Allowed

State of Rajasthan v. Revant Ram Meghwal

Rajasthan HC31 Jul 2019SAW/124/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this appeal against single judge directions granting re-test to police constable candidates, the High Court held that with 55% qualification, the process lacked manifest unfairness. The court insisted on equal treatment for all participants and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Present appeal allowed; pending applications disposed off; directions for re-test quashed.

State of Rajasthan Vs Revant Ram Meghwal — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶2

D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 124/2019

¶3

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

¶4

----Appellants

¶5

Versus

¶6

Revant Ram Meghwal & Ors.

¶7

----Respondents

¶8

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG with Mr. Abhimanyu Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Varda Ram Choudhary

¶9

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

¶10

Judgment

¶11

Reportable

¶12

Reserved on 22/05/2019 Pronounced on 31/07/2019

¶13

Per Hon’ble Chief Justice

¶14

The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal, aggrieved by directions issued in a batch of writ petitions filed by candidates for the post of Police Constable, who claimed directions to re-schedule and re-conduct their Physical Efficiency Test ('PET') and based on its result, appoint them as Constable (General) / Constable Driver etc. By the impugned judgment, a learned single judge allowed the writ petition and issued the direction claimed.

¶15

The recruitment to the post of Constable (by the appellant State) was initiated through an advertisement dated 25.05.2018, whereby District / Unit-wise posts under various categories were specified. The prescribed method for recruitment was through a written examination followed by Physical Standard Test ('PST') and Physical Efficiency Test ('PET'). The PET envisioned a 5 km. run which had to be completed in a maximum of 25 minutes for candidates other

¶16

[SAW-124/2019]

¶17

(2 of 9)

¶18

than Ex-serviceman and those belonging to Shahariya & SC/ST of TSP area for whom the maximum time provided was 28 minutes and 30 minutes respectively. The writ petitioners, (respondents hereafter called “the candidates”) after qualifying the written examination, were called for PST/PET by uploading their admit cards. The PET was scheduled on various dates and at designated stadiums where all the candidates appeared, passed PST and then participated in the 5 km. run for PET, in which the candidates failed. In their writ petitions, the common allegations levelled were that the venue where they undertook the PET run, experienced heavy rains, which resulted in the running track getting muddy. Therefore, the candidates faced problems and could not perform to their potential.

¶19

It was alleged by the candidates that the PET being conducted despite the poor condition of the stadium/track, resulted in the candidates failing in the PET. All writ petitions contained omnibus averments irrespective of the fact of whether the petitioners could complete the 5 km. run or not; in some writ petitions news-paper cuttings and certain photographs of the stadiums were annexed to substantiate the allegations made in this regard. The authenticity of the same and whether the status of the stadiums had any relevance to the PET undertaken by the petitioners could not assessed. The State resisted the writ petitions and urged that despite rains, the ground conditions did not hamper the candidates in undertaking the 5 km. run; several other candidates had participated in the PET and had cleared the test. The State relied on certain data produced for the perusal of the Court to say that the ratio of the successful candidates to the unsuccessful candidates was more or less the same during the entire period when the PET was conducted i.e. 04.09.2018 to 13.09.2018. Therefore, irrespective of the ground being rain affected, no relief was warranted.

¶20

[SAW-124/2019]

¶21

(3 of 9)

¶22

Since the State had disclosed that it had videographed the runs for various PETs, the Single Judge through order dated 09.10.2018 directed the appointment of a Commissioner to go examine the video footage concerning the particular day when PET was held and report to the Court. In terms of these directions, the Commissioner carried out the task assigned in the presence of counsel representing the parties and submitted his report dated 22.10.2018, along with the external hard disk and 4 pen drives made available to him by the State. The report was taken on record and the Commissioner was requested to supply a copy of the report on pen drive to the counsel representing the writ petitioners. Parties were granted the opportunity to file objections to the report, if any, before the next date; none did.

¶23

During arguments, the learned counsel for the parties, to the extent the report was in their favour, relied on it. The Single Judge, after considering the parties’ arguments, held that the video provided mostly captured the PET from 03 vantage points, 02 front cameras at the starting point and 01 back camera at the finishing point. No videography footage was provided in relation to the overall running track / ground and as such, the Commissioner was able to gauge and report the condition of the track at the start / finish section. The Commissioner, aware that he was not required to draw inferences as to whether the track conditions were impeding to such an extent as to restrict the candidates from finishing the run in a given time frame followed – in the words of the impugned judgment a “doctrinal approach by surveying the available material.” The learned Single Judge quoted the observations relevant to each case; in the present case, the commissioner had observed that:

¶24

“Only the start/finish section of the Jaipur track is visible in the video. The 4:02 P.M. videography reveals existence of water on the track. Though it is difficult to extrapolate the condition of the entire track but by looking at the feet of the candidates, it can be said that the track got reasonably sticky.”

