JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard finally at this stage and the judgment was reserved.

2. Petitioner is a candidate who has applied for the post of Constable (Driver) under the advertisement dated 04/12/2019 issued by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur inviting applications for the posts of Constable and Constable (Driver).

3. The number of posts, eligibility, qualifications and procedure of selection have been mentioned in the advertisement to be in accordance with the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for short, 'the Rules of 1989') and as per the Standing Order No. 14/2019 dated 06/11/2019 issued by the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

4. The petitioner by way of this writ petition has prayed for directing the respondents to strictly follow the procedure laid down under the Standing Orders and the Rules of 1989 while making selections for the posts of Constable and Constable (Driver).

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the process which has been constantly followed by the respondents while making selections for the posts of Constable in the earlier selections is contrary to the Rules of 1989 and the Standing Orders issued by the DGP from time to time.

5.1. It was further submitted that while candidates from all over Rajasthan apply for the post of Constables and the written examination is conducted for all jointly and the merit list of written examination is common but the respondents prepare separate cutoffs for separate district and after conducting Physical Efficiency Test/Interviews at district level, the merit list is prepared at district level.

5.2. It was further pointed out that in the Constables Examinations-2013, the cut-off for unreserved general category was 69.75 at Dausa District while for Sikar District, it was 74.5, however, for Pratapgarh District, it was only 49.75.

5.3. Similar instances were mentioned for Constables Selections-2018.

5.4. It was further stated that the petitioner had raised grievance immediately after issuance of the advertisement by making a representation in this regard to the authorities. However, when nothing was done at the level of the respondents, the present writ petition has been filed.

5.5. It was further submitted that similar anomaly will arise in the present selections which would result in higher meritorious candidates being deprived of selection although lower merit candidates in other districts would have a march over them and be appointed as Constables.

5.6. It was further submitted that the advertisement and the Standing Orders provide that only single form has to be filled by each candidate wherein he would mention a particular district as an option for the purpose of conducting Physical Efficiency Test. The advertisement also provides that a candidate, who is finally selected, may be posted in any of the District/Battalion/IT Battalion.

5.7. It was further submitted that the standard of Physical Efficiency Test is same in all the District apart from the provisions for lowering down of standard in relation to certain categories of candidates and the same also is common in all the Districts and is also similarly common in all Districts of TSP areas.

5.8. It was further submitted that the number of posts mentioned in various districts in the advertisement cannot be restricted to those candidates who appear for Physical Efficiency Test in that particular district. The criteria for Constable (General Duties) and Constable (Drivers) so far as physical parameters are concerned and the written examination is concerned, is the same. Hence, discrimination amongst candidates on the basis of district opted by them is clearly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory as well as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such a practice being follow