Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Mahendra Pal Singh Ranawat vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 20 February, 2024
Author: Dinesh Mehta
Bench: Dinesh Mehta
[2024:RJ-JD:8761]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2352/2024
Mahendra Pal Singh Ranawat S/o Kalyan Singh Ranawat, Aged
About 51 Years, R/o Ward No. - 11, Anat, District - Pratapgarh,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Ministry Of Home Affairs,
Through The Secretary, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. Director General Of Police, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General, Udaipur Range, Udaipur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Banswara.
5. Babar Khan S/o Jinayat Khan, Aged About 51 Years, Belt
Number 415, Reserve Police Line, Baaswara.
6. Jitendra Kumar S/o Prem Shankar, Aged About 50 Years,
Belt Number 134, Post At PS Anandpuri, Banswara.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Akshat Verma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K.Bissa
JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Order
20/02/2024
1. Mr. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the
respondents have wrongly accorded zero marks to the petitioner
in Physical Efficiency Test.
2. Learned counsel requested that the petitioner had completed
'run' in 13 minutes as against the requisite time allocated for said
purpose (12 minutes).
[2024:RJ-JD:8761] (2 of 3) [CW-2352/2024]
3. Learned counsel requested that the respondents be directed
to produce videography of the 'run' taken during petitioner's
Physical Efficiency Test and then appropriate direction be issued.
4. Mr. Bissa, learned counsel appearing for the respondent -
State submitted that identical request made by similarly situated
candidate (Surendra Sharma) has been turned down by a co-
ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 11.01.2023 in the
case of Surendra Sharma Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. :
S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.5911/2015, while relying upon
numerous other decisions.
5. In the case of Surendra Sharma (supra), a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court has held thus:-
"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
[2024:RJ-JD:8761] (3 of 3) [CW-2352/2024]
placed on record which warrant playing
of videography of the proficiency test as
suggested by the petitioner before this
Court. Even otherwise, a co-ordinate
Bench of this Court has already held that
summoning and showing/playing of
videography while exercising extra
ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article
226 at the instance of candidates in each
and every case is neither proper nor
desirable as it will unnecessarily delay
the selection process which would lead
to opening of the flood gates for such
requests.
Having considered the submissions
advanced and after perusing the material
available on record, the petitioner has
failed to make out a case warranting
indulgence by this Court.
In the result, the writ petition fails
and is dismissed with noorder as to
costs.
6. Following the judgment passed in the case of Surendra
Sharma (supra), the present writ petition is dismissed.
7. The stay application also stands dismissed, accordingly.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
15-akansha/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
