Rajasthan High CourtSharvan Choudhary S/O Ram Ratan ... vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 14 March, 2023Author:Sudesh BansalBench:Sudesh Bansal[2023/RJJP/004178]\n\n        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                    BENCH AT JAIPUR\n\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17092/2022\n\nDeepak Kumar Son Of Shri Ashok Kumar, Aged About 22 Years,\nResident Of Village And Post Kawai, Tehsil Nadbai, District\nBharatpur (Raj.)\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n1.       State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Home, Through Its\n         Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)\n2.       Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi,\n         Jaipur (Raj.)\n3.       Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment And Promotion\n         Board), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)\n4.       Director General Of Police, C.i.d., I.b. Jaipur(Raj.)\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n                            Connected With\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15785/2022\nRamkishore Son Of Shri Hanuman Prasad, Aged About 22 Years,\nResident Of Village Itawa, Post Tejya Ka Bass, Tehsil Phulera,\nDistrict Jaipur (Raj.)\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n1.       State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Home, Through Its\n         Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)\n2.       Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi,\n         Jaipur (Raj.)\n3.       Superintendent Of Police (Recruitment And Promotion\n         Board), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)\n4.       Commandant, 14Th Battalion, R.a.c. Jaipur (Raj.)\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16241/2022\nDinesh Kumar Karad Son Of Shri Ram Kalyan Karad, Aged About\n28 Years, Resident Of Shri Radhey Krishna Store, Hariom Nagar,\nRangwari Road, Kota (Raj.)\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n1.       State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Home, Through Its\n         Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)\n2.       Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi,\n         Jaipur (Raj.)\n3.       Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment And Promotion\n         Board), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)\n4.       Commandant, 2Nd Battalion, R.a.c., Kota (Raj.)\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n\n                     (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)\n [2023/RJJP/004178]                  (2 of 16)                       [CW-17092/2022]\n\n\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16284/2022\nChain Singh Nathawat Son Of Shri Dashrath Singh Nathawat,\nAged About 33 Years, Resident Of Thingla Road, Shiv Mandir Ke\nSamne, Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n1.       State Of Rajasthan, Department Of Home, Through Its\n         Secretary, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)\n2.       Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Lalkothi,\n         Jaipur (Raj.)\n3.       Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment And Promotion\n         Board), Rajasthan, Jaipur (Raj.)\n4.       Superintendent Of Police, Kota Rural, Kota (Raj.)\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16316/2022\nManisha Kumari Meena D/o Kalu Ram Meena, Aged About 23\nYears, R/o Village Dulawa, Po Pundarpapa, District Dausa\nRajasthan.\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary\n         Department   Of    Home,     Government Secretariat,\n         Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n2.       Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n3.       Superintendent Of Police, Jaipur Rural, Jaipur.\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16353/2022\nSumit Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma,\nAged About 21 Years, R/o Village And Post Sadaara, Tehsil And\nPolice Station Sawar, District Ajmer (Raj.).\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal                         Secretary,\n         Department Of Home, Secretariat, Jaipur.\n2.       The Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarters,\n         Near Nehru Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur.\n3.       Rajasthan Public        Service        Commission,        Through     Its\n         Secretary, Ajmer.\n4.       Inspector General Of Police, Kota Renj, Kota (Rajasthan)\n5.       Superintendent Recruitment And Promotion Board,\n         Rajasthan, Jaipur, Off At - Dgp Office, Lalkothi, Jaipur.\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16597/2022\nMohit Didel S/o Dharm Singh Choudhary, Aged About 21 Years,\n\n                     (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)\n [2023/RJJP/004178]                  (3 of 16)                         [CW-17092/2022]\n\n\nR/o Didel Ki Dhani, Itawa Phulera, Jaipur (Rajasthan)\n                                                                      ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n1.       