A coordinated bench dismissed multiple writ petitions filed by Ex-servicemen candidates denied relaxation in the Physical Efficiency Test for the Forest Guard recruitment. The Court held that specific rules governing the post take precedence over general reservation rules and.Job demands justify uniform standards.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3954/2023
----Petitioners
----Respondents
(2 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
Connected With
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3300/2023
(3 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3757/2023
(4 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
Village Doodoli, Tehsil Didwana, District Nagaur, Rajasthan.
(5 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4698/2023
(6 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
----Petitioners
----Respondents
(7 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
(8 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
Village Shekhpur, (Gujran) Post Lalpur, Tehsil Rajakhera, District Dholpur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
(9 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4784/2023
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
(10 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
Years, Village Jatuwas, Post Kilri, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5542/2023
----Petitioners
Versus
(11 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
Jaipur.
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5986/2023
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6006/2023
----Petitioners
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
(12 of 29)
Versus
----Respondents
----Petitioners
Versus
(13 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6406/2023
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6965/2023
----Petitioners
Versus
(14 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7699/2023
----Petitioners
Versus
----Respondents
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10450/2023
Surendra Kumar S/o Shri Norang Lal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Basri, Post Dhakamandi, Tehsil Buhana, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
(15 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. M.L. Deora with Ms. Dimple Deora |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Mahaveer Bishnoi, AAG. Mr. Manish Patel, AAG. Mr. B.S. Sandhu, with Mr. Chirag Kalani. Mr. Shashank Joshi for Mr. Rajeev Purohit. Mr. Priyanshu Gopa for Mr. Vinit Sanadhya. Mr. Trilok Singh. Mr. Manvendra Singh Bhati. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Joshi. |
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT
Judgment
Reportable
Reserved on 09/04/2024 Pronounced on 24/04/2024
Per Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J:
(16 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3757/2023, while treating the same as a lead case; rival submissions of the parties and the observations of the Court, in the present judgment, would also be based, particularly, on the factual matrix of the lead case.
“It is, therefore, humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition of the petitioners may kindly be allowed:-
A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned Para 7 ( x ) of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 and rule 19(2) (b) & (c) Rajasthan forest subordinate rules 2015 states about the standard of Physical efficiency test for man including Ex-servicemen category irrespective of age/category in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 (Annex-2) and Corrigendum advertisement 11.03.2022 (Annex-3) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, any verbal/written order denying the selection of the petitioners on the post of Forest Guard in reference to Para 7 ( [k ) o ( x ) of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 and rule 19(2)(b) & (c) Rajasthan forest subordinate rules 2015 states about the standard of Physical efficiency test for man including Exservicemen category irrespective of age/category in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 (Annex-2) and Corrigendum advertisement dated 11.03.2022 (Annex3) may kindly be quashed and set aside.
C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents may kindly be directed to allow the petitioners in the further process of selection for the post of Forest Guard by providing relaxation to the ex-servicemen in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 (Annex-2) and Corrigendum advertisement 11.03.2022 (Annex-3).
D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, Para 7 ( [k ) o ( x ) of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 and rule 19(2)(b) & (c) Rajasthan forest subordinate rules 2015 states about the standard of Physical efficiency test for man including Exservicemen made applicable for ex-servicemen be kindly relaxed to the extend to fulfill the reserved posts for exservicemen to achieve the legislative goal in connection of reservation provided to ex-servicemen in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 (Annex-2) and Corrigendum advertisement 11.03.2022 (Annex-3).
(17 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
E. By an appropriate writ order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to grant the appointment to the petitioners by relaxing Para 7 ( [k ) o ( x ) of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 and rule 19(2)(b) & (c) Rajasthan forest subordinate rules 2015 states about Physical efficiency test for man including Ex-servicemen made applicable for exservicemen for the post of forest guard with all consequential benefits in pursuance of the advertisement dated 11.11.2020 (Annex-2) and corrigendum advertisement 11.03.2022 (Annex-3).
F. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioners.
G. Writ petition filed by the petitioners may kindly be allowed with costs.”
3.1. Subsequently, the examination for the post of Forest Guard (post in question) was conducted and the result for written examination was declared on 26.01.2023 wherein the petitioners names were included making them eligible for Physical Efficiency Test (PET), whereafter the petitioners submitted representations
to the respondents requesting to relax the Rules/conditions as
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
(18 of 29)
regards the PET qua the petitioners, however the same is yet to be responded. Aggrieved by the inaction on part of the respondents, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petitions claiming the afore-quoted reliefs.
