Sunita Choudhary D/O Shri Shyoji Choudhary v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC9 Aug 2019SAW/302/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against dismissal of writ petition seeking re-test opportunity due to muddy running track during Physical Efficiency Test for police constable recruitment. Division Bench relied on prior precedents denying re-tests, holding no manifest unfairness existed given successful participation of others.

What did the court decide?

Re-test opportunity denied; appeal and stay application dismissed.

Sunita Choudhary D/O Shri Shyoji Choudhary Vs the… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D. B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 302/2019

¶3

¶4

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 26286/2018

¶5

Sunita Choudhary D/o Shri Shyoji Choudhary, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Village Kalidungari Post Khatoli, Tehsil Kishangarh, Distt. Ajmer (Rajasthan).

¶6

----Appellant-Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

The Superintendent Of Police, Kota Distt Kota.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Kapil Sharma on behalf of Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Vibhuti Bhushan Sharma, AAG.

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

¶14

Judgment

¶15

09/08/2019

¶16

(Per Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Rafiq)

¶17

This appeal is directed against judgment dated 18.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. The respondents issued advertisement on 25.05.2018 for districtwise recruitment on the post of Constable, Constable (Operator), Constable (Driver), Constable (Band) and Constable (Mounted). The appellant, who belongs to OBC category, applied

¶18

(2 of 4)

¶19

[SAW-302/2019]

¶20

for the post of Constale General Non TSP. The appellant appeared in written examination and was declared successful. Physical Standard Test (for short ‘PET’)/Physical Efficiency Test (for short ‘PST’) was conducted at Maharao Ummed Singh Stadium, Kota at 6.00 A.M. on 11.09.2018. Grievance of the appellant is that when she appeared for PET/PST at Maharao Ummed Singh Stadium, Kota on the aforesaid date, running track of the stadium was muddied on account of heavy rains and was wholly unsuitable for running. Therefore, the appellant ought to have been given another chance to prove her fitness.

¶21

Perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge indicates that the learned Single Judge has, while dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, relied upon judgment rendered by Single Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in Revant Ram Meghwal & Others Vs. State of Rajasthan & Others (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13731/2018 and other connected matters decided on 27.11.2018) in an identical matter observing that the aforesaid writ petitions were dismissed and the petition agitating the very same issue earlier negatived by this Court is liable to be dismissed. However, the fact is that Writ Petition No. 13731/2018 filed by the petitioners therein namely Revant Ram Meghwal and others was allowed. However, when appeal was filed by the State of Rajasthan against the aforesaid judgment, Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat at Jodhpur in D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 124/2019, State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Revant Ram Meghwal & Others allowed the appeal and dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 31.07.2019.

¶22

(3 of 4)

¶23

[SAW-302/2019]

¶24

Division Bench relied on earlier judgment 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:

¶25

“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.”

¶26

The Division Bench in State of Rajasthan & Others Vs. Revant Ram Meghwal & Others (supra), relying on the judgment in Shravan Kumar Choudhary (supra), held as under:

¶27

“11. 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 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.”

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[SAW-302/2019]

¶30

In view of above, we do not find any merit in this

¶31

appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶32

Stay Application No. 2873/2019 also stands dismissed.

¶33

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J