State  Of    Rajasthan,     Through                     Secretary   Home\n         Department, Secretariat, Jaipur\n2.       Director General Of Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan\n3.       Commissioner, Rajasthan Police, Jaipur, Rajasthan\n                                                                   ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16827/2022\nPooja Gurjar D/o Ratiram Gurjar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o 29 D,\nRadha Vihar Colony, Hathoj, Kalwar Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.\n                                                                      ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,\n         Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur\n2.       The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government\n         Secretariat, Jaipur.\n3.       The Director General Of Police (Recruitment), Police\n         Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n4.       The Additional Director General Of Police, Recruitment\n         And Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n5.       The Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur Rural, District\n         Jodhpur.\n                                              ----Respondents\n           S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16976/2022\n Sharvan Choudhary, S/o Shri Ram Ratan Choudhary, Aged\n About 23 Years, R/o VPo Chouru, Tehsil Phagi, District Jaipur,\n Rajasthan\n                                                                     ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n 1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through its Home Secretary,\n          Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur\n 2.       The Secretary, Department of Personnel, Government\n          Secretariat, Jaipur\n 3.       The Director General of Police (Recruitment), Police\n          Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur\n 4.       The Additional Director General of Police, Recruitment\n          and Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur\n 5.       The Superintendent of Police, Kota City, Kota\n\n                                                                  ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17039/2022\nSupriya Choudhary, D/o Shri Onkar Mal Choudhary, Aged About\n23 Years, R/o Kacholiya Ki Dhani, Shri Govindpur, Tehsil Amer\nDistrict Jaipur\n\n                     (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)\n [2023/RJJP/004178]                  (4 of 16)                       [CW-17092/2022]\n\n\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary\n         Department   Of    Home,     Government Secretariat,\n         Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur\n2.       Director General Of Police, Rajasthan Jaipur\n3.       Superintendent Of Police Intelligence, Jaipur\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17247/2022\nRahul Kumar Meena S/o Shri Ramkesh Meena, Aged About 22\nYears,  R/o  Datasuti,  Tehsil Bamanwas,   Danta  Sooti\nSawaimadhopur Rajasthan\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary\n         Department   Of    Home,     Government Secretariat,\n         Government Of Rajasthan, Jaipur\n2.       Director General Of Police Rajasthan, Jaipur\n3.       Superintendent Of Police, Telecommunication, Jaipur\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17382/2022\nKamal Verma Son Of Shri Ramesh Kumar Verma, Aged About 22\nYears, Resident Of Ward No. 07, Sed Ka Mohalla, Neem Ka\nThana, District Sikar- Rajasthan- 332713.\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary To Home\n         Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,\n         Jaipur.\n2.       Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Police Headquarter,\n         Jaipur.\n3.       Additional Director General Of Police, Recruitment And\n         Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n                                                                 ----Respondents\n             S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17415/2022\nSanjana Saini D/o Hanuman Sahay Saini, Aged About 27 Years,\nR/o 346, Heeda Ki Mori, Near Gurudwara, Surajpole Bazar,\nJaipur, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.\n                                                                    ----Petitioner\n                                    Versus\n1.       The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,\n         Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur\n2.       The Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Government\n         Secretariat, Jaipur.\n\n\n                     (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)\n   [2023/RJJP/004178]                  (5 of 16)                       [CW-17092/2022]\n\n\n  3.       The Director General Of Police (Recruitment), Police\n           Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n  4.       The Additional Director General Of Police, Recruitment\n           And Promotion Board, Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n  5.       The Commandant, 4Th Battalion, Rac, Jaipur.