Dismissed

Devi Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC10 Dec 2018CW/15695/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Rajasthan dismissed three writ petitions challenging the rejection of candidates for the constable band post. The Court upheld the selection board's decision citing poor performance in the proficiency test but ordered the return of security deposits.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions were dismissed but the demand drafts of Rs.10,000/- surrendered by Devi Singh Chouhan and Kamal Prakash Meena were ordered to be returned to them.

Devi Singh Chouhan Vs State of Rajasthan — Company and Corporate | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ No. 15695/2018

¶4

Devi Singh Chouhan S/o Bhopal Singh Chouhan, Aged About 22 Years, Village Akheraj Ka Gada, Post Rohida, Tehsil Garhi, District Banswara

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Through The Secretary, Jaipur, Rajasthan

¶8

The Inspector General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶9

The Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

Connected With

¶12

S.B. Civil Writ No. 16624/2018

¶13

Kamal Prakash Meena S/o Sampat Lal Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Village- Khokharda, Tehsil- Kherwada, District - Udaipur.

¶14

----Petitioner

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Ministry Of Home Affairs , Through The Secretary, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶17

The Inspector General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶18

The Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur.

¶19

Commandant Mewar Bheel Core, Kherwada Udaipur.

¶20

----Respondents

¶21

S.B. Civil Writ No. 18606/2018

¶22

Dilip Singh Shaktawat S/o Ranjeet Singh Shaktawat, Aged About 26 Years, Village - Nichla Guda, Post- Badawali, TehsilSemari, District- Udaipur (Raj.).

¶23

----Petitioner

¶24

Versus

¶25

State Of Rajasthan, Ministry Of Home Affairs, Through The Secretary, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶26

The Inspector General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶27

(2 of 4)

¶28

The Superintendent Of Police, Udaipur.

¶29

----Respondents

¶30

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. B.S.Deora. Mr. Mahipal Singh Deora. For Respondent(s) : Ms. Deepika Purohit for Mr. P.R.Singh, AAG.

¶31

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI

¶32

Order

¶33

10/12/2018

¶34

These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioners in their respective category on the post of Constable (Band) pursuant to the advertisement dated 25/5/2018.

¶35

It is inter alia indicated in the writ petitions that pursuant to the advertisement dated 25/5/2018, the petitioners applied for appointment on the post of Constable (Band), wherein, for the purpose of efficiency, they were required to undergo PET and, thereafter, a test of technical knowledge about the band instruments, their look after, tunes etc. was proposed to be taken.

¶36

It is claimed that the petitioners after being successful in the PET, participated in the test pertaining to the band equipments, however, despite their performing well, none of the posts have been filled up by the respondents pursuant to the recruitment held.

¶37

A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents inter alia indicating that as the candidates failed to obtain minimum 40% marks in the practical test pertaining to band,

¶38

(3 of 4)

¶39

therefore, no appointments were made on the post of Constable (Band).

¶40

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the posts are lying vacant and as the petitioners had performed well during the test, there was no reason to award zero mark to the petitioners in the proficiency test pertaining to band instruments, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard deserves to be set aside.

¶41

By order dated 3/11/2018, for resolving the dispute pertaining to performance of the petitioners, the respondents were directed to produce the relevant videography of the petitioners’ performance and petitioners Devi Singh Chouhan and Kamal Prakash Meena were directed to deposit Demand Draft of Rs.10,000/- each for the said purpose.

¶42

Pursuant to the directions, the respondents have produced a pendrive containing the performance of the candidates and have specifically indicated the timing in the videography pertaining to the petitioners.

¶43

This Court has perused the videography and the performance of each petitioner. Having gone through the same, it is apparent that none of the petitioners have performed appropriately even for grant of any marks inasmuch as though it is claimed that petitioners had lot of experience, they could not perform at all qua any of the band instrument and, therefore, the award of zero mark by the selection board to the petitioners cannot be faulted.

¶44

So far as the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners that all the posts are lying vacant is concerned, merely because the respondents could not find any appropriate candidate for the post of Constable (Band), it cannot be a reason to just fill

¶45

(4 of 4)

¶46

in the post and provide on the job training to the candidates, therefore, the submissions made in this regard have no substance.

¶47

In view thereof, as the petitioners have failed in the proficiency test, the action of the respondents in rejecting their candidature cannot be faulted. However, looking to the financial status of the petitioners i.e. Devi Singh Chouhan and Kamal Prakash Meena, though they have deposited Demand Draft of Rs.10,000/- each in terms of the order passed by this Court, wherein it was directed that in case the award of marks by the respondents is upheld, the said amount would be paid to the respondents, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Demand Draft produced by the petitioners are ordered to be returned back to petitioners Devi Singh Chouhan and Kamal Prakash Meena, respectively, they would be entitled to seek cancellation and refund of the amount.

¶48

With the above directions, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petitions and the same are, therefore, dismissed.

¶49

(ARUN BHANSALI),J

¶50

14,15,219-baweja/-

Devi Singh Chouhan v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi Singh Chouhan 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

Bharat Kumar Vs State of Rajasthan

Chief Eng. Water Resources and Ors. Vs Narendra Kumar

Madan Lal Dhobi Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Salim Khan Pathan Vs the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation

Babu Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Santosh Kanwar Vs State of Rajasthan