Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Smt. Reetika Jain vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission ... on 16 June, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:27265]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11966/2025
Smt. Reetika Jain D/o Shri Sohan Lal Jain, Aged About 34 Years,
R/o Jain Mandir Road, Salumbar, Tehsil-Sarada, Deopura,
District- Udaipur (Raj.) -313001.
----Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC), Through Its
Secretary, Having Its Office At Ghoghara Ghati, Jaipur Road,
Ajmer (Raj.) -305001.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. N.S. Acharya
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI
(VACATION JUDGE)
Order
16/06/2025
1. By way of the instant writ petition filed under Articles 226 of
the Constitution of India, the petitioner essentially implores this
Court to direct the respondent-RPSC to accommodate her centre
of Rajasthan State and Sub. Services Combined Competitive
(Mains) Examination 2024 (for short 'RAS Mains Examination
2024') from Ajmer to Udaipur.
2. The chronological facts of the case are that on 10.06.2025,
the respondent-RPSC issued a press note announcing respective
districts of RAS Mains Examination 2024 to be held on 17th and
18th of June, 2025 and that the admit cards for the same shall be
available from 14.06.2025. Upon receiving admit card for RAS
Mains Examination 2024, wherein the petitioner was allotted the
examination centre in the city of Ajmer, she submitted a detailed
representation to respondent-RPSC via its online grievance portal
and also via email to its Secretary. In her representation, she
[2025:RJ-JD:27265] (2 of 4) [CW-11966/2025]
stated that she is in her 34 th week of pregnancy along with a copy
of medical certificate attesting to her condition and the advice
against travel and requested for change in her allotted centre from
Ajmer to Udaipur. A reply from the respondent-RPSC to the
grievance was received on 15.06.2025 rejecting her request by
stating "DISPOSED- EXAM IS CONDUCT ONLY TWO DISTRICT SO
EXAM DISTRICT IS NOT CHANGE".
3. Besides the above facts, learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the present petitioner is currently in her 3 rd
trimester of her pregnancy and as per the medical report dated
14.06.2025, she had been medically advised against undertaking
any travel long distance or short, via any means due to the
potential and severe risk and complication involved. The learned
counsel for the petitioner further submitted that fundamental right
under Article 21 includes the right to safe motherhood and
medical care, the petitioner is under strict medical guidance to
avoid at this stage.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the
decision dated 30.05.2017 rendered by the Division Bench of this
Court at Bench Jaipur in bunch of writ petitions led by Laxmi
Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ
Petition Nos.18808, 11990, 18802 of 2015) as well as the
decision dated 04.04.2025 rendered by the Karnataka High Court
in Mahalaxmi Vs. The Karnataka Public Service Commission
(KPSC) & Anr. (Writ Petition No.201012/2025).
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-
RPSC submits that the centers of examination were notified on
[2025:RJ-JD:27265] (3 of 4) [CW-11966/2025]
official website/SSO Portal on 10.06.2025, however, the petitioner
approached the respondent-RPSC on 14.06.2025 and the
respondent-RPSC replied on 15.06.2025, thus, the petitioner failed
to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. It is further
submitted that the sealed envelope of the question papers of the
examination have already been sent to the respective examination
centers as per the norms and that papers opens on the day of the
examination. It is submitted that as there is no examination
center at Udaipur, it is practically impossible to arrange for an
examination center, question paper and other requisite facilities at
Udaipur a day prior to the date of examination.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material as made available to this Court.
7. Looking to the short span of time, it is practically not
possible for the respondent-RPSC to arrange new centre, question
paper, answer sheets and other requisite facilities at Udaipur only
for one candidate.
8. It is observed that the petitioner has approached the
respondent-RPSC and this Court at belated stage, whereby it is
not feasible to arrange the necessary facilities to conduct the
examination.
9. So far as the judgment rendered by Karnataka High Court in
Mahalaxmi (supra), on which the learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance, is concerned, the same is of no help
to the petitioner because in that case there was ample amount of
time for the authorities to arrange the requisite facilities for
conducting examination.
[2025:RJ-JD:27265] (4 of 4) [CW-11966/2025]
10. As far as the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of
this Court in Laxmi Devi (supra), on which the learned counsel
has placed reliance, is concerned, the same is not applicable in the
present case as it was a case of physical examination and no
female candidate is expected to appear for physical examination
at any stage of pregnancy.
11. This Court is of the opinion that if the relief as prayed by the
petitioner is granted, the same shall set a bad precedent for
approaching the Court one day prior to the date of examination
even though she had sufficient time to approach the
respondent-RPSC and this Court.
12. In view of the above, no interference in this writ petition is
required. However, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the
respondent-RPSC to make available the requisite medical facilities
and a gynecologist for any contingency, if so occurs.
13. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed and the
respondent-RPSC is directed to make available the requisite
medical facilities and a gynecologist for any contingency, if so
occurs.
14. No order as to cost.
15. Stay petition also stands dismissed.
(CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI),V.J.
Abhishek Kumar
S.Sr.No.2
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
