Dismissed

Ramavtar Jat S/O Shri Sardarmal Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Dec 2018CW/23430/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by candidates seeking opportunities for Physical Standard and Efficiency Tests for Constable posts. The Court held that the State fulfilled its duty by uploading admit card dates on the website, and the petitioners' failure to check constituted laches.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were dismissed with no relief granted.

Ramavtar Jat S/O Shri Sardarmal Jat Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.23430/2018

¶3

Ramavtar Jat S/o Shri Sardarmal Jat, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Dhani Rawariwali, Jajenkhalan Tehsil Shahpura District Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Addl. Chief Secretary To Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

¶7

The Inspector General Of Police, (Headquarters), Police Headquarters, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶8

The Commandant, 8Th Battalion Rajasthan Armed Constabulary, Hq At Delhi-46 (Delhi)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 24978/2018

¶11

Mursheed Khan S/o Shri Azmat Khan, Aged About 22 Years, By Caste Mev, R/o Mev Mohalla, Laxmangarh, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Alwar.

¶12

----Petitioner

¶13

Versus

¶14

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

¶15

Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Jaipur

¶16

Superintendent Of Police / Commandant, District Unit Udaipur.

¶17

----Respondents

¶18

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25243/2018

¶19

Rakesh Meghwal Son Of Shri Chelaram, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Vpno Rotoo Jayal District Nagaur At Present 81B, Jagdamba Nagar, Rawan Gate, Kalwar Road, Jaipur (Roll No. 2017433)

¶20

----Petitioner

¶21

Versus

¶22

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶23

Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police

¶24

(2 of 14)

¶25

[CW-23430/2018]

¶26

Headquarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur.

¶27

Superintendent Of Police, Kota City.

¶28

----Respondents

¶29

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25261/2018

¶30

Sakir Ali S/o Shri Kamarudeen, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Rasoolpur, Post Khoh, Tehsil Ramgarh, District Alwar (Raj.)

¶31

----Petitioner

¶32

Versus

¶33

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶34

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

¶35

The Inspector General Of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur.

¶36

The Superintendent Of Police, District Karauli.

¶37

----Respondents

¶38

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25312/2018

¶39

Gauri Shankar Katara S/o Tota Ram Katara, Aged About 24 Years, By Caste Brahmin R/o Village And Post Dhanota, Tehsil Bharatpur, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan.

¶40

----Petitioner

¶41

Versus

¶42

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary (Home), Department Of Home, Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶43

Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head Quarters, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶44

The Superintendent Of Police, Chittorgarh, Rajasthan.

¶45

----Respondents

¶46

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25336/2018

¶47

Ramesh Kumar Meel S/o Shri Baluram Meel, Aged About 23 Years, By Caste- Jat (Obc), Resident Of Village And PostKandlau, Tehsil-Laxmangarh, District- Sikar (Raj.)-332311 (For The Post Of Constable Gen Non Tsp, Application Id No. 201804552905, Roll No. 4037023)

----Petitioner

(3 of 14)

[CW-23430/2018]

Versus

State Of Rajasthan Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj)

¶53

Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶54

Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Police Head Quarter, Lal Kothi, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶55

Superintendent Of Police, Karauli (Raj.)

¶56

Superintendent Of Police, Bharatpur (Raj.)

¶57

----Respondents

¶58

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25635/2018

¶59

Pramod Kumar Mudgal S/o. Shri Ghanshyam, Aged About 21 Years, R/o. Village Sundyana, Post Unch, Tehsil Nadbai, Distt. Bharatpur

¶60

----Petitioner

¶61

Versus

¶62

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

¶63

Director General Of Police, State Of Rajasthan, Jaipur

¶64

Inspector General Of Police, Kota

¶65

Superintendent Of Police, Kota (Rural)

¶66

----Respondents

¶67

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25687/2018

¶68

Amarchand Kumawat S/o Shri Kalyan Sahay Kumawat, Aged About 20 Years, R/o Village Harikishanpura, Post Palari Via Maid, Virat Nagar, District Jaipur.

