Petitioner challenged rejection of appointment as Constable (GD) despite securing meritorious marks, claiming false physical measurement. Court dismissed petition relying on precedent that no interference is warranted when selection is final and appeal was not filed in time.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6451 / 2015
Bhagwati Lal Meghwal S/o Shri Onkar Lal Meghwal, aged 24 years, resident of Mahudi Kheda, Delwas, Dungla, District Chittorgarh.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Kumar for Mr. S.S. Sisodia For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Kumar Bissa, AGC
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI Order
10/05/2018
Ram Chandra Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5719/2016) decided on 15.02.2018. The judgment reads as under :-
1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with
the following prayer :-
(2 of 5)
[CW-6451/2015]
in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”
2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy has been decided by this Court in Heera Ram Vs. State & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10872/2015) decided on 18.01.2018. The judgment reads as under :-
“1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :
“A. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (GD) as per his merit position in the SC category with all consequential benefits.
B. pass any other appropriate relief which this Hon`ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case in favour of the petitioner.
C. Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioner.”
2. The factual matrix necessary for adjudication of the writ petition is that the petitioner appeared in the selection process of appointment on the post of Constable (GD) in pursuance of advertisement dated 14.7.2013 (Annex.1). He secured 64.125 marks, whereas the cut-off for SC category was 60.5, thus, the petitioner being more meritorious candidate than the last selected candidate, thus, was entitled to be appointment on the post aforesaid.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the disqualification of petitioner was not on account of merit. The petitioner appeared on 08.1.2015 for Physical Fitness and PET. During the fitness his chest was measured by the Selection Board in which chest of the petitioner in deflated position
(3 of 5)
[CW-6451/2015]
was found to be 79.80 Cms, whereas as per Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1989, so also, in terms of point no.8(v) of the advertisement dated 14.7.2013 (Annex.1) for male candidate his chest measurement must be 81 Cms (deflated) and 86 Cms (inflated). However, Clause (iii) of Rule 14(2) provides that “candidates belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe whose height and chest measurements are less by 5 Cms shall be deemed to be physically fit in case requisite number of suitable SC/ST candidate possessing physical fitness stands as laid down by Rule 14(2) are not available. Thus, the said relaxation is subject to aforesaid contingency. Since the petitioner’s deflated chest itself was not found to be of mandatorily required measurement i.e. 81 Cms, therefore, it cannot be said that he fulfilled the requirement of Physical Fitness. Counsel for the respondent has shown precedent law of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., ( S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7878/2016, decided on 24.01.2017) , the relevant portion of which reads as follows :
“Reply has been filed. In the reply, it is stated that the case of the petitioner was rejected as he did not meet the physical standards test conducted on 16.03.2015 and the measurement was :
1. Height 167.40 cms.
2. Chest (deflated) 84.60 cms.
3. Chest (inflated) 89.10 cms.
Thus, he fell short of the prescribed height of 168 cms as his height was found to be 167.40 cms and was therefore, declared failed. The petitioner has challenged the same in the year 2016 i.e. almost after more then one year. Selection list has been finalized. Not a word has been mentioned in the petition with respect to the delay. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the concerned authority but the said appeal has not
(4 of 5)
[CW-6451/2015]
been decided till date. There is no mention with respect to filing of the appeal in the petition nor any appeal has been placed on record. Reply was filed way back in November, 2016. No rejoinder to the reply has been filed till date. Therefore, the said contention can only be taken as an afterthought, specially when the respondents too have stated in their reply that no appeal was filed by the petitioner.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order and judgment dated 04.09.2015 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5079/2015 (Ramswaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.) vide which a direction was issued to the respondents to arrange fresh medical examination at the cost of the petitioner. The said order and judgment does not help the petitioner. Petitioner Ramswroop, in the said case had approached the Hon’ble Court without loosing any time. The question of delay was not before the said Court. The selection process is long over. The physical test was conducted in the year 2015”.
Counsel for the respondent has further shown Division Bench of this Court in Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.107/2017, decided on 13.02.2017 , stating that the said judgment has already been affirmed.
4. It was further argued by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner being more meritorious has been deprived on account of false physical measurement. Learned counsel for the respondent denied this proposition also and stated that it was open for the petitioner to have preferred an appeal as and when petitioner had the knowledge of physical examination and since there is no such appeal, the physical condition noted by the respondents acquired finality.
5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing record of case and the precedent law, this Court is of the opinion that the case law cited by the respondent is absolutely applicable in the
(5 of 5)
[CW-6451/2015]
case in hand as this Court in Devendra Kumar (supra) held that appeal has not been filed in time and selection process is over, therefore, no interference is called for. Thus, in light of the precedent law as well as taking into consideration the fact that no appeal having been preferred, no interference is warranted. The writ petition is dismissed.”
3. Since in the present petition, it is also admitted position that the petitioner had secured relaxation under Rule 14 (2) of the Rules 1989 and the other candidates having physical fitness without taking the relaxation were available, therefore, no cause of indulgence is made out. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed on the same terms as aforementioned precedent law laid down by this Court in Heera Ram (Supra).”
(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI)J.
/zeeshan/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ court can interfere with the appointment rejection of a petitioner who secured merit but was disqualified for not meeting physical standards without filing an appeal.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to appointment as Constable (GD) when the selection process is complete and no appeal was filed against the physical measurement rejection.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Chandra Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Explained¶13
Ram Chandra Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5719/2016)
Heera Ram Vs. State & Ors.Followed¶13
Heera Ram Vs. State & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10872/2015)
Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Relied on¶31
Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7878/2016)
Ramswaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.Distinguished¶39
Ramswaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5079/2015)
Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.Followed¶41
Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.107/2017
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BHAGWATI LAL MEGHWAL
STATE OF RAJASTHAN THROUGH SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, RAJASTHAN
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CHITTORGARH
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