\n                                                                   ----Respondents\n\n  For Petitioner(s)         :     Petitioners present in person in\n                                  SBCWP Nos. 16827/2022,\n                                  16976/2022 & 17415/2022\n  For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Rajesh Maharshi, AAG with\n                                  Ms. Kinjal Surana\n                                  Mr. Rupin Kala, GC\n\n\n\n               HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL\n\n                                   Judgment\n\n  14/03/2023\nReportable\n  1.    At the outset, it may be noticed that Advocates have taken a\n\n  call to abstain from judicial work and not to appear in Courts since\n\n  20th February, 2023 onwards and today as well, no advocate for\n\n  and on behalf of petitioner(s) has put in appearance, therefore,\n\n  few of petitioners, who are present in person, have been heard.\n\n  Since grievances of petitioner(s) in these writ petitions, are\n\n  substantially similar, therefore, all these writ petitions have been\n\n  considered on merits as per material available on record and are\n\n  being decided by this common judgment.\n\n  2.    It appears from record that petitioners having participated\n\n  and qualified written examination of Rajasthan Police Constable\n\n  Examination-2021, for appointment on the post of Constable in\n\n  different categories, but could not appear/qualify the Physical\n\n  Efficiency Test (hereinafter for short "PET") due to remaining\n\n  absent being unfit on the scheduled date(s) for such test, because\n\n                       (Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)\n [2023/RJJP/004178]                    (6 of 16)                          [CW-17092/2022]\n\n\nof suffering from either serious sickness or injury. And therefore,\n\npetitioners have preferred these writ petitions, praying for an\n\nanother chance/opportunity for PET and to re-fix/reschedule dates\n\nfor their PET and consequently, to consider their candidature for\n\nappointment on merits.\n\n3.     In support, petitioners have placed reliance on a judgment of\n\nCoordinate Bench of this Court dated 24.08.2020 passed in SB\n\nCivil Writ Petition No.17260/2019 titled Deepak Singh\n\nKhatana Vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein the Court, after\n\nplacing reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case\n\nof Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh\n\n[(2019)      13      SCC   706],       in     somewhat             similar    facts   and\n\ncircumstances, in respect of recruitment for the post of Sub\n\nInspector, pursuant to advertisement dated 05.10.2016, declared\n\nthat since petitioner was suffering with dengue fever at the time of\n\nscheduled date of his Physical Efficiency Test, therefore, he\n\ndeserved second chance to appear in PET/PST, and accordingly,\n\ndirected respondents to re-conduct the PET/PST for the petitioner.It has also been stated by petitioners that since they have\n\nqualified the written examination and were eligible to appear for\n\nPET,    however       because         of      unwanted             and       unavoidable\n\ncircumstances of suffering from serious sickness/injury, could not\n\nappear in the PET on the scheduled date(s), and it is not\n\ndeliberate or negligent fault on part of petitioner(s), therefore,\n\nsympathetic view be taken in favour of petitioners and one more\n\nchance/opportunity to participate in the PET be accorded to(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)[2023/RJJP/004178]                               (7 of 16)                          [CW-17092/2022]\n\n\npetitioners, so that their candidature may be considered for\n\nappointment on merits in the present recruitment process-2021.4.     Learned           counsel         for     respondents,             while    opposing      writ\n\npetitions, contend that for appointment on the post of Constable in\n\nvarious districts, the recruitment process was initiated vide\n\nadvertisement dated 29.10.2021 under provisions of Rajasthan\n\nPolice Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (as amended) (hereinafter\n\nfor short "the Rules of 1989"). He has pointed out that in the\n\nadvertisement itself it was specifically indicated that determination\n\nof   vacant         posts,         qualification,           eligibility      and   procedure        of\n\nrecruitment etc. would be governed as detailed out in Standing\n\nOrder (S.O.) No. 29/2021 dated 03.09.2021, issued by the Police\n\nHeadquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur. He has pointed out that Clause\n\nNo.9      of     the           advertisement,            prescribed          the   procedure        of\n\nrecruitment, which reads as under:-9. भर्ती हरे चयन प्र्रकप्रक्रियर-कांस्टबल पद पर चयन राजससान पललस अधअधीनसस सटेवा लनयम, 1989 कट लनयम 25 एेवं राजससान\nपललस अलधलनययम 2007 कट लनयम 28(3) कट पाेवधानसार लकया जायटगा। परअधीका कट स सभअधी चरचरण चरणों कट कल\n200 अंक है लजनककी गरचरणा लनमनानसार ककी जाएगअधी:-परअधीका का चरचरण                       कांस्टबल          कांस्टबल चालक          बैण्\n                                               सामानय/पललस\n                                                 दूरसंचार\nलललित परअधीका                                      150                     150          लागू नहींशारअधीररक दकता परअधीका                             30                      20              20दकता परअधीका                                    लागू नहीं                  30              30लेवशटष योगयता (एन.