¶69

----Petitioner

¶70

Versus

¶71

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

¶72

Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶73

Second Battalion, Rac Kota

¶74

----Respondents

¶75

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25741/2018

¶76

Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Satya Veer Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Gothyan Chhoti, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu

(4 of 14)

[CW-23430/2018]

(Rajasthan)

----Petitioner

Versus

State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶83

Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶84

Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Rajasthan Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶85

----Respondents

¶86

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25878/2018

¶87

Radheshyam Khatana S/o Sh. Lohde Ram, Aged About 21 Years, By Caste Gurjar, R/o Village Ralawata, Tehsil- Nadoti District Karauli, Rajasthan.

¶88

----Petitioner

¶89

Versus

¶90

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary (Home), Department Of Home, Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶91

Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head Quarters, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶92

The Superintendent Of Police, Jhalawar.

¶93

----Respondents

¶94

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25889/2018

¶95

Roopendra Sharma S/o Parshuram Sharma By Caste Brahmin, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Madoli, Post- Sewar, Tehsil And District Bharatpur Rajasthan

¶96

----Petitioner

¶97

Versus

¶98

State Of Rajasthan Through Principal Secretary (Home), Department Of Home, Rajasthan Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶99

Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Head Quarters, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

¶100

The Superintendent/ Commandent, 12Th Battalion Rac Delhi-50

----Respondents

(5 of 14)

[CW-23430/2018]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25890/2018

¶105

Heera Lal S/o Muneem, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Mandela Chota, Fatehpur, Shekhawati, Sikar (Raj.)

¶106

----Petitioner

¶107

Versus

¶108

State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶109

Director, General Of Police, Government Of Rajasthan, Police Headquarters, Jaipur.

¶110

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

¶111

Additional Director General Of Police, Armed Battalion, Police Headquarters, Jaipur.

¶112

----Respondents

¶113

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25892/2018

¶114

Rajendra Kumar Meena S/o Shri Har Sahay Meena, Aged About 26 Years, By Caste Meena (St), R/o Village Singpura, Post Kaluwas, Tehsil Ramgarh Pachwara, District Dausa (Raj.)

¶115

----Petitioner

¶116

Versus

¶117

The State Of Rajasthan, Through Home Secretary, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶118

Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), P.h.q. Lalkothi, Jaipur.

¶119

Commandant, 12Th Battalion Rac, Delhi.

¶120

----Respondents

¶121

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25925/2018

¶122

Sad S/o Shri Jumma, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village And Post Hathiya, Tehsil Goverdhan, District Mathura (Uttarpradesh).

¶123

----Petitioner

¶124

Versus

¶125

State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶126

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

¶127

(6 of 14) [CW-23430/2018]

¶128

The Inspector General Of Police, Bharatpur Range, Bharatpur.

¶129

The Superintendent Of Police, District- Bharatpur.

¶130

----Respondents

¶131

For Petitioner(s) :	Dr.Pushpendra Pal Singh, Mr.Girish Khandelwal, Mr.Babu Lal Sharma, Mr.Ajay Gadhwal,
	Mr.S.K. Beniwal, Mr.Rajendra Singh, Vinod Kumar Singhal, Mr.Brahm Singh Gurjar, Mr.C.P. Sharma, Mr.Bhupender Pareek, Mr.Ankur Saxena.
For Respondent(s) :	Mr.H.C. Kandpal, Asst. G.C.

¶132

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶133

Order

¶134

05/12/2018

¶135

All these petitions relate to candidates who applied for

¶136

recruitment as Constable under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate

¶137

Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter ‘Rules of 1989’), pursuant to the

¶138

advertisement dated 25.05.2018. All the petitioners having passed

¶139

the written examination in terms of Rules of 1989 were required

¶140

to participate in the Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical

¶141

Efficiency Test (PET) on the date notified on the Police Department’s website indicated in the advertisement.

¶142

(7 of 14)

¶143

[CW-23430/2018]

¶144

The case of the petitioners is that despite having passed the

¶145

written examination they were not informed of the dates of the

¶146

PST/PET. Consequently they could not participate therein and resultantly were denied consideration for appointment to the post

¶147

of Constables in the district they applied in.

