Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Surendra Sharma vs State Of Raj. And Ors on 11 January, 2023

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5911/2015

Surendra Sharma S/o Shri Prakash Chand, aged about 27 years, R/o Mahaveer Chowk, Bilara, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through the Principle Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

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

3. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarter, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

4. Commissioner of Police, Police Commissionerate, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

                                                                  ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)          :    Dr. Nupur Bhati
For Respondent(s)          :    Mr. Anil Bissa, AGC



           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                     Order

11/01/2023

Brief facts of the case are that the respondents invited

applications from candidates for recruitment against the post of

Constable (Driver) vide advertisement dated 14.07.2013. The

petitioner being eligible participated in the recruitment process

initiated pursuant to advertisement dated 14.07.2013. Upon

clearing the written examination held on 01.06.2014, the

petitioner was called upon for physical efficiency test and

proficiency test. The petitioner appeared for the physical efficiency

test on 19.01.2015. After completion of the selection process, the

respondents issued select list dated 05.03.2015 for the post of

Constable (Driver) wherein the petitioner's name did not find

(2 of 6) [CW-5911/2015]

place. The petitioner thereupon sought information under RTI Act

regarding the marks awarded to him through an application dated

12.03.2012 but to no avail. The petitioner preferred appeal before

concerned authorities for providing the information sought by him.

The respondents replied to the application dated 12.03.2015 vide

letter dated 29.04.2015 stating therein the breakup of marks

obtained by the petitioner which were as follows:- Written

Examination-69.375 marks, physical efficiency test-10 marks and

proficiency test-4 marks. The total marks obtained by the

petitioner were 83.375 as against the cut-off marks of 75.75 for

General Category declared vide select list dated 05.03.2015. The

name of the petitioner did not find place in the select list as he

had failed to obtain minimum of 6 marks in the proficiency test as

required by the advertisement dated 14.07.2013.

Aggrieved by the action of the respondents whereby the

petitioner's name was not reflected in the select list dated

05.03.2015, the petitioner has filed present writ petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

respondents have acted in arbitrary manner by not providing

appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (Driver).

Learned counsel further submitted that the total marks obtained

by the petitioner were higher than the cut-off marks which ought

to have been considered by the respondents. It was urged that

the appointment has been denied to the petitioner on a technical

ground that he failed to obtain minimum 6 marks in the

proficiency test which is unsustainable. Lastly, it was submitted

that the petitioner has obtained DVD of videography of steering

and Slalom Circuit Test which would establish that the petitioner

has performed well in the aforesaid test and therefore, he

(3 of 6) [CW-5911/2015]

deserves to be awarded full marks in the proficiency test. In the

alternative, it was submitted that the respondents may be

directed to re-conduct the proficiency test for the petitioner

against the advertised post.

Counsel for the respondents opposed the submissions

advanced by the petitioner counsel argued that the requirement of

obtaining minimum marks in proficiency test is essential for

appointment on the post of Constable (Driver). Counsel further

argued that though the petitioner had obtained 69.375 (92.5%)

marks out of 75 marks in written examination, he had failed to

obtain minimum marks prescribed for proficiency test scoring only

4 marks (26.66%) out of 15 marks. It was submitted that the

condition regarding minimum marks required for proficiency test

was provided by the answering respondents vide Standing Order

No.4/2014 dated 29.06.2013. Learned counsel vehemently

submitted that all the candidates who had participated in the

proficiency test conducted by the Selection Board have been

awarded marks based on their performance without any biasness.

It was thus prayed that the denial of appointment to the petitioner

was justified and the instant writ petitioner may be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

material available on record.

A co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jaipur in the case of

Vishwas Sinsinwar Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.

Civil Writ Petition No.1629/2020) decided on 03.09.2020 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

(4 of 6) [CW-5911/2015]

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."

Similarly, in the case of Jugal Kishor Gurjar vs. State of

Rajasthan and Others (S.B. C.W. No.5853/2022) decided on

16/08/2022, co-ordinate Bench at Jaipur pleased to hold as

under:-

"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 any person by name has been impleaded as party respondent in the writ petitions and there are several verdicts of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that in absence of sufficient cogent material in support of the allegation of malafides & arbitrariness, no credence can be attached to the said allegation; thirdly in my considered view, summoning & showing the videography & chips to each & every candidate will unnecessarily delay the completion of the selection process as it will open the gates of flood & the pandora box; fourthly the issue of videography & Chip as argued by counsels for the petitioners, has already examined by this Court in detail in the matter of Vishwas Sinsinwar (supra) and the contention raised therein with regard to summoning videography and chip was turned down by this Court in that matter, as such the same issue raised herein is of no

(5 of 6) [CW-5911/2015]

substance and lastly, in view of the judgments referred above, in my considered view no case is made out for interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India."

From the perusal of record, it is clear that in the recruitment

process in question, the candidates were required to obtain

minimum of 6 marks in the proficiency test notified vide Standing

Order bearing No.4/2014 dated 29.06.2013 to become eligible to

be considered for appointment on the post of Constable (Driver).

The petitioner obtained 4 marks in the proficiency test which is

less than the minimum marks prescribed and therefore, his name

was not considered for appointment on the advertised post. In the

writ petition, no allegation of bias has been levelled against the

respondents in the questioned selection process.

In the considered opinion of this Court, cogent material has

not been placed on record which warrant playing of videography of