Madan Lal Jat Son Of Shri Shravanji vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 667 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

             D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1066/2022

Jugal Kishor Gurjar S/o Ramawatar, Aged About 29 Years, R/o
Bhairu Ki Dhani, Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----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

Connected With D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1042/2022 Rahul Karva Son Of Shri Ounkar Ram, Aged About 26 Years, Resident Of Village Chandpura, Post Jiliya, Tehsil Kuchamancity, District Nagaur (Raj.)

----Appellant 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.)

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

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1070/2022 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)

(2 of 6) [SAW-1066/2022]

----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 Connect with D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1071/2022

Kana Ram Meena S/o Ram Phool Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Vpo Khedaraniwas, Tehsil Kotkhawada, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 335050)

----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 D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1072/2022

Mahendra Singh Choudhary S/o Sitaram Choudhary, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Barkheda, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 707585)

----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. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

                                                              ----Respondents




                                         (3 of 6)                [SAW-1066/2022]

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1077/2022

Chandraveer Singh S/o Kishan Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Jaisindhar Gaon, Godra Road, Barmer, Rajasthan

----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. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1078/2022

Madan Lal Jat Son Of Shri Shravanji, Aged About 29 Years, Resident Of Jato Ki Dhani, Vpo Chhota Narena, Tehsil Roopangarh, District Ajmer (Raj.).

----Appellant 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, Jodhpur Range Jodhpur (Raj.)

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

----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 1079/2022

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

                                                 (4 of 6)                   [SAW-1066/2022]



                                                                          ----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. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

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

----Respondents

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vigyan Shah with Mr. Harendra Neel Mr. Arvind Kumar Arora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG with Mr. Udit Sharma Mr. Samee Khan

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. PANKAJ MITHAL HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

Order

19/01/2023

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

(5 of 6) [SAW-1066/2022]

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-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

(6 of 6) [SAW-1066/2022]

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.

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ MITHAL),CJ

KAMLESH KUMAR/RAJAT/89-91, 93-96 & 98

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)