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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.