¶25

[SAW-124/2019]

¶26

(4 of 9)

¶27

The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the observations of the Commissioner with respect to each run and the report with the relevant screenshots indicated a meticulous exercise based on available material and an exhaustive report has been prepared. The Single Judge held as follows:

¶28

“The Commissioner has provided six screen shots of the run, 02 at the beginning, 02 during the run and 02 at/around end of the run. The mattings meant for recording the time of candidates, appear wet, however, the end of the run picture, is quite clear and is representative of the status of the track. The candidate visible in the picture is wearing white sport shoes, which in the pictures are ‘sparkling white’ at the end of the 5 km. run. The entire visible portion of the shoes from both the cameras indicate that apparently no mud had stuck the said white shoes and therefore, the observations made by the Commissioner i.e. “look at the feet of the running candidates shows that the condition of the track would not have been wet-muddy” cannot be faulted.

¶29

In view thereof, the submissions sought to be made by learned counsel for the parties qua only one run has no substance.

¶30

Generally it may be observed, that though the condition of the track essentially is a question of fact which could not have been adjudicated on account of conflicting versions by the petitioners and the respondents but for the availability of the videography and the court having taken assistance of the Commissioner, whose observations made in this regard have been accepted by most of the petitioners and the respondents and contents thereof not at all in dispute, the same has facilitated the resolution of the issues raised by the petitioner. The efforts made by learned Court Commissioner Mr. Sharad Kothari, Advocate in presenting a report complete in all respects deserves appreciation.

¶31

In view of the above discussion, based on the report of the Commissioner, which has been accepted by the parties, and qua one report the feeble objections raised have been rejected by the Court, the cases wherein the track has been found dry & firm / reasonably firm & settle / reasonably firm and the condition of the track was not found as wet-muddy, the petitions filed by the petitioners have no substance, the petitions wherein the condition of the track has been found as reasonably sticky /swampy, muddy & potholed / pretty muddy /

¶32

[SAW-124/2019]

¶33

(5 of 9)

¶34

slightly muddy / somewhat muddy, the candidates deserve one more opportunity to undergo the PET.”

¶35

The State in its appeal contends that whether the track was muddy or slippery, as to permit a competitive run for the purpose of recruitment at all, was disputed. It was pointed out that none of the writ petitioners had completed the mandatory run of 13 rounds. The State argues that out of 309 candidates, 159 candidates in-fact participated in the PET, of which 82 qualified. In support of this argument, the State relies upon the additional affidavit filed in a companion case ( Suresh Vishnoi V/s State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No.228/2019), which was heard but later on withdrawn by the candidate. The said affidavit annexes tabular statements that disclose facts and details relating to each stadium and the PET conducted in respect of various Commissionerate and battalion, which was resorted to by the State Police for recruitment of police constables.

¶36

The State argues that out of the 151 candidates who participated in the PET, no less than 82 (or 54.9%) qualified and were declared successful. Therefore, the approach and directions of the learned Single Judge were not justified, in ordering a fresh PET.

¶37

Counsel for the writ petitioners urged this court not to upset the orders of the Single Judge, stating that the conduct of a fresh PET provided a level playing field to the candidates, who could not qualify in the previous physical test, especially the 5 km run, because the conditions at the time of the test, and the venue were in the most unconducive conditions. This resulted in arbitrariness. Counsel emphasized that the mere circumstance that some candidates qualified, or that the petitioners participated during the event, did not render the recruitment process any less illegal or discriminatory. Therefore, the directions impugned by the learned Single Judge were sound, and did not call for interference.

¶38

[SAW-124/2019]

¶39

(6 of 9)

¶40

In a recent decision of this Court dealing with a similar situation, where re-test had not been permitted, but was granted in some other venue a learned Single Judge had held that the refusal to grant a re-test was discriminatory. Setting aside the Single Judge’s order, this court held, after quoting observations in Shravan Kumar Choudhary vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 154/2019 Decided On: 22.05.2019) - which had dealt with precisely the same issue concerning a direction to grant re-test because stadium conditions were bad, as follows:

¶41

“9. Granting a second opportunity or re-test, under the circumstances of this case, in the court's opinion, would not be a justified exercise of judicial review powers. No doubt, the petitioners had 12 hours notice; however all others (including the 23 who participated successfully and the 90 odd others who took part) also had short notice. Furthermore, to compete in a physical efficiency test, it is not the availability of a few days or even a couple of weeks, that is important. Testing endurance parameters, is one of the important objectives of the PET, which includes a 5 km run to be completed within a stipulated time. It cannot reasonably be argued that such endurance or stamina can be built overnight or in a few days; what is essential to do so, is constant and consistent practice. If one keeps these aspects in mind, it cannot be said that the writ petitioners were placed under such tremendous disadvantage as to be the reason why they could not clear the PET.

