A special appeal filed by physical fitness test aspirants challenging the High Court's dismissal of their writ petition, which alleged discriminatory wet track conditions during recruitment.
The special appeal was dismissed, maintaining the status quo of the impugned 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. 81/2019
----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
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
(2 of 2)
[SAW-81/2019]
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 and furthermore since the learned Single Judge considered the aspect exhaustively and also given that the severity of the rain does not appear to have been as is sought to be urged, no ground for interference is made out. The appeal is dismissed.
(DINESH MEHTA),J
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT),CJ
37-skm/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's decision dismissing the writ petition alleging unfairness in Physical Efficiency Test conditions.
Whether the Court's reliance on the Commissioner's report regarding track conditions warrants interference.
Karan Singh Ranawat
Dheeraj Bagora
Sangeeta Gurjar
State Of Rajasthan
Director General Of Police
Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment)
DINESH MEHTA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
