Ravi Sankhala Son Of Shri Kailash ... vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1709 Raj/2

   [2023/RJJP/001933]

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                       BENCH AT JAIPUR

               D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1270/2022

                                                In

                    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)
                                                                            ----Appellant
                                             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

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ram Pratap Saini, Advocate with Mr. Aamir Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharishi, AAG with Ms. Kinjal Surana, Advocate Mr. Surendar Meel, Advocate for RPSC

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

Judgment / Order

07/02/2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

controversy involved in this appeal is squarely covered by a recent

judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 19.01.2023 passed

in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1066/2022- Jugal Kishore

[2023/RJJP/001933] (2 of 3) [SAW-1270/2022]

Gurjar Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected

matters, wherein following order has been passed:-

1. Heard Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants and Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioners-appellants have preferred these Special Appeals against the common judgment and order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the Writ Court, whereby several writ petitions have been dismissed.

3. The petitioners-appellants are candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.02.2021. The petitioners- appellants qualified the written examination and were called for Physical Efficiency Test (PET), which consists of three events i.e. race, long jump and chin-ups. The petitioners-appellants were not declared successful in PET and as such could not qualify for the interview. Aggrieved the petitioner-appellants preferred writ petitions alleging that there was some discrepancy in the videography/chips recording the timings of the race etc., and that the petitioners-appellants have wrongly been ousted from qualifying the PET.

4. It is submitted that the petitioners-appellants raised their grievances by means of a representation to the Director General of Police, a copy of which has been enclosed in some of the writ petitions. The argument proceeds that though in some cases the representation was considered and some relief was granted to the candidates, but the representation of the petitioners-appellants was not considered.

5. The learned Single Judge has brushed aside the argument on this score by simply stating that 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, to have a check and vigil over holding and completing of PET so as to take care of even each and every iota of problem or difficulty, which a candidate may face during the said process. However, the Writ Court falls short of recording any finding as to whether the grievance or representation of the petitioners with regard to PET was considered by such a High Powered Committee.

6. The judgment and order dated 11.10.2022 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.854/2022-

[2023/RJJP/001933] (3 of 3) [SAW-1270/2022]

Bhajan Lal Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., relied upon by Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, learned Additional Advocate General is of no avail as by the said decision, the Court has only considered that the question of summoning the videography and the chip, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.

7. However, in the present case the petitioners- appellants are not asking the Court to examine the videography or the chip, rather are insisting that the grievance with regard to videography/chip raised by them be considered by the authorities themselves or the High Powered Committee constituted by the respondents themselves.

8. In view of the above short point alone, we dispose of these appeals by modifying the impugned judgment and order by directing that the Director General of Police will ensure that the representation of the petitioners-appellants raising grievance with regard to PET may be placed before the High Powered Committee and be examined in accordance with the law, most expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks and if representation of any of the candidates is allowed, they would be granted the consequential benefits. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."

3. In the light of the above, present appeal is also disposed off

in the similar terms as in Jugal Kishore Gurjar (supra).

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

Mohita /13

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)