¶42

10. Another reason, which this court has to take note of is that among the 77 odd unsuccessful candidates, only a handful have come forward, claiming prejudice. Granting the facility of a re-test to these candidates who approached the court, in the opinion of the court would mean at one stroke denying similar treatment to others who have no grievance, and more importantly creating an entirely different set of circumstances, from the one under which the rest of the candidates participated, including those who successfully cleared the PET. This aspect was highlighted recently by this court in the context of recruitment to the post of police constable, where the complaint was that the weather conditions for the 5 km run were not conducive, on account of rain, resulting in the candidates' inability to complete the PET successfully. A Division Bench of this court, held in Shravan Kumar Choudhary vs. The State

¶43

[SAW-124/2019]

¶44

(7 of 9)

¶45

of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 154/2019 Decided On: 22.05.2019) as follows:

¶46

"7. Quite apart from the ground on which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, i.e. delay, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the selection process or the impugned order. When a complaint such as the present one with respect to less than ideal conditions or poor conditions in which candidates are made to perform take up PET is confronted by the Court, it needs to carefully analyse the facts since intervention in judicial review has larger repercussions which affect non-parties.

¶47

8. The state has placed material on record to suggest that whatever be the circumstances, rain moisture or ideal track conditions, of the total number of candidates who participated on the basis of prevailing conditions, 45.42 qualified. The additional affidavit (concededly which is not part of the present appeal record as it is a part of the record in D.B. Civil Appeal No. 228/19) shows that the variation between the days like the one when the appellant was made to participate and other days when there was no rain, was not so significant as to result in arbitrariness. The chart which is produced alongwith the said additional affidavit shows that on an average on the best days - when weather conditions were normal, the number of qualified candidates were in the range of 63-64%; the lowest in such range was about 25%. In between, there were days on which the conditions were not ideal as in many venues it appeared to have rained. Having regard to all these factors, it cannot be said that the conditions under which the present appellant was made to participate in the PET were so poor as to deny him a level playing field. What is a matter of record is that 579 candidates did participate of whom 263 were successful and did qualify. In these circumstances, unless the result shows an extremely startling result where it can be discerned plainly that no candidate or a very insignificant number of candidates could qualify, the Courts should be very circumspect in returning a finding of arbitrariness.

¶48

9. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court, in the opinion of the Court, is not applicable. It is primarily based on the reasoning that change in weather conditions result in the change in the rules of the game i.e. introducing rules later after the commencement of the recruitment process. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court, with

¶49

[SAW-124/2019]

¶50

(8 of 9)

¶51

respect, in the opinion of the court, does not correctly lay down the law.

¶52

10. One more consideration persuades this Court to decline relief. It is that out of the 579 who participates, some were successful and some were not. Yet all of them did participate and accepted the conditions, as it were. Permitting the petitioner/appellant or any other candidate thereafter to take a re-test by directing the State to hold a fresh PET would itself be an unfair procedure as it would not only allow a few candidates who approach the Court to have a second shot or attempt, or a second innings as it were, but also create an unfair advantage inasmuch as the conditions would be entirely different and perhaps favorable to the candidate. This would result in two yardsticks, being injected into (one whereby all others accept participate and are assessed under poor conditions, and the second whereby those who approach the Court are given a second chance, resulting in their competing in favorable conditions), in the same selection process, which is inherently untenable and contrary to Article 14 and cannot be permitted."

¶53

11. Even in the re-test (which was conducted with sufficient notice, in terms of the orders of the single judge) only a few (and not all) candidates managed to clear the PET. Upholding the grant of a second opportunity of PET carried out in most favourable circumstances, to only a few, therefore in the opinion of the court, was not justified. Granting relief also on the ground that there were vacancies which could be filled with the writ petitioners or other candidates, in the opinion of the court would mean that the executive government's choice of selecting from other candidates, who have since become eligible, is completely curtailed; the pool from which selection can be resorted to might and would be wider; however, the impugned order restricts it to the petitioners.”

¶54

This Court is of the opinion that the same reasoning would apply with greater force and rigor in this case, as well. Out of the 151 candidates who in fact participated in the PET, nearly 55% i.e. 82 qualified. Therefore, it could not be said that the facts showed manifest unfairness or arbitrariness in the case of the petitioners. After all, they like others (both successful and unsuccessful candidates) participated; they could not qualify. But a sizeable number of the participants qualified. Most of those who did not qualify did not approach

¶55

(9 of 9) [SAW-124/2019]

¶56

the court. More number of candidates qualified and passed the PET, than those who did not. If one keeps all these facts in mind, the directions issued in the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.

¶57

For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal has to succeed; it is allowed. All pending applications are disposed of.

¶58

(DINESH MEHTA),J

¶59

(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ

¶60

Parmar/-

State of Rajasthan v. Revant Ram Meghwal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Rajasthan v. Revant Ram Meghwal

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

Maharana Pratap.U.of. a. and T. and Anr. Vs Kailash Dangi

Mangi Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Raj. Agriculture University, Bkn. andORS Vs Satpal Singh

Jagdish Prasad Shringi Vs Union of India

Laxmi Devi Vs State of Rajasthan

Sharda Devi Vs State of Rajasthan