Balram Meena S/O Ganga Sahai Meena vs The State Of Rajasthan Through Its ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 303 Raj/2

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 25597/2018

Balram Meena S/o Ganga Sahai Meena, Aged About 21 Years, R/o
Village Jeetpur, Post Kallawas, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District
Dausa, Rajasthan.

                                                                    ----Petitioner

                                      Versus

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

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

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

4.      The Superintendent Of Police, Jaisalmer.

                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Namo Narayan Sharma
                                 through VC
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG
                                 Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG



       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL

                                      Order

13/01/2022

In pursuance of direction of this Court, Mr. Rajesh Maharshi,

learned Additional Advocate General has submitted report of the

Medical Board, SMS Hospital, Jaipur dated 28.08.2019, which is

taken on record.

Although, the matter comes up on an interim application

No.1/2021 filed by the petitioner but, on the joint request of learned

counsels for the respective parties, the writ petition itself was heard

finally at this stage on its merit.

This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction for the

respondents to give the petitioner appointment on the post of

(2 of 5) [CW-25597/2018]

Constable (GD) with all consequential benefits as he possesses the

requisite eligibility qua chest measurement and stands in the merit

list under Scheduled Tribe category.

The facts in brief, as emerge from the writ petition, are that the

petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Constable (General)

in pursuance of advertisement dated 25.05.2018 issued by the

respondents. The petitioner after clearing the written examination,

appeared on 08.09.2018 for Physical Efficiency Test (PET)/Physical

Standard Test (PST). Though, the petitioner was declared "pass" in

the PST and secured more marks than the cut off marks in the ST

category but, he was denied appointment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the

respondents have not assigned any reason for denying him

appointment despite securing higher marks than the cut off marks

under ST category but, in their reply, they have stated that the

petitioner's candidature was rejected as he did not fulfill the physical

requirement qua chest measurement. He submitted that under an

interim order of this Court dated 16.08.2019, he was subjected to

examination by a Medical Board of 3 Members, SMS Medical College,

Jaipur which has, vide its report dated 28.08.2019, found the

petitioner fulfilling the requisite chest measurement as it has been

found to be 83-88 c.m. in deflated and inflated stage respectively

(the requisite parameter is 81-86 c.m.). Learned counsel submitted

that after declaring him "pass" in PST examination, it was not open

for the respondents to reject his candidature stating that he failed to

meet chest measurement. He submitted that in a Civil Writ

Petition No.27369/2018, Seeta Ram Meena Vs. State of

Rajasthan & Ors. arising out of same recruitment examination and

involving identical controversy, a co-ordinate Bench of this Court has,

(3 of 5) [CW-25597/2018]

vide its order dated 30.03.2021, allowed the writ petition and

directed the respondents to give the petitioner therein appointment

with consequential benefits. Relying on a Division Bench judgment of

this Court dated 14.08.2020 in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ)

No.522/2020, State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Jaykaran Meena,

learned counsel submitted that therein the appeal preferred by the

State against the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the writ

petition involving identical controversty and directing the

respondents to give the petitioner appointment on the post of

Constable (GD), was dismissed. He, therefore, prayed that the writ

petition be allowed and the respondents be directed to give him

appointment on the post of Constable (General) with consequential

benefits.

Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, learned AAG, inviting attention of this

Court towards Clause 11(i) of the advertisement dated 25.05.2018,

submitted that the writ petition itself is not maintainable as the

petitioner did not avail the remedy of appeal against rejection of his

candidature qua chest measurement. He submitted that even

otherwise also, since a candidate can always improve upon his chest

measurement with the efflux of time, the petitioner is not entitled for

any relief even if he is found to be eligible qua chest measurement

by the Medical Board, SMS Hospital, Jaipur vide its report dated

28.08.2019 which, indisputably, was conducted after more than 11

months from the date of his PST examination. He submitted that a

co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Jeetu Singh Vs.

State of Rajasthan & Ors., S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.27946/2018 involving identical controversy, vide its order dated

09.09.2019, dismissed the writ petition. He, therefore, prayed that

the writ petition be dismissed.

(4 of 5) [CW-25597/2018]

Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the

record.

As per result (Annexure 3), the respondents have declared the

petitioner to have passed the PST examination. It nowhere reflects

that he has been declared so after extending him relaxation qua

chest measurement. As per the Medical Board Report dated

28.08.2019, the petitioner has chest measurement of 83-88 c.m. in

deflated and inflated stage respectively which satisfies the

requirement. There may be some substance in contention of learned

AAG that with the passage of time, a candidate can always improve

upon his chest measurement but, in the present case, this contention

is of no assistance to him. As per clause 11(i), the respondents are

enjoined upon to inform every candidate present of his physical

measurement at the time of PST examination and if candidature of

any candidate is rejected on that count, he is entitled to avail the

remedy of appeal on the same day depositing cash amount of

Rs.500/-. Since, the petitioner was declared pass after PST

examination, there was no occasion for him to have availed the

remedy of appeal. Had the respondents declared him unfit on that

day, the petitioner could have availed the remedy of appeal with an

opportunity to satisfy the respondents that he fulfilled the eligibility

qua chest measurement also. A perusal of the material on record

reveals that the petitioner has approached this Court without any

delay and was subjected to examination by a Medical Board

comprising of 3 members under the interim direction of this Court.

Indisputably, the petitioner has secured much higher marks

than the cut off marks prescribed by the respondents in the

Scheduled Tribe category.

(5 of 5) [CW-25597/2018]

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court has, in case of Seeta Ram

Meena (supra) involving identical controversy wherein the

candidature of a candidate for appointment on the post of Constable

(GD) under the same advertisement dated 25.05.2018 was rejected

on account that he did not fulfill the criteria qua chest measurement

and was found to be fit by the Medical Board constituted under

interim direction of this Court, allowed the writ petition. The

judgment reveals that the judgment in case of Jeetu Singh (supra)

was considered and distinguished by this Court while allowing the

writ petition.

In case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. (supra), a Division

Bench of this Court has dismissed the appeal preferred against the

order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby

the writ petition filed by the respondent involving identical

controversy, was allowed.

In the backdrop of aforesaid legal position and in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

The writ petition is allowed. The rejection of the candidature of

the petitioner is held to be bad in law and the respondents are

directed to give the petitioner appointment on the post of Constable

(GD) as per his merit position within a period of six weeks from

today. The petitioner would be entitled for all other benefits except

the actual salary which have been given to persons less meritorious

than him and so appointed by the respondents.

The pending application(s) stands disposed of accordingly.

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

PRAGATI/s-357

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)