Dismissed

Tejpal Singh S/O Shri Jagdish Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC5 Feb 2019CW/2554/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the unfair conduct of the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) for Constable recruitment. The petitioner alleged muddy track conditions due to heavy rains prevented fair performance. The Court rejected this due to significant delay in filing and lack of evidence, distinguishing the cited precedent regarding Kota recruits.

What did the court decide?

None granted; petition dismissed on grounds of delay and lack of prima facie evidence.

Tejpal Singh S/O Shri Jagdish Singh Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 2554/2019

¶3

Tejpal Singh S/o Shri Jagdish Singh, Aged About 25 Years, By Caste Rajput Category - General R/o Village Ajroli, Post - Akoda, Tehsil - Didwana, District - Nagaur (Rajasthan).

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary To The Government, Department Of Home Affairs, Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Raj.

¶7

Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Rajasthan, Phq Lalkothi, Jaipur.

¶8

The Inspector General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Rajasthan, Phq Lalkothi, Jaipur.

¶9

The Commissioner Of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. RB Sharma (Ganthola)

¶12

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SHARMA

¶13

Order 05/02/2019

¶14

The case of the petitioner is that he having passed the

¶15

written examination for appointment to the post of Constable

¶16

under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989

¶17

(hereafter ‘the Rules of 1989’) held pursuant to the advertisement

¶18

dated 25.5.2018, was called for the Physical Standard Test (PST)

¶19

and thereafter required to participate in the Physical Efficiency

¶20

(2 of 4)

¶21

[CW-2554/2019]

¶22

Test (PET) on 2.9.2018 at Shri Pratap Yadav Stadium, Chitrakoot,

¶23

Jaipur which entailed running 5 kms within the prescribed time.

¶24

The petitioner submits that at the time the PET under the Rules of

¶25

1989 was conducted on 2.9.2018 at Jaipur, the running track was

¶26

muddied for reason of heavy rains which resulted in obstructing

¶27

the petitioner’s performance up-to his potential and his resultant

¶28

failure. It has been submitted that the petitioner should in the

¶29

circumstances be given another opportunity as given to several

¶30

candidates, who failed the PET at Kota also in the course of recruitment of Constables under the advertisement dated

¶31

25.5.2018 on 8/9/10 September, 2018, vide order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the Principal seat of this Court at Jodhpur in

¶32

the case of Revant Ram Meghwal & Others vs. State of

¶33

Rajasthan & Others and other connected matters, SBCWP

¶34

No.13731/2018 .

¶35

Heard. Perused the petition. Considered.

¶36

Admittedly the petitioner’s PET was held on 2.9.2018 at

¶37

Jaipur. This petition has been filed on 29.1.2019 after an

¶38

inordinate and unexplained delay of over four months and 27

¶39

(3 of 4)

¶40

[CW-2554/2019]

¶41

days. There is nothing on record to show that any grievance as now agitated in this petition was set forth by the petitioner at the relevant time. Further the condition of the running track at the stadium in issue at the time relevant to PET is a question of fact which this Court would loath to address more so belatedly at this stage when the selection process has been largely completed and those appointed after success in the recruitment undergoing training for over the last three months. The issue with regard to the condition of track in the course of PET for recruitment of Constable in other Districts and Court’s order thereon is of no event for the purpose of PET at Jaipur on 2.9.2018. There is nothing on record to even prima facie justify the petitioner’s allegation, such as weather report with regard to alleged heavy rains at Jaipur on 2.9.2018. So too there is also nothing on record to establish that the running conditions of track at Jaipur on 2.9.2018 when the petitioner’s PET was held, was not suitable for the test being held. Contrarily the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as to regularity of official acts obtains against the petitioner.

¶42

In view of the overall facts of the case, I am inclined to dismiss this petition both for reasons recorded above. Wherefrom

¶43

(4 of 4) [CW-2554/2019]

¶44

neither any of the petitioner’s legal or fundamental rights appear

¶45

to have been infringed nor any case of arbitrariness of

¶46

respondents made out.

¶47

Petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶48

(ALOK SHARMA),J

¶49

Tejpal Singh S/O Shri Jagdish Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tejpal Singh S/O Shri Jagdish Singh 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

Sunil Kumar Khandelwal Son of Shri Shiv Charan Khandelwal Vs Chairman, Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited

Smt Suman Sharma W/O Shri Ashok Kumar Vs Jaipur Development Authority

Bharti Teachers Training College Vs Principal Secretary

Narendra Singh Rathore S/O Shri Ummed Singh Rathore Vs Rohit Kumar Singh (I.a.S.) Principal Secretary Medical and Health Department

Sanwar Mal Gurjar S/O Shri Ram Sharan Gurjar Vs the State of Rajasthan

Ashok Kumar Fageria S/O Shri Bhanwar Singh Vs the State of Rajasthan