सअधी.सअधी, होमगा््\nएेवं पललस सट समबंलधत लेवषय चरणों म\nल्पलोमा/उपालध पाप) पमाचरण पत्र कट                  20                 लागू नहीं         लागू नहीं\nआधार पर आेवंल्त लकयट जानट ेवालट\nअंकअंक चरणों का योग                       200                     200             505.     Learned counsel for respondents has placed on record, a\n\ncopy of the S.O. No.29/2021 dated 03.09.2021 on record and has(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)[2023/RJJP/004178]                       (8 of 16)                        [CW-17092/2022]\n\n\npointed out that as per Clause 9 of the same, it is clear that the\n\nprocess of selection for the post of Constable shall be as per\n\nprovisions under Rule 25 of the Rules of 1989 and in Part-I, the\n\nmanner and syllabus of written examination is prescribed and in\n\nPart-II, the manner of PET is prescribed. It has been provided in\n\nPart-II    that   all     candidates,         declared        successful    in   written\n\nexamination, shall undergo Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and\n\nPhysical Standard Test (PST) at a date and place specified by the\n\nDGP. PET will be held first followed by PST. In respect of PET, it is\n\nspecifically stated that marks obtained in the PET shall be\n\nconsidered for determining the merit of successful candidates. The\n\nCandidates will undergo the PET at their own risk. Any candidate\n\nfailing in PET will be disqualified. Only one chance shall be\n\nprovided for PET. There will be no appeal for PET. Candidate shall\n\nbe required to submit a Fitness Certificate issued by a Government\n\nMedical Officer, prior to appearing for PET. In respect of women\n\ncandidates who are pregnant, it is stipulated that if a pregnant\n\nwomen candidate presents herself before the Board, the Board\n\nshall decide for extension of PET/PST after consideration of marks\n\nobtained in the written exam. The candidate so allowed shall\n\nsubmit an application for conducting PET/PST after a period of two\n\nmonths of her delivery. Failure to do so, will result in cancellation\n\nof her candidature.6.     Learned counsel for respondents contended that as per\n\nterms and conditions indicated in the advertisement dated\n\n29.10.2021 as also in the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, it stands clear\n\nthat      there      is    no       provision/rule           to       provide    another(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)[2023/RJJP/004178]                  (9 of 16)                      [CW-17092/2022]\n\n\nchance/opportunity for PET, if candidate does not appear in PET on\n\nor between the scheduled date(s) for his/her PET. Only relaxation,\n\nin case of pregnant women candidates has been provided, subject\n\nto prescribed limits as indicated in the S.O. dated 03.09.2021. It\n\nhas been submitted that indisputably, none of the petitioner(s)\n\nhas/have appeared in the PET on or within the fixed time, date\n\nand scheduled for physical test. In absence of any provision/rule,\n\nthe deferment and extension of PET beyond the prescribed\n\nschedule was not permissible and therefore, request of deferment\n\nof PET by petitioner(s), as per suitability of candidates, on\n\nacquiring their fitness, was not acceptable. Learned counsel\n\nsubmits that schedule of PET in respect of the present recruitment\n\nof Constable has over and the process of selection has already\n\nbeen completed. Learned counsel submits that prayer made by\n\npetitioner(s) is not liable to be acceptable and all these writ\n\npetitions are required to be dismissed.7.    Learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on order\n\ndated    18.09.2018        passed        in     SB      Civil    Writ   Petition\n\nNo.14086/2018 titledSunil Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthanwhich was affirmed by the Division Bench in DB Special Appeal\n\n(Writ) No.1685/2018 vide order dated 14.11.2018.Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of Division\n\nBench of the Rajasthan High Court dated 30.01.2020 passed in\n\nDB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1310/2019 titledDropadi Jyani\n\nVs. State of Rajasthan.(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)[2023/RJJP/004178]                 (10 of 16)                         [CW-17092/2022]\n\n\n      Further the order/judgment dated 09.11.2022 passed by\n\nthe Division Bench in DB Special Appeal Writ No.1129/20252\n\ntitledState of Rajasthan Vs. Bharat Yadavas also on the order\n\ndated 03.02.2023, passed by the Division Bench in DB Review\n\nPetition (Writ) No. 218/2022, affirming the order dated\n\n09.11.2022, have also been placed on record. In all these cases,\n\nprayer for deferment of PET of the petitioner(s), was declined in\n\nabsence of any provision either in the advertisement or in the\n\nrelevant Rule or Standing Order.8.    Heard. Considered.9.    