SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Raj) 14931

HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
KULDEEP MATHUR
PRITI BHATI – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CW / 24562 / 2025



##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JD:23477]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24562/2025

Priti Bhati D/o Govind Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Rajputo

Ka Bas, Guda Narkan, Sonai Manji, District Pali (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department

Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director General Of Police, Rajasthan , Jaipur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Awar Dan Ujjawal

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sulochana Bishnoi on behalf of

Mr. B.L. Bhati, AAG

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

Order

15/05/2026

1. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has

prayed for the following reliefs:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may

kindly be allowed and by an appropriate writ, order or

direction, the respondents may kindly be directed:-

i.That the respondents may kindly be directed to declare

qualify in PET for the post of Constable and include in further

selection process.

ii That the respondents may kindly be directed to permit to

the petitioner for Re-PET with regard to running in pursuance

of Advertisement No. 50 पु. फो./ कानि(cid:8). भቔኍ(cid:11)-25/2024/1360

dated 09.04.2025 (Annexure-1).

iii. Any other appropriate order or direction, which this

Hon'ble Court considers just, fit and proper in the facts and

circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of

the petitioner.”

2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon

perusal of the material available on record, this Court finds that

the petitioner, who had participated in the selection process

(Uploaded on 16/05/2026 at 01:35:31 PM)

(Downloaded on 18/05/2026 at 10:56:14 PM)

##PAGE2##

[2026:RJ-JD:23477] (2 of 3) [CW-24562/2025]

conducted by the respondent-department for the post of

Constable in pursuance of the advertisement dated 09.04.2025

under the General-EWS category, has prayed for re-conduct of her

Physical Eligibility Test on the ground that though she had

completed the prescribed run of 5 kilometers within 35 minutes

and 7 seconds, yet she has been declared disqualified.

3. The respondents, after service of notices, have filed a

detailed reply to the writ petition. In the reply, it is stated that as

per the Standing Order dated 27.07.2023 (Annexure-9) issued by

the respondent-department, a candidate participating in the

Physical Eligibility Test was required to complete the 5-kilometer

run within 35 minutes; however, since the petitioner failed to

complete the run within the prescribed time limit, her candidature

has rightly been rejected. Para Nos. 4 & 5 of the reply submitted

by the respondent-department are reproduced herein below for

ready reference:-

“4. That the petitioner further prayed for Re-PET with

regard to running in this selection process. In this

respect, it is submitted that there is no provision of

Re-PET in the Standing Order. Therefore, petitioner

was rightly declared fail. It is pre declared condition

for the PST/PET that only one chance shall be given

for PET and the petitioner has knowledge of this

condition and she appeared in this process and even

the petitioner has not point out any logical ground in

her support behind such claim of re-PST, therefore,

prayer of the petitioner is base less.

5. That the contention of the petitioner is that less

than 50% of particular Unit then it would be treated

dropped or become 0 (zero) and if same is more than

50% of the particular unit then it would be treated for

next higher degree. The imagination of petitioner is

not applied in the PET and same is on the basis of

surmises and conjectures as she could not complete

the 05 (five) K.Ms run within 35 minutes. The

petitioner has no ground in her favour. The

(Uploaded on 16/05/2026 at 01:35:31 PM)

(Downloaded on 18/05/2026 at 10:56:14 PM)

##PAGE3##

[2026:RJ-JD:23477] (3 of 3) [CW-24562/2025]

candidature of petitioner has been rightly rejected as

per the provisions of Standing Order dated

27.07.2023(Ann.9). It is not the case of petitioner that

this practice has ever been adopted by the department

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top