Dismissed

Surendra Singh Jodha v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC3 Dec 2018CW/13834/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Multiple writ petitions challenged the non-participation of candidates in the Police Constable PST/PET due to alleged delay in admitting card uploading. The Court held that admit cards were uploaded timely and the advertisement directed candidates to monitor the website; thus, requests for another opportunity were dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petitions dismissed; no relief granted for another opportunity in the test.

Surendra Singh Jodha Vs State of Rajasthan — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ No. 13834/2018

¶4

Surendra Singh Jodha S/o Shri Hukum Singh, Aged About 23 Years, House No. 80, Village Sanvarad, Tehsil Ladnu, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶9

Inspector General Of Police, Udaipur Range, Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

¶10

Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur, District Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

Connected with

¶13

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15011/2018

¶14

Kesha Ram S/o Chima Ram, Aged About 28 Years, Beriwala Gaon, Kurla, District Barmer, Rajasthan

¶15

----Petitioner

¶16

Versus

¶17

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶18

Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶19

Inspector General Of Police, Barmer Range, Jodhpur, Rajasthan

¶20

Superintendent Of Police, Barmer, District Barmer, Rajasthan

¶21

----Respondents

¶22

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15855/2018

¶23

Surender S/o Shri Fate Singh, Aged About 21 Years, B/c Jat, R/o Village Mundi Taal, Tehsil Rajgarh, Churu.

¶24

----Petitioner

¶25

Versus

¶26

State Of Rajasthan, Through, Secretary, Department Of

¶27

(2 of 5)

¶28

Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶29

Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police Headquarters, Jaipur.

¶30

Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Rajasthan Police Headquarters, Jaipur.

¶31

Inspector Genral Of Police, Bikaner Range, Bikaner

¶32

Commandant, Third Battalion Rac, Bikaner.

¶33

----Respondents

¶34

S.B. Civil Writ No. 16294/2018

¶35

Vikash Kumar S/o Mangtu Ram, Aged About 22 Years, By Caste Jat, Village Rolasar, Post Tolasar, Tehsil Sardarshahar, District Churu (Raj.)

¶36

----Petitioner

¶37

Versus

¶38

State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶39

Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶40

Inspector General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur

¶41

Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur

¶42

----Respondents

¶43

S.B. Civil Writ No. 16398/2018

¶44

Pankaj Sharma S/o Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Mahadev Gali, Bayana, District Bharatpur.

¶45

----Petitioner

¶46

Versus

¶47

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Home Department, Jaipur.

¶48

Director General Of Police, Jaipur.

¶49

Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur.

¶50

----Respondents

¶51

S.B. Civil Writ No. 16411/2018

¶52

Dariya D/o Ghamanda Ram, Aged About 18 Years, Dhatarwalon Ka Tala Kolu, Tehsil - Baytu, District- Barmer.

¶53

----Petitioner

¶54

Versus

¶55

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Home

¶56

(3 of 5)

¶57

Department , Jaipur.

¶58

Director General Of Police, Jaipur.

¶59

Superintendent Of Police, Barmer.

¶60

----Respondents

¶61

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.17902/2018

¶62

Sukha Ram s/o Bhoma Ram aged about 25 years, by caste Jat, resident of village Thabukara, Post Daikara, District Jodhpur.

¶63

Versus

¶64

The State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶65

Director General of Police, Office of Directorate General of Police, Rajasthan PHQ, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶66

Inspector General of Police (Recruitment), Headquarter, Office of Inspector General of Police, Rajasthan, PHQ, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶67

Inspector General of Police, Headquarter/Office of Inspector General of Police, Ajmer.

¶68

------Respondents

¶69

S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 16285/2018

¶70

Lahpuri Meena s/o Shri Swaroop Meena, by caste Meena, aged about 28 years, resident of village Kuagaon, Tehsil Bamanwas, post Bichpuri, Sawai Madhopur.

¶71

-----Petitioner

¶72

Versus

¶73

The State of Rajasthan through Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶74

Director General of Police, Rajasthan Police Headquarter, Jaipur.

¶75

Inspector General of Police (Recruitment), Rajasthan, Police Headquarters, Jaipur.

¶76

Inspector General of Police, Udaipur Range, Udaipur.

¶77

Superintendent of Police, Rajsamand.

¶78

------Respondents

¶79

(4 of 5)

¶80

For Petitioner(s)	:	Mr. R.K.Charan. Mr. Siddharth Karwasra. Mr. Vikas Bijarnia. Mr. R.S.Choudhary. Mr. Shreyansh Mardia. Mr. Pradeep Choudhary.
For Respondent(s)	:	Ms. Deepika Purohit & Mr. Dinesh Ojha for
		Mr. P.R.Singh, AAG.

¶81

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI Order

¶82

03/12/2018

¶83

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct their PST/PET pursuant to the Constable Recruitment Advertisement - 2018.

¶84

It is inter alia indicated in the writ petitions that the respondents did not indicate the uploading of admit cards pertaining to the PST/PET and as the petitioners had no knowledge about the uploading of the admit cards, they could not download the same in time and by the time they downloaded the admit cards, the date fixed for PST/PET was already over and, therefore, the petitioners could not participate in the PST/PET.

¶85

It is submitted that the petitioners may be granted one more opportunity to participate in the PST/PET and in case they qualify and stand in merit, they may be accorded appointment.

¶86

Replies to the few writ petitions have been filed by the respondents vehemently opposing the submissions made. It is submitted that after the declaration of result of written examination, the admit cards were uploaded well in time and merely because the petitioners chose not to download the same, they are not entitled for grant of any relief and the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

¶87

(5 of 5)

¶88

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶89

A bare look at the admit cards indicates that the petitioners have downloaded the same after the date fixed for PST/PET, which clearly indicates that insofar as uploading of the admit cards is concerned, the same was done by the respondents, as claimed in reply to the writ petitions.

¶90

So far as the plea that the respondents did not inform the petitioners regarding uploading of the admit cards is concerned, the advertisement itself clearly provided that the information about recruitment would be uploaded on the website of the Police Department and candidates were directed to continue to visit the website from time to time. Once the stipulation pertaining to information regarding recruitment and/or uploading of admit cards is clearly indicated in the advertisement, the so called expectation of the petitioners regarding individual information with regard to uploading of the admit cards is totally misplaced.

¶91

As the petitioners have failed to participate in the PST/PET, despite uploading of admit cards in time and some of the petitioners having approached this Court after a substantial gap of time since non-appearance/failure to appear on the dates fixed for PST/PET, apparently inspired by the judgment of this Court in Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan : S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.13790/2018 decided on 6/10/2018, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief.

¶92

Consequently, there is no substance in the writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed.

¶93

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶94

baweja/-

Surendra Singh Jodha v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surendra Singh Jodha v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vivek Kuldeep Vs State of Rajasthan

Jaina Ram Vs State and Ors.

Deepak Saini Vs Managing Director

Priyanka Kalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Surender Vs State of Rajasthan

Vivekanand Pub. Shik. Sansthan Vs State and Ors.