Allowed

Mamta Kumari Jat v. Director General of Police Ors.

Rajasthan HC1 Mar 2012CW/1774/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court directed the respondent authority to allow the petitioner, who had successfully applied for the post of Sub Inspector of Police but missed the physical efficiency test due to childbirth, to participate in a rescheduled test fixed in the last week of April 2012.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner is directed to appear for the physical efficiency test on any date fixed by the respondent no.2 in the last week of April 2012.

Mamta Kumari Jat Vs Director General of Police Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2012)

¶1

CW1774/2012

¶2

// 1 //

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶4

ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1774/2012 With Misc. Stay Appl. No.1387/2012

¶5

Mamta Kumari Jat Vs. The Director General of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur and others

¶6

Date of Order ::: 01.03.2012

¶7

Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq

¶8

Shri Banwari Sharma, counsel for petitioner Shri B.S. Rajawat, Deputy Government Counsel for respondents

¶9

¶10

By the Court :-

¶11

Petitioner Mamta Kumari Jat has filed this writ petition with grievance that she requested the respondents for postponement of the date of her physical efficiency test by the end of April, 2012, the period when the respondents would be undertaking the process of physical efficiency test of candidates for appointment on the post of Sub Inspector of Police.

¶12

Petitioner applied in response to the advertisement dated 25.11.2010 and she has been declared successful therein and thereafter she was required to appear in the physical efficiency test scheduled to be held on 06.02.2012. However, she was not able to immediately participate in the physical efficiency test because she gave birth to a child on 31.01.2012, therefore, she needed

¶13

CW1774/2012

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

sometime to regain the health and fitness to able to participate in the physical efficiency test.

¶16

Having regard to the limited nature of controversy, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner to participate in the physical efficiency test on any date that may be fixed by the respondent no.2, the Inspector General of Police, Headquarters, Jaipur, in the last week of the month of April, 2012.

¶17

The writ petition and the stay application both stand disposed of.

¶18

(Mohammad Rafiq) J.

¶19

//Jaiman//189

¶20

All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being emailed.

¶21

Giriraj Prasad Jaiman PS-cum-JW

Mamta Kumari Jat v. Director General of Police Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamta Kumari Jat v. Director General of Police Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamal Singh Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Chhitar Mal Gurjar Vs R.S.I.D.I. Cooperative

M D R S R T C Vs Shri Sahib Singh and Anr.

Sandeep Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Sahruddin Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ram Bharosi Verma Vs State Panchayati Raj Depors