Allowed

Junjhar Singh Son of Shri Tejmal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC20 Feb 2023SAW/100/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court in this DB Special Appeal condoned the delay in filing the appeal concerning the Public Service Commission recruitment process. Relying on linked judgment Jugal Kishore Gurjar, the court directed the Director General of Police to expediently consider the appellant's representation regarding the Physical Efficiency Test recording with the High Powered Committee.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was disposed of by modifying the impugned order, directing the Director General of Police to consider the appellant's representation regarding PET discrepancies before the High Powered Comm

Junjhar Singh Son of Shri Tejmal Singh Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 100/2023

¶3

Junjhar Singh Son Of Shri Tejmal Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Laxmipura Rai Colony, Barmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 556875)

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

¶7

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

¶8

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer (Raj.)

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Junjhar Singh, present in person For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN

¶12

Order

¶13

20/02/2023

¶14

Application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is considered and the same is allowed. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶15

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the controversy involved in this appeal is squarely covered by a recent judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 19.01.2023 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1066/2022- Jugal Kishore Gurjar Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. and other connected matters, wherein following order has been passed:-

¶17

(2 of 3)

¶18

[SAW-100/2023]

¶19

1. Heard Mr. Vigyan Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants and Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents.

¶20

2. The petitioners-appellants have preferred these Special Appeals against the common judgment and order dated 16.08.2022 passed by the Writ Court, whereby several writ petitions have been dismissed.

¶21

3. The petitioners-appellants are candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander pursuant to the advertisement dated 03.02.2021. The petitionersappellants qualified the written examination and were called for Physical Efficiency Test (PET), which consists of three events i.e. race, long jump and chin-ups. The petitioners-appellants were not declared successful in PET and as such could not qualify for the interview. Aggrieved the petitioner-appellants preferred writ petitions alleging that there was some discrepancy in the videography/chips recording the timings of the race etc., and that the petitioners-appellants have wrongly been ousted from qualifying the PET.

¶22

4. It is submitted that the petitioners-appellants raised their grievances by means of a representation to the Director General of Police, a copy of which has been enclosed in some of the writ petitions. The argument proceeds that though in some cases the representation was considered and some relief was granted to the candidates, but the representation of the petitioners-appellants was not considered.

¶23

5. The learned Single Judge has brushed aside the argument on this score by simply stating that a Board was constituted of Higher Officers of the Department i.e. Inspector General of Police, Deputy Inspector General of Police and Superintendent of Police, to have a check and vigil over holding and completing of PET so as to take care of even each and every iota of problem or difficulty, which a candidate may face during the said process. However, the Writ Court falls short of recording any finding as to whether the grievance or representation of the petitioners with regard to PET was considered by such a High Powered Committee.

¶24

6. The judgment and order dated 11.10.2022 passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.854/2022Bhajan Lal Vishnoi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., relied upon by Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, learned Additional Advocate General is of no avail as by the said decision, the Court has only considered that the question of

¶25

(3 of 3)

¶26

[SAW-100/2023]

¶27

summoning the videography and the chip, is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.

¶28

7. However, in the present case the petitionersappellants are not asking the Court to examine the videography or the chip, rather are insisting that the grievance with regard to videography/chip raised by them be considered by the authorities themselves or the High Powered Committee constituted by the respondents themselves.

¶29

8. In view of the above short point alone, we dispose of these appeals by modifying the impugned judgment and order by directing that the Director General of Police will ensure that the representation of the petitioners-appellants raising grievance with regard to PET may be placed before the High Powered Committee and be examined in accordance with the law, most expeditiously, preferably within a period of two weeks and if representation of any of the candidates is allowed, they would be granted the consequential benefits. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of."

¶30

4. In the light of the above, present appeal is also disposed off

¶31

in the similar terms as in Jugal Kishore Gurjar (supra).

¶32

(ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J

¶33

(MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),ACTING CJ

¶34

ANAND TANWAR /107

Junjhar Singh Son of Shri Tejmal Singh v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Junjhar Singh Son of Shri Tejmal 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

Additional Collector (Stamps) Vs Samarth Life Styling Retailing Pvt. Ltd.

The State of Rajasthan Vs Sunita Tak W/O Arvind Tak

Smt. Anita Joshi Vs Shri Anil Joshi B.Sc. (Date of Birth 30.06.1970)

M/S. Wild Berries Bottling Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner, Central Goods and Services Tax

Khetri Tamba Shramik Sangh Vs Hindustan Copper Limited

Rajesh Kumawat S/O Sitaram Kumawat Vs Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur