Single Judge observed appeal by candidates rejected for police recruitment alleging unfair Physical Efficiency Test conditions. Investigation report concluded track was not wet/muddy despite rain. Court dismissed appeal.
Appeal dismissed against Single Judge order.
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
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 78/2019
----Appellants
Versus
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Mahipal Singh Deora For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Shah, AAG with Mr. Abhimanyu Singh Rathore
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA
Judgment
(2 of 2)
[SAW-78/2019]
22/05/2019
The appellant’s case is that he was not provided with proper conditions for the run, which was part of the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) held for the recruitment in question. During the course of the proceeding before the learned Single Judge, a Commissioner’s report, based on video footage, was sought. It is a matter of record that the writ petitioner did not object to the Commissioner’s report, which inter alia states as follows:-
“ Only the start/finish section of the track is visible in the video. Since, it rained before the run was held, the wetness is apparent on the visible track. Though it is difficult to extrapolate the condition of the entire track but a look at the feet of the running candidates would show that the condition of track would not have been wetmuddy. ”
It is submitted that the appellant/petitioner was not fairly treated inasmuch as clearly it had rained at the place and the Commissioner too conceded that there was wetness on the track. It was submitted that nevertheless, the conclusion that the track could not have been wet or muddy is irrational.
This Court is of the opinion that the appellant/petitioner did not object to the report. Furthermore the learned Single Judge considered all facts exhaustively. Moreover, given that the rain does not appear to have been so severe as is sought to be made out, no ground for interference is made out. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ
36-skm/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Court can interfere with the single Judge order rejecting appeal against physical efficiency test.
Whether wet track condition justified interference.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Surendra Singh Ranawat
Kamlesh Kumawat
Dinesh Chandra Dholi
Mukesh Barhath
State Of Rajasthan
The Director General Of Police
S. Ravindra Bhat
Dinesh Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
