Dismissed

Magha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC19 Dec 2018CW/14798/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought a writ direction for a fresh proficiency test with video recording for the post of Constable (Band), claiming the earlier test without video was invalid. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner had failed to clear the conducted test and no ground existed for re-conduct.

What did the court decide?

none granted; petition dismissed as the petitioner failed to secure requisite marks.

Magha Ram Vs State of Rajasthan — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ No. 14798/2018

¶3

Magha Ram S/o Chima Ram, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Jat, R/o Village Dhadhiwala Ki Dhani, Post Alay, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary To Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶7

The Director General Of Police, Head Quarter Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶8

The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶9

The Superintendent Of Police/commandant Third Battalion Rac, Bikaner-41.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. S.S. Nirban. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Dinesh Ojha for Mr. P.R. Singh, AAG.

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶13

Order

¶14

19/12/2018

¶15

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to re-conduct the proficiency test of the petitioner for the post of Constable (Band) with videography.

¶16

It is inter alia indicated in the writ petition that pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.5.2018, the petitioner applied for the post of Constable (Band) and after undertaking the requisite PST & PET, which was cleared by the petitioner, the petitioner participated in the proficiency test. However it is claimed that despite performing well, the petitioner has not been selected.

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[CW-14798/2018]

¶19

Further submissions have been made that on 30.8.2018 vide Annex.7, the respondents directed for holding the proficiency test alongwith video recording, however, as the test of the petitioner was held on 28.8.2018, no such recording was undertaken and, therefore, now the respondents be directed to re-conduct the proficiency test of the petitioner with video recording and award marks to the petitioner.

¶20

A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents inter alia indicating that the petitioner had participated in the proficiency test and the test consists of 15 marks, which were distributed in three parts, wherein, the petitioner could only score 2 marks, whereas, it was incumbent for the candidate to have scored minimum 40% marks out of 15, for qualifying in the proficiency test and as the petitioner did not score the requisite minimum marks, failed in the proficiency test, his name did not appear in the list of successful candidates and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that as videography was not done by the respondents, their action in awarding only 2 marks to the petitioner, cannot be examined, therefore, the respondents be directed to hold a fresh proficiency test for the petitioner for which, the petitioner is prepared to deposit the requisite amount.

¶22

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

¶23

It is not in dispute that the respondents by order dated 30.8.2018 decided to record the video of proficiency test for the post of Constable (Band), however, as the test of the petitioner

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[CW-14798/2018]

¶26

was held on 28.8.2018, there is no video recording available for the said test.

¶27

In response to the writ petition, the respondents have clearly indicated that the Selection Board which held the proficiency test, awarded 2 marks to the petitioner out of 15 and as the petitioner could not obtain 40% marks in the said proficiency test, he did not qualify for the said post. There is apparently no reason or material available on record to disbelieve the marks awarded to the petitioner and/or doubt that the Selection Board would have awarded incorrect marks to the petitioner dehors his performance.

¶28

Once as per the awarded marks to the petitioner, he has failed to obtain requisite minimum marks, there is no case made out for re-conduct of the proficiency test for the petitioner.

¶29

In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the

¶30

writ petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶31

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶32

95-Sumit/-

Magha Ram v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Magha Ram 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Kumar Vs the University Grants Commission

Rajendra Kumar Joshi Vs Rsrtc and Ors.

Natwar Lal Vs Distt.and Sessions Judge, Dungarpur and Anr.

Bhinya Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Kanhaiya Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Reena Rani Vs State of Rajasthan