Ex-servicemen undergoing recruitment must be assessed under specific rules outlining moderate fitness standards, rather than rigorous standards applied to younger recruits.

JUDGMENT :

ANAND SHARMA, J.

1. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction against the respondents to give him appointment on the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander in Rajasthan Police and to hold that physical efficiency test conducted by Respondent No. 2 on 28.02.2011 in respect of ex-servicemen was contrary to the provisions of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1988’) and a declaration has been sought that the provisions of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter to be referred as ‘the Rules of 1989’) shall not be applicable so far as selection process for the posts reserved for ex-servicemen is concerned.

2. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner was enrolled in Indian Air Force as an Air Craftman and after completing services of 15 years, he was discharged on 07.11.2005. The petitioner also belongs to OBC category. Thus, in view of above, the petitioner was entitled for taking benefits attached to the certificate relating to ex-servicemen. It has also been averred that the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated 02.03.2009 inviting applications from all eligible persons for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander. It was specified in the advertisement itself that the advertisement has been issued under the provisions of the Rules of 1988.

3. It has also been contended that as the petitioner was eligible to participate in the selection process, he submitted his application form and underwent the process mentioned in the advertisement including written examination. It has been mentioned that as per Rule 8 of the Rules of 1988, for the purpose of appointment, an aspirant, being ex-serviceman, was expected to appear in a good bodily and mental health, and there was no requirement whatsoever for conducting physical efficiency test. It has also been mentioned that as per medical certificate issued by military authorities, the petitioner is medically fit and has been discharged by certifying that he was fit for civil employments.

3.1 Grievance of the petitioner is that contrary to the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 1988, the petitioner was required to undergo rigorous physical efficiency test such as 5 Kms walk/run in 35 minutes; 100 meter sprint in 14 to 16.5 seconds; pull ups of 7 round or carrying weight equal to own weight up to 400 yards; long jump up to 13 to 15 feet; throw ball 160 to 200 feet and 50 push ups in 2.5 minutes or 50 sit ups in 65 seconds. It has been stated that the petitioner raised protest before the authorities against the aforesaid physical efficiency test, yet he was forced to undergo the same in order to allow him to further participate in the process. Finding no other alternative, the petitioner participated in the physical efficiency test. Although, nothing was given in writing, yet it was orally informed that the petitioner could not qualify the physical efficiency test. As per the petitioner, the respondents have conducted the test in view of the provisions of Rule 21 of the Rules of 1989.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that when it was made clear in the advertisement itself that the recruitment process for the post of Sub Inspector/Platoon Commander was being undertaken as per the Rules of 1988, then there was no reason to apply the provisions of the Rules of 1989 which are meant for fresh recruitees and not for ex-servicemen. Only on account of such unauthorised and illegal physical efficiency test, the petitioner has been deprived of his right to get appointment, otherwise he would have been selected in the process. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that application of the standards of physical efficiency test prescribed under the Rules of 1989 was totally arbitrary and irrational for the reason that that upper age limit prescribed under the Rules