The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition seeking a direction to hold a delayed physical test for the post of Assistant Jailer. The court held that petitioners failed to avail an exemption scheme for appearing in other competitive exams.
Null and void direction to respondents to hold physical test on date prescribed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORDER
SB Civil Writ Petition No. 13071/2016
1 .Sushi1 Kumar S/o Rajji Ram, aged about 26 years, R/o Village 4
ILK., Post 5K.K., Tehsil Padampura, District Sri Ganganagar, Rajasthan.
2.Dhan Kumar Meena S/o Gendi La1 Meena, aged about 34 years, Rlo VIP Roopahedi Kalan, Tehsil Chaksu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3.Shakti Prasan S/o Gyan Singh, aged about 29 years, Rlo Plot No. 79, Shanti Nagar, "A" Blog Ramdev Colony, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
4.Jaipal Singh S/o Kishore Singh, aged about 29 years, Rlo VPO Kantiya Via Baya, Post Kantiya, Tehsil Dantaramgarh, District Sikar, Rajasthan.
..Petitioner/s
versus
1.The State of Rajasthan through its Secretary, Department of Home, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2.The Director General of Police & Inspector General of Police
(Prisons), Jaipur.
3.Rajasthan Public Service Commission through its Secretary, Ajmer.
..Respondent/s
29.9.2016
2
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI
Mr Ram Pratap Saini - for petitionerls BY THE COURT:
By this writ petition, a direction is sought on the respondents to allow the petitioners to appear for physical test for the post of Assistant Jailer.
The Rajasthan Public Service Commission issued an advertisement on 2.5.2013 for the post of Assistant Jailer and other posts. The petitioners appeared in the selection and called for physical test on 28.8.2016. The information for it was given vide letter dated 10.8.2016. The respondents, thereupon, issued an order on 19.8.2016 to exempt those candidates from physical test between 26.8.2016 to 30.8.2016 if they are appearing in other competitive examination, provided they submit documents for it along with an application. In that case, candidate would be permitted to appear for physical test on 31.8.2016.
There is nothing on record to show an application by any of the petitioners in consonance to the order dated 19.8.2016. The application was required. to be submitted along with necessary documents to show appearance in other competitive examination for appointment on other post between 26.8.2016 to 30.8.2016. In view of above, petitioners cannot seek direction for physical test now. It is
3
more so when out of three petitioners, two petitioners had received admit card for their appearance in the competitive test for other post on 28.8.2016 as is coming from Annexure-6 but both the petitioners did not appear in the said competitive examination thus even no justification remains for those petitioners to remain absent for physical test on 28.8.2016. The third petitioner namely; Jaipal Singh was not to appear in any of the competitive examinations for selection on 28.8.2016. He was to appear in the selection for Research Eligibility Test - 2016 held on 30.8.2016. The appearance in the test was not for competitive examination for selection but was towards Ph.D.
In any case, said petitioner was also expected to submit application to seek exemption from appearance in the physical test between 26.8.2016 to 30.8.2016 so as to allow him to appear for physical test on 3 1.8.2016. -
The petitioners have failed to produce any such application and, in absence of which, if they were not permitted in physical test conducted on 3 1.8.2016 then there is nothing wrong on the part of the respondents.
A direction to hold physical test now would be nothing but to accommodate petitioners who defaulted in putting appearance in physical test on 26.8.2016 and to endorse benefit.for their default.
4
Keeping the selection and, consequential appointment dependent on availability of the petitionerls for physical test cannot be directed by the court unless petitioners make out a case justifying their stand and in absence of it, I do not find any ground to issue the direction of the nature sought for.
In view of aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ
petition. Hence, it is dismissed.
(MN BHANDARI), J.
bnsharma
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the court can direct respondents to allow petitioners to appear for a delayed physical test.
Whether petitioners can seek direction to participate in a physical test after failing to avail the exemption for other competitive examinations.
Sushi1 Kumar
Dhan Kumar Meena
Shakti Prasan
Jaipal Singh
The State of Rajasthan
Rajasthan Public Service Commission
MN BHANDARI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