4.1. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of this Court towards Rule 18A inserted in the Rules of 1988 by amendment vide notification dated 17.04.2018, and the relevant portion of said Rule 18A reads as under:
“ 18A. Concessions.- Following concessions shall be allowed to the ex-servicemen for making them eligible for employment:-
(i) & (ii) . . . . . .
(iii) physical fitness or physical test parameters wherever prescribed for selection to any post such parameters shall be relaxed appropriately by the State Government.”
4.1.1. Learned counsel laid much emphasis on the word
“appropriately, as occurring in the afore-quoted Rule 18A, stating that the respondents were under an obligation to grant
(19 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
appropriate relaxation in the physical efficiency test, qua the exservicemen, in the recruitment process in question.
4.2. It was further submitted that as per the advertisement dated 11.11.2020, the standard of Physical Efficiency was to be for all candidates including ex-serviceman/sehariya of Bara District and ST and SC/ST category of Scheduled areas, thus the act of respondents in fixing criteria at par even for ex-serviceman and other category with general candidates without giving due consideration to the age factor of the ex-servicemen is unjustified in law. The relevant portion of the said advertisement dated
11.11.2020 is reproduced as hereinbelow:
“ 7. ik=rk ,o “ka {kfS .kd ;ksX;rk %&
“kkjhfjd ekin.M ,o n{krk ijh{ka .k %&
( x ) ou j{kd ds in ij lh/kh HkrhZ ds fdlh vH;FkhZ dks “kkjhfjd n{krk ds fuEufyf[kr ekieku Hkh izkIr djus gksaxs A vH;FkhZ vius Lo;a ds tksf[ke ij “kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{k.k ds fy, mifLFkr gksaxs A
iq:’kksa ds fy,
| en | Ekkieku |
|---|---|
| 1- flV&vil | |
| 2- fddzsV ckWy Qsad_(Fkzks)_ | 55 ehVj |
efgyksvksa ds fy,
| en | Ekkieku |
|---|---|
| 1- [kM+h yEch dwn 2-(LVSf.Max czkM tEIl) |
1-35 ehVj |
| 3- xksyk Qsad | 4-5 ehVj |
| 4-(“kkWV iqV_) (4 fd- xzk-)_ |
'kkjhfjd n{krk ds ;s ekieku HkwriwoZ lSfud dkfeZdksa@ckjka ftys esa fuokl dj jgs lgfj;k vH;fFkfZ;ksa vkSj tutkfr mi vk;kstuk {ks= ds vuq-tk-
(20 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
@vuq-tu-tk- vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lfEefyr djrs gq, leLr izoxksZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ij ykxw gksaxs A
flV& vil ds fy, vH;FkhZ viuh ihB ds cy ysVsxk] V[kuksa dks Fkkeus ds fy, lgkjs ds lkFk mldh Vkaxs iw.kZ:i ls ruh gks vkSj vius mijh 'kjhj dks mBk;sxkA mBkrs le; vius mijh 'kjhj dks 90 fMdzh rd mBk;sxk ¼'kjhj dks tehu ds lkFk yEcor djrs gq,½ mldh Vkaxs mBuh ugha pkfg,A [kM+h yEch dwn ¼LVSf.Max ozkM tEil½ ds fy, vH;FkhzZ fLFkj n'kk ¼fcuk nkSM+ yxk;s½ ls dwnsxk vkSj dwnus o Vsd yxkrs le; Hkh nksuksa Vkaxksa dks lkFk&lkFk j[ksxkA ”
para 10 of the advertisement in question, which reads as under:
¼[k½ HkwriwoZ lSfud %&
¼a1½ izfrj{kk ¼Fky] ty] ok;q lsuk½ lsokvksa ls lsokeqfDr ds le; vkosnd dk pfj= “ vPNk ” ls de ugha gksuk pkfg;s tSlk fd mldh lsokeqfDr esa n'kkZ;k x;k gksA
