and are

being decided by the present common order.

2. As prayed, the facts have been taken into consideration from

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5853/2022 and the prayer made therein

reads as under:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble court may very graciously

(27 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further be pleased to :

i) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, directs the respondents to examine the Chip No.T-42004 of petitioner and thereby give proper marks in the 100 meter race and further call for the Videography recorded during the test of Physical Test which was held 13.02.2022 at Maharana Bhupal Stadium, Chetak Circle, Udaipur and the respondents further directs to declare the separate marks of petitioner of all three events i.e. 100 meter race, Long Jump and Chinning Up of Physical Test for the post of Sub Inspector.

ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direct the respondents to call the petitioner in the interview process and thereby give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sub Inspector with all consequential benefits, because the petitioner has completed all three measurement/events.

iii) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the result dated 11.04.2022 may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to issue fresh result by including the roll no. of petitioner for the post of Sub Inspector.

iv) Issue an appropriate writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby, the respondents may kindly be declared illegal by which they have wrongly calculated the marks of the petitioner.

v) Pass any other appropriate order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner.

vi) Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner."

3. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the

advertisement dated 03.02.2021 the petitioners applied for the

post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander and after being

successful in the written examination they were called for the

Physical Efficiency Test (hereinafter to be referred as PET) in which

(28 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

all the petitioners appeared, thereafter, the respondents called the

successful candidates for the interview but since name of the

petitioners did not find place in the select list, hence the

petitioners approached this Court by filing present writ petitions.

4. Counsels for the petitioners submitted that the respondents

have wrongly not included their names in the list of successful

candidates of PET. Counsels further submitted that videography of

all the events of the PET has been done by the respondents and

the chips were also provided and the petitioners have also

completed the race within the prescribed time which is clear from

the chip which shows about their running time as recorded

therein. Counsels further submitted that despite having performed

better than the other selected candidates, even then, name of the

petitioners have not been included in the select list. Counsels

further submitted that a news item was also published in the

newspaper regarding wrongful selection of the candidates by the

respondents. Counsels further submitted that no transparency &

fairness has been maintained by the respondents in the selection

process. Counsels further submitted that the respondents have

failed to separately declare the marks of the petitioners towards

Long Jump, 100 Meter Race and Chinups etc. Counsels further

submitted that the respondents have issued the defective chips to

the candidates. Counsels further submitted that in such type of

selection process a committee must have been constituted to

examine the grievance of the candidates but it has not been done

by the respondents.

5. Counsels further submitted that the above referred

circumstances demands that the videography of PET conducted by

the respondents be summoned & examined by this Court for the

(29 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

error committed by the respondents in holding the PET and lastly

prayed that this Court under Article 226 holds power to examine

the videography of the PET conducted by the respondents or in

the alternate can direct the respondents to conduct the PET for

the petitioners afresh within the stipulated period which this Court

may deem just and proper.

6. Counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted

that the respondents have conducted the selection process in a

fair manner. Counsels further submitted that for conducting the

PET, a Board was constituted of Higher Officers of the Department

i.e. Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police

and Superintendent of Police and the petitioners were awarded

marks towards each event as per the criteria mentioned in the

Standing Order No.16/2016. Counsels further submitted that

although the allegation of mala-fide & arbitrariness has been

levelled by the petitioners against the respondents but neither any

cogent & tangible evidence has been placed on record by the

petitioners in support of their allegations nor any person by name

has been impleaded as party respondent in these writ petitions.

Counsels further submitted that the petitioners have failed to

show violation of any Rule or Circular issued by the respondents.

Counsels further submitted that the respondents have rightly

conducted the selection process as per the terms & conditions of

the advertisement as also the relevant circular/standing order

issued in this regard and there is no tenable ground which may

call upon this Court to interfere and these writ petitions have been

filed by the petitioners just to delay the further course of action to

be taken by the respondents in finally completing the selection

(30 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

process and at the present moment the department is facing very

hard as there is shortage of personnel in the department.

7. In support of their contention counsels relied upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of

Madras Institute of Development Studies & Anr. Vs. K.

Sivasubramaniyan & Ors., reported in (2016) 1 SCC 454

wherein it has been held as under :-

14. The question as to whether a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection can turn around and question the method of selection is no longer res integra.

15. In Dr. G. Sarana vs. University of Lucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585, a similar question came for consideration before a three Judges Bench of this Court where the fact was that the petitioner had applied to the post of Professor of Athropology in the University of Lucknow. After having appeared before the Selection Committee but on his failure to get appointed, the petitioner rushed to the High Court pleading bias against him of the three experts in the Selection Committee consisting of five members. He also alleged doubt in the constitution of the Committee. Rejecting the contention, the Court held:

(SCC p.591, para 15) "15. We do not, however, consider it necessary in the present case to go into the question of the reasonableness of bias or real likelihood of bias as despite the fact that the appellant knew all the relevant facts, he did not before appearing for the interview or at the time of the interview raise even his little finger against the constitution of the Selection Committee. He seems to have voluntarily appeared before the committee and taken a chance of having a favourable recommendation from it. Having done so, it is not now open to him to turn round and question the constitution of the committee. This view gains strength from a decision of this Court in Manak Lal's case where in more or less similar circumstances, it was held that the failure of the appellant to take the identical plea at the earlier stage of the proceedings

(31 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

created an effective bar of waiver against him. The following observations made therein are worth quoting: (AIR p.432, para 9) '9. ..."It seems clear that the appellant wanted to take a chance to secure a favourable report from the tribunal which was constituted and when he found that he was confronted with an unfavourable report, he adopted the device of raising the present technical point."

16. In Madan Lal & Ors. vs. State of JΚ & Ors. (1995) 3 SCC 486, similar view has been reiterated by the Bench which held that: (SCC p.493, para 9) "9. Before dealing with this contention, we must keep in view the salient fact that the petitioners as well as the contesting successful candidates being respondents concerned herein, were all found eligible in the light of marks obtained in the written test, to be eligible to be called for oral interview. Up to this stage there is no dispute between the parties. The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted. In the case of Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla1 it has been clearly laid down by a Bench of three learned Judges of this Court that when the petitioner

(32 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

appeared at the examination without protest and when he found that he would not succeed in examination he filed a petition challenging the said examination, the High Court should not have granted any relief to such a petitioner.

17. In Manish Kumar Shahi vs. State of Bihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court reiterated the principle laid down in the earlier judgments and observed: (SCC p.584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition."

18. In the case of Ramesh Chandra Shah and others vs. Anil Joshi and others, (2013) 11 SCC 309, recently a Bench of this Court following the earlier decisions held as under: (SCC p.320, para 24) "24. In view of the propositions laid down in the above noted judgments, it must be held that by having taken part in the process of selection with full knowledge that the recruitment was being made under the General Rules, the respondents had waived their right to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the Board for making selection and the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court committed grave error by entertaining the grievance made by the respondents."

(33 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

8. Counsels further relied upon the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajneesh Khajuria Vs.

Wockhardt Limited & Anr., reported in (2020) 3 SCC 86,

wherein it has been held as under :-

17. In another judgment reported as Prabodh Sagar v. Punjab State Electricity Board & Ors. 7 , it was held by this Court that the mere use of the expression "mala fide" would not by itself make the petition entertainable. The Court held as under: (SCC p.640, para 13) "13. ... Incidentally, be it noted that the expression "mala fide" is not meaningless jargon and it has its proper connotation. Malice or mala fides can only be appreciated from the records of the case in the facts of each case. There cannot possibly be any set guidelines in regard to the proof of mala fides. Mala fides, where it is alleged, depends upon its own facts and circumstances. We ourselves feel it expedient to record that the petitioner has become more of a liability than an asset and in the event of there being such a situation vis-à-vis an employee, the employer will be within his liberty to take appropriate steps including the cessation of relationship between the employer and the employee.

The service conditions of the Board's employees also provide for voluntary (sic compulsory) retirement, a person of the nature of the petitioner, as more fully detailed hereinbefore, cannot possibly be given any redress against the order of the Board for voluntary retirement. There must be factual support pertaining to the allegations of mala fides, unfortunately there is none. Mere user of the word "mala fide" by the petitioner would not by itself make the petition entertainable. The Court must scan the factual aspect and come to its own conclusion i.e.

