State Of Rajasthan vs Sakar Chand Bhakariya ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 8005 Raj

[2023:RJ-JD:32929-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 586/2021

1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Forest, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. The Chief Conservator Of Forest, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. The Deputy Conservator Of Forest, Udaipur.

----Appellants Versus

Sakar Chand Bhakariya S/o Takat Ram Bhakariya, Aged About 40 Years, Village Dheekliya, Tehsil Phalasiya, District Udaipur (Raj.)

----Respondent

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, Sr. Advocate-cum-

AAG with Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY BISHNOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Judgment / Order

05/10/2023

The matter comes up for consideration of application under

Section 5 of the Limitation Act preferred on behalf of the

appellants with a prayer for condoning the delay of 429 days in

filing the instant appeal.

[2023:RJ-JD:32929-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-586/2021]

Despite service of notice of application under Section 5 of the

Limitation Act, nobody has appeared on behalf of the sole

respondent.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellants and after

going through the contents of the application under Section 5 of

the Limitation Act, we are of the view that the appellants have

satisfactorily explained the delay in filing the instant appeal.

Hence, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is

allowed and the delay of 429 days in filing the instant appeal is

condoned.

Mr. Sandeep Shah, learned AAG has submitted that as per

the directions given by the learned Single Judge, the sole

respondent was medically examined on 25.11.2021 and as he has

failed in the said medical examination, therefore, appointment on

the post of Forest Guard could not be given to him. It is further

submitted that for the practical purposes, the present appeal has

become infructuous, however, the State is aggrieved with the

impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge because the

learned Single Judge has held that as per Condition No.8.2 of the

advertisement, ones a candidate has undergone measurements

and physical efficiency test, then, he is not required to attend the

medical examination test. Mr. Shah has submitted that while

holding this, the learned Single Judge has completely ignored

Condition No.8.5 of the advertisement. Learned counsel for the

appellants has also submitted that the learned Single Judge has

erred in observing that the Condition No.8.2 of the advertisement

speaks about medical fitness and physical measurements etc.,

whereas the Condition No.8.2 of the advertisement is in respect of

[2023:RJ-JD:32929-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-586/2021]

measurements and physical efficiency test and not for medical

fitness. Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted

that as per the conditions of the advertisement running from

Condition Nos.8.2 to 8.5, after clearing measurements and

physical efficiency test, a candidate is required to go for medical

fitness test also.

Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, submitted that

in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the order

impugned passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set

aside.

Heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the

material available on record.

The Condition Nos.8.2 to 8.5 of the advertisement are

reproduced hereunder :

"8-2 ekirksy ,oa 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk%& fyf[kr ijh{kk esa p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ekirksy ,oa 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk ds fy;s vkeaf=r fd;k tk;sxkA tks vH;FkhZ n{krk ijh{kk esa vuqRrh.kZ gksaxs mUgsa vfxze p;u izfØ;k esa 'kkfey ugha fd;k tk;sxkA 8-3 lk{kkRdkj%& mijksDr nksuksa ijh{kkvksa esa lQy vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lk{kkRdkj gsrq vkeaf=r fd;k tk;sxkA lk{kkRdkj nl vadksa dk gksxkA 8-4 p;u lwph%& lk{kkRdkj esa lQy vH;fFkZ;ksa dh p;u lwph tkjh dh tk;sxhA 8-5 LokLF; ijh{k.k%& esfMdy cksMZ ls fpfdRldh; ijh{k.k esa mi;qDr ik;s tkus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk fu;qfDr gsrq ik= ekuk tk;sxkA"

[2023:RJ-JD:32929-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-586/2021]

The Condition No.8.2 of the advertisement is with regard to

measurements and physical efficiency test, whereas the Condition

No.8.5 of the advertisement is with respect to medical fitness test.

After attending the measurements and physical efficiency test, a

candidate found suitable, is required to attend the interview and,

thereafter, a select list is to be issued by the respondents and

after that, the medical fitness test is required to be conducted.

In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that

the learned Single Judge has erred in holding that after attending

the measurements and physical efficiency test, a candidate is not

required to go for medical fitness test.

Hence, this Special Appeal is allowed. The impugned order

passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside.

No order as to costs.

(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J (VIJAY BISHNOI),J

35-msrathore/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)