¼2½ izfrj{kk lsok ls lsokeqfDr ds i'pkr fdlh vkosnd dk pfj= ,slk gksuk pkfg;s tks mls fu;kstu ds fy, vgZd cuk nsA
HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dks vkj{k.k jktLFkku flfoy lsok ¼HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dk
vkesyu½ fu;e 1988 ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds fy, 12-5 izfr'kr in vkjf{kr gSA HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds inksa dk vkj{k.k {kSfrt ¼ Horizontal ½ :i ls gS vFkkZr vkosnd ftl oxZ ¼lkekU; oxZ@vkfFkZd :i ls detksj oxZ@ vuqlwfpr tkfr@ vuqlwfpr tutkfr@ fiNM+k oxZ@ vfr fiNM+k oxZ½ dk miyC/k gksxk mls mlh oxZ ds vUrxZr lek;ksftr fd;k tk,xkA mi;qDr HkwriwoZ lSfudksa dh vuqiyC/krk ds dkj.k bu inksa dks fu;ekuqlkj lkekU; izfdz;k ls Hkjk tk ldsxkA HkwriwoZ lSfudksa ds fy;s dkfeZd foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk dzekad ,Q-5¼18½ dkfeZd@d&2@84 ikVZ&AA fnukad 17-04-2018 ds vuqlkj izko/kku Hkh ykxw gksaxsA bl vf/klwpuk ds vuqlkj dksbZ HkwriwoZ lSfud lsokfuor gks x;k gS ;k vkxkeh ,d o"kZ ds Hkhrj lsokfuor gks jgk gS] l{ke izkf/kdkjh ls izkIr fujk{ksi izek.k i= ¼,u-vks-lh-½ ds vk/kkj ij vius isa'ku vftZr djus ds i'pkr in ds fy;s vkosnu djus
(21 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
dk ik= gksxk] fdUrq mls lewfpr p;u vfHkdj.k dks lsokfuo`fRr izek.k i= izLrqr djuk gksxk%&
2- lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus ls igys tgka fyf[kr ijh{kk vkSj lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls p;u fd;k tkrk gSA
3- fyf[kr ijh{kk ;k lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gksus ls igys tgka dsoy fyf[kr ijh{kk ;k dsoy lk{kkRdkj ds ek/;e ls p;u fd;k tkuk gS] tSlk Hkh ekeyk gksA
Li"Vhdj.k %& dkfeZd foHkkx ds ifji= fnukad 21-05-2019 ds vuwlkj tc fdlh lSfud }kjk dkfeZd foHkkx dh vf/kflwpuk fnukad 17-04-2018 ds rgr fdlh in gsrq vkosnu fd;k tkrk gS rks ,sls HkwriwoZ lSfud ds lac/k esa ;fn mldk lsok fuofRr vkns'k tkjh gks pqdk gS vkSj mlds }kjk izLrqr fd;k tkrk gSA ftlesa lsokfuofRr dh frfFk ¼pkgs Hkfo";orhZ gh gks½ dk Li"V mYys[k gks] rks fyf[kr ijh{kk@eq[; ijh{kk@ lk{kkRdkj@nLrkost lR;kiu tSlh Hkh fLFkfr gks dh frfFk rd lsokfuofRr vkns'k izLrqr dj fn;s tkus ij mls lsokfuofRr dk izek.k i= ekuk tkosxk rFkk bl vk/kkj ij vkosnd dks HkwriwoZ lSfud Js.kh ds ykHk nS; gksaxsA bl vkns'k ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ,sls ik= vH;fFkZ;ksa dk p;u dj muds lsokeqfDr dh frfFk rd dk;Zxzg.k vof/k esa f'kfFkyu iznku dj ldrk gSA ;fn fdlh dkj.ko'k HkwriwoZ lSfud dk;Zxzg.k ugha djrk gS rks ,slh fLFkfr dk fu;ekuqlkj lkekU; izfdz;k ds vuqlkj Hkjk tkosxk vkSj fjfDr;ksa dh leku la[;k vxys HkrhZ o"kZ esa vxzuhr dh tk;sxh rFkk rRi'pkr ,slh fjfDr;ka O;ixr ¼ Lapse ½ gks tkosxhA ”
4.4. Learned counsel also submitted that relaxation for the category of Ex-serviceman has previously been given in physical Efficiency Test of the police department and thus not doing the same for the post in question was discriminatory in nature.
4.5. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court:-
(a) State of Orissa Vs. Mohd. Yunus & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.