¶148

Mr.H.C. Kandpal, Asst. GC appearing for the respondents

¶149

submitted that instruction no.xiii in the advertisement dated 25.05.2018 provides that “HkrhZ izfØ;k ls lEcfU/kr LFkkbZ vkns”k la[;k&12@2018] 13@2018 fnukad 22-05-2018 ,oa foKfIr foHkkx dh csclkbZV

¶150

www.recruitment2.rajasthan.gov.in / www.police.rajasthan.gov.in

¶151

ij miyC/k gSA HkrhZ ds lEcU/k esa le;≤ ij tkjh lwpuk Hkh osclkbV ij

¶152

miyC/k djkbZ tk,xhA” (as emphasized by Mr.H.C. Kandpal)

¶153

Mr.H.C. Kandpal submitted that the above instruction clearly

¶154

provides that all information pertaining to recruitment of

¶155

Constables in the recruitment of 2018 from time to time would be

¶156

made available on the website of the Police Department. He

¶157

submitted that admit cards of the successful candidates in the

¶158

written examination in respect of Jaipur Commissionerate for

¶159

participating in PST/PET was uploaded on designated website/s on

¶160

(8 of 14)

¶161

[CW-23430/2018]

¶162

24.08.2018 as were the admit cards for successful candidates who

¶163

had applied for appointment to the post of Constable in Jaipur (Rural). The PST/PET for Jaipur Commissionerate was to be held on 29.08.2018 and for Jaipur (Rural) on 28.08.2018—a clear 5

¶164

(five) and 4 (four) days later. Similarly admit cards for participating in the PST/PET for those who applied for appointment in district Bharatpur were uploaded on 07.09.2018 and the tests

¶165

were to be held on 13.09.2018— 6 (six) days later. Likewise for district Sikar the admit cards were uploaded on 24.08.2018 the

¶166

PST/PET was to be held on 02.09.2018—9 (nine) days later: For Kota (Rural) the admit cards were uploaded on 04.09.2018 and PST/PET was to be held on 13.09.2018—9 (nine) days later: For

¶167

Kota (city) admit cards were uploaded on 28.08.2018 and

¶168

PST/PET to be held on 08.09.2018—10 (ten) days later: For Bundi the admit cards were uploaded on 24.08.2018 PST/PET was to be

¶169

held on 04.09.2018—10 (ten) days later: For Ajmer the admit cards were uploaded on 28.08.2018 and PST/PET was to be held

¶170

on 08.09.2018—10 (ten) days later: For 8^th Batallion RAC the

¶171

admit cards were uploaded on 04.09.2018 and the PST/PET was to

¶172

(9 of 14)

¶173

[CW-23430/2018]

¶174

be held on 08.09.2018—4 (four) days later: For Karauli the admit

¶175

cards were uploaded on 31.08.2018 and PST/PET was to be held

¶176

on 04.09.2018—5 (five) days later: For Maharana Pratap Batallion

¶177

the admit cards were uploaded on 07.09.2018 and PST/PET was to

¶178

be held on 10.09.2018—3 (three) days later: For Udaipur the admit cards were uploaded on 04.09.2018 and PST/PET was to be

¶179

held on 06.09.2018—2 (two) days later.

¶180

Mr.H.C. Kandpal submitted that if in spite of the information

¶181

of the dates of PST/PET in various districts being uploaded on the

¶182

website of the Police Department as provided for in the instructions of the advertisement dated 25.05.2018, the petitioners were remiss and lethargic because of their failure to

¶183

download the said information timely and for this reason were

¶184

unable to appear for the PST/PET on the due dates, they can have

¶185

no cause to agitate before this court. Mr.H.C. Kandpal submitted

¶186

that a similar issue came up before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur

¶187

in the case of Ved Prakash Versus State of Rajasthan & Others,

¶188

SBCWP No.18065/2018 decided on 27.11.2018. Therein while

¶189

dismissing the petition the court held that as the requisite

¶190

(10 of 14)

¶191

[CW-23430/2018]

¶192

information with regard to the holding of PST/PET was uploaded

¶193

on the website of the Police Department as indicated in instruction

¶194

no.xiii of the advertisement dated 25.05.2018, the respondent-

¶195

Police Department could not be held responsible for the failure of

¶196

the petitioners to keep abreast with the available information as to

¶197

the dates of the PST/PET and be directed to provide another opportunity for PST/PET to the petitioners. The court held that the delay in downloading of information well in time could not be a

¶198

ground for interference. The court further held that “the petitioners cannot be heard to seek a specific personal information

¶199

in this regard from the respondents.” Mr.H.C. Kandpal also submitted that aside of the petitioners having no case on merit in

