Lokesh Meena vs State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3141 Raj

[2023/RJJD/010486]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16693/2022 Lokesh Meena S/o Shri Ramlal Meena, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of 119, Ward No. 39, Bajrang Nagar, Kota Ladpura, Police Line, Kota, District Kota, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

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

2. The Director General Of Police, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

3. The Superintendent Of Police, Appointments And Promotion Board, Office Of The Director General Of Police, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.

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

5. The District Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur Rural, Jodhpur, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

                                                                    ----Respondents


For Petitioner(s)            :     Mr. Chaitanya Gahlot.
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG.


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
                          Order

18/04/2023

      Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The present writ petition has been filed against the order

dated 30.10.2022 whereby representation preferred by the

petitioner for holding his physical efficiency test after a period of

two months was rejected.

Brief facts necessary to be narrated in the present case are

that the petitioner being an eligible candidate, applied for

recruitment on the post of Constable pursuant to the

advertisement dated 29.10.2021 issued by the respondent

department. The written examination was conducted in the year

[2023/RJJD/010486] (2 of 4) [CW-16693/2022]

2022, result of the same was declared in the month of August,

2022, wherein the petitioner stood successful. Thereafter, the

petitioner was called for physical efficiency test which was

scheduled to be held on 31.10.2022. The petitioner sustained

fracture on the fingers of his feet on 24.10.2022. On account of

sustaining the injuries, the petitioner submitted a representation

before the respondent No.4 on 28.10.2022 requesting them for

extension of date of physical efficiency test (PST/ PET) of the

petitioner. The representation so preferred by the petitioner was

rejected by the respondent No.4 vide order dated 30.10.2022

(Annex.6). Aggrieved against the same, the present writ petition

has been preferred before this court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if physical

efficiency test of the petitioner is not postponed, the petitioner

being a meritorious and bright student will be deprived of the

appointment to the post of Constable on account of sustaining

injuries just prior to the date of his physical efficiency test. He

further submits that the respondents wrongly rejected the

representation of the petitioner for holding his physical efficiency

test after a period of two months. He submits that the petitioner

suffered fracture on the fingers of his feet, therefore, he was

unable to perform running etc., thus, the representation filed by

him should have been allowed by the respondents authorities by

permitting him to appear in the physical efficiency test after a

period of two months. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition

filed by the petitioner may be allowed as prayed for.

Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that since

the selection process is time bound and entire exercise is required

[2023/RJJD/010486] (3 of 4) [CW-16693/2022]

to be done as per the schedule, therefore, the extension of two

months for holding the physical efficiency test of the petitioner

was rightly refused. He submits that the final result of the

selection process has ben declared after adding the marks of

written examination as well as physical efficiency test and the final

merit list is prepared and appointments are given as per the final

merit list prepared. In these circumstances, the representation of

the petitioner was rightly considered and rejected by the

respondents. Learned State Counsel relies upon the judgment of

this Court passed in S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.3097/2023 (Sachin

Sankhla V/s Union of India & Ors.), whereby in the identical facts,

this court dismissed the said writ petition. He, therefore, prays

that the writ petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed.

I have considered the submissions made at the bar and gone

through the relevant record of the case.

The undisputed facts in the present case are that in

pursuance of the advertisement issued by the respondents for

recruitment on the post of Constable, written examination was

conducted and in furtherance of the recruitment process, physical

efficiency test was also conducted on 31.10.2022. On account of

sustaining the injuries, the petitioner submitted a representation

to the respondent No.4 for postponing the date of his physical

efficiency test for a period of two months. The request made by

the petitioner was rejected by the respondent No.4 on the ground

that in absence of any such specific rule, the date of holding the

physical efficiency test of the petitioner cannot be postponed.

It is unfortunate that the petitioner suffered injuries just

before the Physical Efficiency Test and, therefore, he could not

[2023/RJJD/010486] (4 of 4) [CW-16693/2022]

participate in the selection process for appointment on the post of

Constable. This Court is of the opinion that in such circumstances,

the deferment of Physical Efficiency Test of the petitioner for a

period of two months is not possible for the simple reason that the

entire selection process cannot be kept in abeyance till the

Physical Efficiency Test of the petitioner is conducted. The

selections are based on the final merit list prepared after adding

the marks of written examination as well as Physical Efficiency

Test and, therefore, the deferment of the Physical Efficiency Test

of the petitioner will amount to deferment of the entire selection

process resulting into the delay of appointments. The same is

impermissible and, therefore, no fault can be found in the decision

of the respondents rejecting the request of the petitioner. In the

selection process undertaken by the respondents, in such cases if

any indulgence is granted the selection process would never come

to an end. Although, this Court has all the sympathy with the

petitioner but in the facts and circumstances of the case discussed

above, the relief prayed for in the present writ petition cannot be

granted to the petitioner.

In view of the discussions made above, the present writ

petition is dismissed being bereft of merit.

(VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J 27-AnilSingh/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)