5099 of 1993, decided on 17.09.1993).
(22 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
(b) Avni Prakash Vs National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7000 of 2021 decided on 23.11.2021);
(c) National Testing Agency Vs Vaishanavi Vijay Bhopale & Ors. (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 17027/2021, decided on 12.11.2021);
(d) The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Karunesh Kumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8822-8823 of 2022, decided on 12.12.22);
(e) State of Rajasthan Vs Gopi Kishan Sen AIR 1992 SC 1754;
5.1. It was further submitted that the petitioners have already cleared the written examination and it was only prior to conducting of the Physical Efficiency Test that the present writ petitions were filed, thus once the petitioners had already accepted the conditions set out in the advertisement, they could not later on lay challenge to a particular part/conditions of the selection process.
5.2. It was also submitted that Rule 18-A of the Rules of 1988 provides for grant of relaxation to the extent of 5% in the
(23 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
minimum qualifying marks to pass the examination in individual paper or in aggregate, and the said relaxation had already been granted in the written qualifying examination and availed by the petitioners.
5.3. Learned counsel further submitted that the physical Efficiency Test under the Rajasthan Forest Subordinate Service Rules, 2015 ( hereinafter referred as to ‘Rules of 2015’ ) conducted for the post in question is just a qualifying examination and not the one for determination of merit as is the case under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989; moreover, Rule 19 of Rules of 2015 provides for physical efficiency and physical fitness test and for the post in question physical fitness plays a vital role in discharging of duties, thus relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right and even as per Rule 18A inserted vide notification dated 17.04.2018 in the Rules of 1988, the requisite parameters to be relaxed had been left at the discretion of the Government.
(24 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
7.1. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Anupal Singh & Ors. Vs State of U.P. (2020) 2 SCC 173 and Union of India & Ors. Vs N. Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25.
8.1. In furtherance, it was submitted that the State of Rajasthan brought a specific amendment in the Rules of 1988, by inserting Rule 18A in the said Rules, in the year 2018, making the Rules of 1988 as a special set of Rules, inasmuch as the newly added Rule 18A, in no uncertain terms, provides that physical fitness or physical test parameters wherever prescribed for selection to any
(25 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
post, such parameters shall be relaxed appropriately by the State Government; whereas Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015, as harped upon by the respondents, is a general provision, thus precedence should be given to the special Rules i.e. Rules of 1988 (as amended).
(26 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
accordance with Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 for all the candidates who appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test. The said Rule is reproduced as hereunder:
“19. Physical Fitness and Physical Efficiency Test.-
(1) ……….
These standards of physical efficiency shall apply to candidates of all categories including Ex-Service Personnel / Saharia candidates residing in Baran District & SC/ST candidates of Tribal sub-plan area.
…………………”
12.1. This Court also observes that a bare perusal of the aforequoted Rule makes it evident that there exists no relaxation with regard to category of Ex-serviceman and the said Rule states that the test in question will be applicable to candidates belonging to all categories including that of the Ex-servicemen.
12.2. This Court further observes that the validity/vires of the aforesaid Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 was upheld by the Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of Kheta Ram (supra) , the relevant portion whereof is reproduced as hereunder:
“9. Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015, which makes provision for physical fitness and physical efficiency test, prescribes different standards of height, chest girth and other physical efficiency test for male and female candidates and also provides for relaxed standards of height and chest girth for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and races such as Assamese, Bhutanese, Garhwalis, Gorkhas, Kumaonis, Ladakhese, Mizo, Naga, Nepalese, Sikkimese and those from Arunachal Pradesh, Lahul and Spiti and Meghalaya. So far as physical efficiency test is concerned, the different standards have been provided for male and female candidates but no such relaxation has been extended to the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and races such as Assamese, Bhutanese, Garhwalis, Gorkhas, Kumaonis, Ladakhese, Mizo, Naga, Nepalese, Sikkimese and those from Arunachal Pradesh, Lahul and Spiti and Meghalaya rather, a specific provision has been
(27 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
incorporated that the standard of physical efficiency shall apply to the candidates of all categories including exservice personnel/Saharia candidates residing in Baran district and SC/ST candidates of Tribal Sub Plan area.
