Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 679
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, JJ.
The State of Rajasthan and Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Maldev Dewasi and Ors. - Respondents
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ Nos. 537, 401, 402, 410, 412, 439, 465, 468 and 689 of 2019
Decided On : 09-07-2019
For the Appellant : Sandeep Shah, AAG and Akshiti Singhvi
For the Respondent: Shreyansh Mardia, Shaambhavi Mardia and Mahipial Singh Deora
Headnote:
Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Petition filed Complaining of arbitrariness, unsuccessful candidates for the post of Police Constable approached by filing writ – They have cleared the written test and also fulfilled the physical parameters, they were given extremely a short notice or intimation for appearing in the Physical Standard Test and Physical Efficiency Test which involved inter-alia 5 km. run – The learned Single Judge accepted the petitioners' contention and directed the respondents to conduct a re-test – Challenged – Appeal – Held, Even in the re-test (which was conducted with sufficient notice, in terms of the orders of the single judge) only a few (and not all) candidates managed to clear the PET – Upholding the grant of a second opportunity of PET carried out in most favourable circumstances, to only a few, therefore in the opinion of the court, was not justified – Granting relief also on the ground that there were vacancies which could be filled with the writ petitioners or other candidates, in the opinion of the court would mean that the executive government's choice of selecting from other candidates, who have since become eligible, is completely curtailed; the pool from which selection can be resorted to might and would be wider; however, the impugned order restricts it to the petitioners – Impugned orders of learned Single Judge are set aside – The appeals filed by the State have to be and are allowed. (Para 11 and 12)
Facts of the case:
Complaining of arbitrariness, these unsuccessful candidates for the post of Police Constable approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The principal argument on their behalf was that although they have cleared the written test and also fulfilled the physical parameters, they were given extremely a short notice or intimation for appearing in the Physical Standard Test (hereafter referred as "PST") and Physical Efficiency Test (hereafter referred as "PET") which involved inter-alia 5 km. run. The learned Single Judge accepted the petitioners' contention and directed the respondents to conduct a re-test. The State of Rajasthan, aggrieved by that decision is in appeal before this Court.
Findings of the case:
Even in the re-test (which was conducted with sufficient notice, in terms of the orders of the single judge) only a few (and not all) candidates managed to clear the PET – Upholding the grant of a second opportunity of PET carried out in most favourable circumstances, to only a few, therefore in the opinion of the court, was not justified – Granting relief also on the ground that there were vacancies which could be filled with the writ petitioners or other candidates, in the opinion of the court would mean that the executive government's choice of selecting from other candidates, who have since become eligible, is completely curtailed; the pool from which selection can be resorted to might and would be wider; however, the impugned order restricts it to the petitioners – Impugned orders of learned Single Judge are set aside – The appeals filed by the State have to be and are allowed.
Result: Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
S. Ravindra Bhat, J.
1. Complaining of arbitrariness, these unsuccessful candidates for the post of Police Constable approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The principal argument on their behalf was that although they have cleared the written test and also fulfilled the physical parameters, they were given extremely a short notice or intimation for appearing in the Physical Standard Test (hereafter referred as "PST") and Physical Efficiency Test (hereafter referred as "PET") which involved inter-alia 5 km. run. The learned Single Judge accepted the petitioners' contention and directed the respondents to conduct a re-test. The State of Rajasthan, aggrieved by that decision is in appeal before this Court.
2. The essential facts are that the writ-petitioners/respondents cleared the written test. They were informed at the stage of their having qualified in the written test that the date for their PET and PST would be intimated subsequently at the web- portal of the State. The result of the written test was declared on 30.8.2018 and the State uploaded the admit cards in respect of successful candidates on 4.9.2018 at 6.00 PM. The successful candidates, including the writ-petitioners, were asked to appear for the PST/PET at 6.00 AM the following morning on 05.09.2018. It is not in dispute that they reached the venue where the PST/PET was held but were declared unsuccessful in the PET, because they could not complete the run within the prescribed time.
3. The argument made on behalf of the writ petitioners, which found favour with single judge was that in somewhat similar circumstances a communication dated 7.9.2018 was addressed by the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur (Chairman of the Selection Board) to the Superintendent of Police, Jalore, Pali and Sirohi, requiring a re-test, since several candidates could not appear on account of certain technical reasons which resulted in the later uploading of their admit cards at the Police Department's website. The denial of their opportunity impelled the state to grant another opportunity.
4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petitions of the respondents inter-alia holding as follows:-
"Despite specifically putting a query to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as to what prompted the respondents in holding the PST/PET on such a short notice and why the candidates could not be given sufficient time in this regard, no convincing response was forthcoming, as initially it was submitted that probably on account of availability of ground for PET a short notice was given, however, the said reason appears to be baseless inasmuch as the ground to be used for the purpose is the Rajasthan Police Training Centre, Mandore Road, Jodhpur, which is respondent's own ground.
The other submission made by learned counsel for the respondents i.e. as the notification dated 13/8/2018 was issued to the effect that candidates, who are declared successful in the written examination must remain prepared for the purpose of PST/PET as they may be called for at any point of time and, therefore, the candidates cannot make any grievance, is also baseless inasmuch as the said notification was issued for the candidates who had cleared the written examination, however, the result of the petitioners was declared on 30/8/2018 and, therefore, the notification dated 13/8/2018 (Annex. R/1) was not meant for them.
Besides the above fact, another important aspect which is required to be noticed is that despite holding PST/PET on 5/9/2018 and on subsequent dates, a lot of posts in all categories are lying vacant as is evident from the chart made available by the learned counsel for the respondents, wherein, for the post of Constable (GD) out of 50 posts, 20 are vacant, for Constable (Driver) out of 16 posts, 11 are vacant, for Constable TSP out of 92, 88 are vacant, and for Constable Driver (TSP) 05 out of 05 posts are vacant. In view of the vacancies available, despite PST/PET