¶200

view of the specific instruction in the advertisement with regard to

¶201

the obligation of the candidates to keep abreast of the information

¶202

of recruitment process 2018 for the post of Constable from time to

¶203

time on the Police Department’s website indicated, these petitions

¶204

also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches as was also the

¶205

one the Principal Seat at Jodhpur. In this regard Mr.H.C. Kandpal

¶206

submitted that last of the PST/PET as per the original schedule

¶207

(11 of 14)

¶208

[CW-23430/2018]

¶209

was held on 15.09.2018 and result of successful candidates

¶210

declared and those successful appointed, the training of those so

¶211

appointed has commenced over a month ago. The petitioners have

¶212

belatedly approached this court without just cause after a delay of

¶213

several months and to grant indulgence to them by directing a

¶214

fresh PST/PET for them even in the absence of just cause and legal ground would disrupt the whole training schedule and confer

¶215

on the petitioners an advantage of an adverse situation of their

¶216

own making by their sheer in-aptitude, carelessness and delay.

¶217

Further the delay in approaching this court infact indicates that

¶218

the cases set up are a mere afterthought intent on misusing the

¶219

discretionary jurisdiction of this court. Mr.Kandpal submitted that

¶220

this court should not exercise it discretionary jurisdiction in the

¶221

facts as no equity for the petitioners can be found.

¶222

Heard. Considered.

¶223

Indeed instruction no.xiii of the advertisement dated

¶224

25.05.2018 provided that all candidates would be obliged to keep

¶225

abreast of information uploaded on the website of Police

¶226

Department with regard to the process/progress in the

¶227

(12 of 14)

¶228

[CW-23430/2018]

¶229

recruitment for the post of Constables in 2018. That instruction of

¶230

the advertisement is not under challenge before this court.

¶231

Consequently in determining the issue agitated by the petitioners

¶232

the aforesaid instruction will have to be taken into consideration.

¶233

The facts of the case on record indicate that following the declaration of the result in the written examination the admit cards of those candidates eligible to participate in the PST/PET in

¶234

various districts were uploaded on various dates already detailed

¶235

hereinabove. There was thereafter clearly a gap of reasonable

¶236

number of days from up to 2 (two) to 10 (ten) within which the admit cards could be downloaded by the successful candidates for

¶237

participating in the PST/PET at the notified place/s. Various reasons, quite vague in nature and without material particular or

¶238

evidence inspiring confidence have been attributed for the failure

¶239

of the petitioners to download their admit cards for participation in

¶240

the PST/PET within time. The reasons proffered are not at all

¶241

made out, more so as thousands of those similarly placed in various districts downloaded their admit cards for PST/PET in time

¶242

and participated therein on dates notified.

¶243

(13 of 14)

¶244

[CW-23430/2018]

¶245

I am of the considered view that there is no force in the

¶246

petitioners’ case as there is nothing on record to even remotely

¶247

establish that the petitioners were in any manner obstructed technically or otherwise in failing to download—despite ample time

¶248

—their admit cards from the website of the Police Department. The petitioners therefore have no case on this count. Aside of the aforesaid, as stated by Mr.H.C. Kandpal the final result for recruitment of Constable in various districts/batallions has been declared and appointments made over a month ago. Those successful are already in training in each of the districts where they were appointed as Constables. This delay in approaching the court also compounds the problem for the petitioners who as earlier held were themselves responsible for not adhering to the instructions of the advertisement and not downloading their admit cards for PST/PET, despite adequate time for the purpose and

¶249

participation being available.

¶250

In the circumstances, no case of contravention of any of their

¶251

legal or fundamental rights made out in this petition.

¶252

The petitions are dismissed.

¶253

(14 of 14)

¶254

[CW-23430/2018]

¶255

A copy of this order be placed in each connected petition.

¶256

(ALOK SHARMA),J

¶257

Karan/178-191

Ramavtar Jat S/O Shri Sardarmal Jat v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramavtar Jat S/O Shri Sardarmal Jat 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

Krishna Lal and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ramprasad Nagar and Ors. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Varsha Gurjar Vs State Education Department Ors.

Mahendar Singh Vs U O I and Ors.

Chiranjilal Bairwa Son of Shri Kanhaiya Lal Bairwa Vs State of Rajasthan

Chetan Kumar Yadav S/O Shri Badri Lal Yadav Vs the State of Rajasthan through Its Secretary Cum Commissioner