13. In Madhu’s case (supra), where the female candidate had questioned the vires of the Rule 19 (2)(a) of the Rules of 2015, prescribing chest girth for the female candidates as 79 cms. with an expansion of 5 cm., a Bench of this court observed that the physical standards settled in the Rules of 2015 as per the requirement of service cannot be questioned till it is found to be in violation of fundamental rights or in conflict with any other provision of the Constitution of India or any enabling enactment or the authority framing the rule is not competent. The court observed that every service has its own needs and requirements. Accordingly, the challenge to the Rule 19(2)(a) of the Rules of 2015, failed.
14. In view of the discussion above, we are of the considered opinion that if looking to the job requirement, the rule making authority has not prescribed relaxed standards of the physical fitness for the ex-service personnel rather, specifically provided that the standards of the physical fitness as prescribed shall apply to all categories including exservice personnel, the provision incorporated as aforesaid, cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or discriminatory so as to violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India” .
12.3. Thus, in light of the observations made in Kheta Ram (supra) , whereby the validity and legality of Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 has been upheld, while holding that the same is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, then the aforequoted condition 7(x) as contained in the impugned advertisement, cannot in any manner, be said to be violative of any provisions of law or prejudicial to the interests of any category of persons, particularly, the Ex-servicemen.
(28 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
by amendment in the year 2018, particularly, as regards the recruitment process in question and thus, have to be considered harmoniously. However, since Rule 19 of the Rules of 2015 (especially enacted for the post in question) specifically employed a language that the standards of physical efficiency shall apply to candidates of all categories, including Ex-service Personnel, and thus, the relaxation in question, as claimed on the strength of Rule 18A, while stating it to be special provision and having precedence over the Rules of 1988, is not worthy of being granted.
13.1. This Court further observes that the afore-quoted Rule 18A of the Rules of 1988 (brought in vide the amendment in the year 2018) clearly states that for physical fitness or physical test parameters wherever prescribed for selection to any post, such parameters shall be relaxed appropriately by the State Government with regard to ex-servicemen, thus, laying emphasis on the word ‘appropriately’, and it is evident that the respondents had taken into due consideration the strenuous work attached to the post in question, and thus, in the recruitment in question, providing relaxation in physical efficiency test would not be appropriate nor would it be in accordance with the demands of the work involved.
(29 of 29)
[2024:RJ-JD:16177-DB]
[CW-3954/2023]
furthermore, no provision for grant of any such relaxation has been made in the Rules of 2015.
(YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT),J
(DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
SKant/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether relaxation in the Physical Efficiency Test criteria is mandated by Rule 18A of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Absorption of Ex-Servicemen) Rules, 1988 despite the specific provisions in Rule 19
Whether applying uniform physical efficiency test standards to all categories, including Ex-servicemen, violates Article 14 of the Constitution.
Whether the job requirements of a Forest Guard post justify the denial of physical fitness relaxation claimed by Ex-servicemen candidates.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of Orissa vs. Mohd. Yunus & Ors.Referred¶351
State of Orissa Vs. Mohd. Yunus & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5099 of 1993)
Avni Prakash vs National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors.Referred¶356
Avni Prakash Vs National Testing Agency (NTA) & Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7000 of 2021)
National Testing Agency vs Vaishanavi Vijay Bhopale & Ors.Referred¶357
National Testing Agency Vs Vaishanavi Vijay Bhopale & Ors. (SLP (C) No. 17027/2021)
The State of Uttar Pradesh vs Karunesh Kumar & Ors.Referred¶358
The State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Karunesh Kumar & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 8822-8823 of 2022)
State of Rajasthan vs Gopi Kishan SenReferred¶359
State of Rajasthan Vs Gopi Kishan Sen AIR 1992 SC 1754 · Who else cites this
Kheta Ram vs. State of Rajasthan & OrsRelied on¶372
Kheta Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors (D.B. Civil Writ No. 4938/2016)
Anupal Singh & Ors. vs State of U.P.Referred¶373
Anupal Singh & Ors. Vs State of U.P. (2020) 2 SCC 173 · Who else cites this
Union of India & Ors. vs N. MurugesanReferred¶373
Union of India & Ors. Vs N. Murugesan (2022) 2 SCC 25. · Who else cites this
Madhu's caseReferred¶398
Madhu's case
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Hanuman Singh
State Of Rajasthan
Dr. Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Yogendra Kumar Purohit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