A copy of the advertisement dated 29.10.2021, whereby the\n\nrecruitment     process-2021       for    appointment            on   the   post   of\n\nConstable was initiated and a copy of the S.O. No.29/2021 dated\n\n03.09.2021, are available on record. A perusal of relevant Clause\n\nNo.9 of the advertisement dated 29.10.2021 as mentioned\n\nhereinabove as also Clause 9 of the S.O. dated 03.09.2021,\n\nclearly indicates that the process of selection for the post of\n\nConstable shall be as per provisions under Rule 25 of the Rules of\n\n1989. It is not in dispute that final merit list for selection for the\n\npost in question of Constable, is to be prepared on the basis of\n\nmarks obtained in written examination as well as in PET, therefore,\n\nit is essential for candidate to successfully qualify the PET/PST as\n\nper the prescribed criteria, for consideration of his/her candidature\n\nfor selection on merit. In the advertisement dated 29.10.2021, it\n\nis specifically indicated in bold letters that the procedure for\n\nselection shall be governed and finalized as per the S.O.(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)[2023/RJJP/004178]                 (11 of 16)                    [CW-17092/2022]\n\n\nNo.29/2021 dated 03.09.2021. In the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, it is\n\nstipulated that any candidate failing in PET will be disqualified and\n\nonly one chance shall be given for PET and there will be no appeal\n\nfor PET. As much as candidate shall be required to submit fitness\n\ncertificate issued by the Government Medical Officer prior to\n\nappearing for PET. There is no provision in the advertisement/S.O\n\nfor deferment or providing a second chance/opportunity for PET,\n\nexcept in case of pregnant women candidates. It is admitted case\n\nof petitioner(s) that he/she was/were given an opportunity to\n\nappear in the PET as per the schedule during which the PET was\n\nconducted by respondents. Petitioner(s) failed to appear in PET for\n\nwhich petitioner, states different reasons either because of\n\nsuffering from serious sickness/injury or fever, for whatsoever\n\nreason may, but it is undisputed fact that petitioner(s) did not\n\nappear for PET on the scheduled time & date(s). As per scheme of\n\npreparing merit list, in absence of appearing in PET, the\n\ncandidature of petitioner(s) cannot be considered for appointment\n\non merits. Therefore, petitioner(s) has/have made prayer for an\n\nanother chance/opportunity and to reschedule the date for their\n\nPET. But petitioner(s) have failed to point out any provision or rule\n\nunder which they can claim another chance/opportunity for the\n\nPET, to enable them for consideration of their candidature for\n\nappointment on merits.10.   In case of Deepak Singh Khatana (supra) on which\n\npetitioners have placed reliance, learned Single Judge has placed\n\nreliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in\n\ncase of Mahendra Pratap Singh (supra). A perusal of judgment(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)[2023/RJJP/004178]                 (12 of 16)                    [CW-17092/2022]\n\n\nof the Apex Court, indicates that in the said case, the Competent\n\nAuthority had issued a circular permitting candidates to participate\n\nin Physical Efficiency Test on any subsequent date, who have not\n\nparticipated in the Physical Efficiency Test on account of physical\n\nillness. The case of petitioner(s) in the said case was that though\n\nthey were not physically fit to participate in the PET and yet, they\n\nwere compelled to participate therefore, on the basis of circular\n\nissued by the Competent Authority fixing a subsequent date and\n\ndeferring the physical test for those candidates who were unable\n\nto participate for physical test on account of their physical illness,\n\npetitioners sought a second chance. Under that peculiar facts and\n\ncircumstances, prayer to grant second chance to petitioner(s) for\n\nPET/PST was acceded.This Court cannot and does not disagree with the ratio of law\n\nlaid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mahendra\n\nPratap Singh (supra), however, applying that ratio to the facts of\n\ncase at hand, there is no provision neither in the advertisement\n\ndated 20.09.2021 nor in the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, by which\n\nindisputably the present recruitment process for appointment on\n\nthe post of Constable-2021 is governed, for providing a second\n\nchance/opportunity for PET to candidates who did not/could not\n\nappear for PET on the scheduled time & date(s). Rather under\n\nClause 9 of the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, it is specifically stipulated\n\nthat "only one chance shall be given for PET". Thus in absence of\n\nany provision or rule for deferment or providing a second\n\nchance/opportunity of PET, in the present recruitment process, the\n\njudgment of the Apex Court in case of Mahendra Pratap Singh(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)[2023/RJJP/004178]                 (13 of 16)                    [CW-17092/2022]\n\n\n(supra), and the judgment of Coordinate Bench in case of Deepak\n\nSingh Khatana (supra) do not render any help/support to the\n\ncase of petitioner(s).11.   