TSP area female candidates are entitled to the same relaxation in running criteria as Non-TSP area female candidates.

(1 of 3)

[CW-6903/2021]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

JODHPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6903/2021

Ranjana Hada D/o Ganga Ram, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village

Lundara, Tehsil Bali, District Pali (Raj.)

----Petitioner

Versus

1.

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department

Of Home Affairs, Secretariat, Jaipur.

2.

The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarters, Govt.

Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3.

The Superintendent Of Police, Sirohi.

4.

The Commandant, Rajasthan Police Training Center,

Jodhpur.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)

:

Mr. Hanuman Singh (on VC)

For Respondent(s)

:

Mr. Manish Vyas, AAG (on VC)

HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

Order

13/01/2022

In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its

highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to

refrain from coming to the Courts.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition claiming the

following reliefs:

“I. The action of the respondents while conducting the Physical

Fitness/Efficiency Test of petitioner in casual manner while also

not considering the candidature of petitioner for relaxation in

time period for running being female in comparison to make

candidates of TSP area may kindly be declared per-se illegal,

unjust, arbitrary, discriminative, contrary to rules of 1989 and

standing orders are violative to Article 14, 16 & 21 of the

Constitution of India. And/or;

(2 of 3)

[CW-6903/2021]

II. The respondents may be directed to provide relaxation to the

petitioner being TSP female candidate to the same extent as

provided to the female candidate of general (Non-TSP) area in

comparison to male candidates in relation to running and

accordingly, declare the petitioner being running and physical

efficiency test. And/or;

III. The respondents may be directed to re-conduct the physical

efficiency test (Running) of the petitioner in correct and fair

manner and accordingly, if the petitioner qualify the same, she

may be given appointment if otherwise qualified and comes in

merit with all benefits. And/or;

IV. The respondents may be directed to provide information of

time period taken by the aspirant/petitioner in running including

time period of each round with CD of video recording with scope

of appeal as provided in physical fitness test of chest, height etc.

and /or.”

The whole thrust of the present petitioner is that the

relaxation in the running criteria as provided in respect of Non-TSP

area male versus female has not been provided qua TSP area.

Learned Additional Advocate General at the threshold

submits that the TSP Area female has been provided the same

relaxation which has been provided to the Non-TSP area.

At the threshold itself, learned Additional Advocate General

submits that the TSP area female are being given 35 minutes for 5

kilometers vis-a-vis 25 minutes/30 minutes for male for 5

kilometers.

Learned Additional Advocate General also submits that the

timing clocked by the petitioner was 37.30.50, and thus, 35

minutes being the cut-off qualifying time, the petitioner did not

qualify the same.

This Court does not find any discrimination in the criteria and

the relaxation given in Non-TSP area in respect of the woman

(3 of 3)

[CW-6903/2021]

candidates is extended to the TSP area as well, as reflected in the

record as well as the reply. The petitioner did not qualify in the

running test as she took 37.30.50 minutes whereas the qualifying

time was 35 minutes.

At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner submits

that in similar writ petition, the videography has been called for.

However, in the given facts and circumstances, this Court is not

convinced with the said proposition.

Thus, in view of the above, no interference is called for in the

present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J.

2-Zeeshan