(34 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

exactly what the High Court has done and that is the reason why the narration has been noted in this judgment in extenso. ..."

19. In a judgment reported as Union of India & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar & Ors. 10, it has been held that allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 770, para

21) "21. Doubtless, he who seeks to invalidate or nullify any act or order must establish the charge of bad faith, an abuse or a misuse by the authority of its powers. While the indirect motive or purpose, or bad faith or personal ill will is not to be held established except on clear proof thereof, it is obviously difficult to establish the state of a man's mind, for that is what the employee has to establish in this case, though this may sometimes be done. The difficulty is not lessened when one has to establish that a person apparently acting on the legitimate exercise of power has, in fact, been acting mala fide in the sense of pursuing an illegitimate aim. It is not the law that mala fides in the sense of improper motive should be established only by direct evidence. But it must be discernible from the order impugned or must be shown from the established surrounding factors which preceded the order. If bad faith would vitiate the order, the same can, in our opinion, be deduced as a reasonable and inescapable inference from proved facts. (S. Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab [(1964) 4 SCR 733 : AIR 1964 SC 72] .) It cannot be overlooked that the burden of establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a high order of credibility. As noted by this

(35 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

Court in E.P. Royappa v. State of T.N. [(1974) 4 SCC 3 : 1974 SCC (LŠ) 165 : AIR 1974 SC 555] courts would be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before them by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. (See Indian Rly. Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar."

9. Counsels further relied upon the judgment passed by this

court in the matter of Vishwas Sinsinwar Vs. The State of

Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1629/2020)

decided on 03.09.2020, wherein para No.28,it has been held as

under:-

"28. The third argument raised by counsel for the petitioners with regard to summoning the videography is also not acceptable as the respondents have disclosed in their additional affidavit the purpose of videography i.e. (i) to ensure that the police personnel deputed at different test centres would not favour any particular candidate (ii) to avoid impersonation (iii) to keep a vigil on law and order situation if such a situation would arise.

10. Counsels further relied upon the judgment passed by the

Division Bench of this court in the matter of Jitendra Rathore

Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ

No.682/2020 & along with other connected matters)

decided on 25.08.2021, wherein para Nos.13, 19 & 20, it has been

held as under:-

"13. As observed above, the version of the appellants that they were informed at the time of PET having qualified the test has

(36 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

been found to be baseless. The videography of PET has not been conducted to adjudge or verify the time taken by the candidates in running activity. In order to maintain transparency and to have effective control over the impersonation and favoritism, the videography was conducted. On complaints received from unsuccessful candidates, a High level Committee comprising of Inspector General of Police (Headquarter) Rajasthan Jaipur (Chairman), Superintendent of Police (Recruitment & Promotion Board) Rajasthan Jaipur (Member) and Additional Superintendent of Police, Legal Cell, Police Headquarter, Jaipur (Member) was constituted to consider the grievances of the candidates. After verification by this Committee, no inconsistency was found in awarding the marks in PET. It has been categorically submitted on affidavit that the accurate time taken in activities of running cannot be ascertained from videography. In such a situation no fruitful purpose would be served by calling the videography in court. ]

19. Above contention is self contradictory to the stands taken by the appellants. On one hand, they claim to have qualified the PET, and at the same time, they are objecting the condition of the field being muddy. All the candidates including the appellants did not raise any objection at the time of PET. Thus, the objection as to condition of the field is also not tenable at all.

20. In view of the above discussion and reasons stated, we find that the Hon'ble Single Judge has rightly considered all the aspects of the matter in light of the judicial pronouncements cited by both the sides. No case is made out to interfere in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present special appeals are dismissed."

11. Counsels further relied upon the judgment passed by the

Division Bench of this court in the matter of State of Rajasthan

& Ors. Vs. Revant Ram Meghwal & Ors. reported in 2020(1)

WLC 255, wherein para No.10, it has been held as under:-

(37 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

"10. In a recent decision of this Court dealing with a similar situation, where re- test had not been permitted, but was granted in some other venue a learned Single Judge had held that the refusal to grant a re-test was discriminatory. Setting aside the Single Judge's order, this court held, after quoting observations in Shravan Kumar Choudhary vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 154/2019 Decided On: 22.05.2019)- which had dealt with precisely the same issue concerning a direction to grant re-test because stadium conditions were bad, as follows:

"9. Granting a second opportunity or re- test, under the circumstances of this case, in the court's opinion, would not be a justified exercise of judicial review powers. No doubt, the petitioners had 12 hours notice; however all others (including the 23 who participated successfully and the 90 odd others who took part) also had short notice. Furthermore, to compete in a physical efficiency test, it is not the availability of a few days or even a couple of weeks, that is important. Testing endurance parameters, is one of the important objectives of the PET, which includes a 5 km run to be completed within a stipulated time. It cannot reasonably be argued that such endurance or stamina can be built overnight or in a few days; what is essential to do so, is constant and consistent practice. If one keeps these aspects in mind, it cannot be said that the writ petitioners were placed under such tremendous disadvantage as to be the reason why they could not clear the PET.

10. Another reason, which this court has to take note of is that among the 77 odd unsuccessful candidates, only a handful have come forward, claiming prejudice. Granting the facility of a re-test to these candidates who approached the court, in the opinion of the court would mean at one stroke denying similar treatment to others who have no grievance, and more importantly creating an entirely different set of circumstances, from the one under which the rest of the candidates participated, including those who successfully cleared the PET. This aspect was highlighted recently by this court in

(38 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

the context of recruitment to the post of police constable, where the complaint was that the weather conditions for the 5 km run were not conducive, on account of rain, resulting in the candidates' inability to complete the PET successfully. A Division Bench of this court, held in Shravan Kumar Choudhary vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 154/2019 Decided On: 22.05.2019) as follows: "7. Quite apart from the ground on which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, i.e. delay, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the selection process or the impugned order. When a complaint such as the present one with respect to less than ideal conditions or poor conditions in which candidates are made to perform take up PET is confronted by the Court, it needs to carefully analyse the facts since intervention in judicial review has larger repercussions which affect non- parties.

8. The state has placed material on record to suggest that whatever be the circumstances, rain moisture or ideal track conditions, of the total number of candidates who participated on the basis of prevailing conditions, 45.42 qualified. The additional affidavit (concededly which is not part of the present appeal record as it is a part of the record in D.B. Civil Appeal No. 228/19) shows that the variation between the days like the one when the appellant was made to participate and other days when there was no rain, was not so significant as to result in arbitrariness. The chart which is produced alongwith the said additional affidavit shows that on an average on the best days

- when weather conditions were normal, the number of qualified candidates were in the range of 63-64%; the lowest in such range was about 25%. In between, there were days on which the conditions were not ideal as in many venues it appeared to have rained. Having regard to all these factors, it cannot be said that the conditions under which the present appellant was made to participate in the PET were so poor as to deny him a level playing field. What is a matter of record is that 579 candidates did participate of whom 263 were successful and did qualify. In these circumstances, unless the result

(39 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

shows an extremely startling result where it can be discerned plainly that no candidate or a very insignificant number of candidates could qualify, the Courts should be very circumspect in returning a finding of arbitrariness.

9. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court, in the opinion of the Court, is not applicable. It is primarily 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, and 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.

11. Even in the re-test (which was conducted with sufficient notice, in terms of the orders of the single judge) only a few (and not all) candidates managed to clear the PET. Upholding the grant of a second opportunity of PET carried out in most favourable circumstances, to only a few, therefore in the opinion of the court, was not justified. Granting relief also on the ground that there were vacancies which could be filled with the writ petitioners or other candidates, in the

(40 of 41) [CW-5853/2022]

opinion of the court would mean that the executive government's choice of selecting from other candidates, who have since become eligible, is completely curtailed; the pool from which selection can be resorted to might and would be wider; however, the impugned order restricts it to the petitioners."

12. Heard counsels for the parties and perused the record.

13. These writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly, a Board was constituted by the

respondents, comprising of Higher Officers of the Department i.e.

Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police

and Superintendent of Police to have a check and vigil over the

holding & completing the PET so as to take care of even each &

every iota of problem or difficulty which a candidate may face

during the said process; secondly, straightaway the allegation of

mala-fides & arbitrariness has been levelled by the petitioners

against the respondents but neither any material in support of the

said allegation has been placed on record by the petitioners nor