On facts of the present case, the ratio of law as expounded\n\nin cases ofSunil Kumar(supra) &Dropadi Jyani(supra) stands\n\nsquarely applicable.In case ofSunil Kumar(supra) vide order\n\ndated 18.09.2018, learned Single Judge has observed as under:"The petitioner has participated in a recruitment process,\n      where the appointments are required to be granted based on\n      inter se merit of the candidates by including the marks\n      obtained at Written Examination and PET subject to their\n      fulfilling PST. Though unfortunate it is that the petitioner\n      suffered accident and consequential knee surgery, the PET of\n      the petitioner cannot be postponed indefinitely, i.e. till such\n      time the petitioner declared fit to undergo PET.A bare look at the requirements of PET indicates that\n      the same is quite stressful, wherein a candidate is required\n      to run for 5 kilometers within maximum 25 minutes, based\n      on which, the marks are awarded. The Doctors have\n      presently advised the petitioner to avoid running in any form\n      for next 3 months and, therefore, it is absolutely speculative\n      as to when the petitioner would gain medical fitness to\n      undertake 5 kilometers running and, therefore, the plea\n      seeking deferment of the PET of the petitioner cannot be\n      countenanced."The aforesaid order/judgment dated 18.09.2018 has been\n\naffirmed by the Division Bench in DB Special Appeal (Writ)\n\nNo.1685/2018 vide order dated 14.11.2018 and held as under:"Successfully clearing the written examination for being appointed\n      as a Constable GD the problem which the appellant faced was of\n      not being able to participate at the physical efficiency test to be\n      held on 10.09.2018. During the physical efficient test, the\n      petitioner was required to run 5 kms. in 25 minutes. The appellant\n      suffered an accident and had to undergo operation of the left knee\n      on 03.08.2018 he was advised not to run for the next three\n      months.2. The appellant made a request to defer he being subjected to\n      the physical efficient test, the department refused because this\n      would have delayed drawing up to the final merit list and those\n      who had cleared the written examination and had also cleared\n      the physical efficient test. The appellant filed a writ petition(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)[2023/RJJP/004178]                 (14 of 16)                     [CW-17092/2022]\n\n\n      relying upon clause 12 of the standing order, which reads as\n      under:12. Medical Examination:-Immediately after the declaration of the merit list,\n        candidates whose names appear in the merit list shall be\n        required to undergo a Medical Test by a Government Medical\n        Officer. The Appointing Authority shall move the Chief Medical\n        and Health Officer/Principal Medical Officer concerned to detail\n        one or more medical officers, as required, for this purpose as\n        per enclosed proforma (Annexure E).Candidates who are found temporarily unfit and whose\n        defect can be rectified within 6 months as per the opinion of\n        the Medical Officer shall be eligible for appointment after the\n        said period provided they are found fit by medical board.\n        Candidates who fail to conform to the prescribed standards of\n        medical fitness even on re-examination within stipulated time\n        shall be declared medically unfit for appointment and their\n        candidature shall stand cancelled.3. The learned Single Judge has correctly pointed out that the\n      said clause pertained to the requirement of government servants\n      to be declared medically fit after being medically examined before\n      they are to joint government service. The clause simply records\n      that those fond temporarily medically unfit and whose defects can\n      be rectified within six months, shall be eligible for appointment\n      after said period provided they are found to be fit by the medical\n      board. The clause does not relate to deferment of undergoing\n      physical examination test."                   (Emphasis Supplied)12.   The Division Bench, in case ofDropadi Jyani(supra),\n\nfollowed and placed reliance on the observations made in case ofSunil Kumar(supra), dismissed the special appeal vide order\n\ndated 30.01.2020, declining to accord any second chance for the\n\nPhysical Test.13.   The ratio of law as expounded in the case ofSunil Kumar(supra) of learned Single judge and in case ofDropadi Jayani(supra) of the Division Bench, have been followed by the Division\n\nBench, recently in case ofState of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs.\n\nBharat      Yadav    &     Anr.in    DB       Special     Appeal    Writ\n\nNo.1129/2022 vide order dated 09.11.2022 wherein the order\n\nof learned Single Judge, allowing writ petition and issuing direction\n\nto respondents to re-conduct the PET of petitioner in respect of(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)[2023/RJJP/004178]                 (15 of 16)                       [CW-17092/2022]\n\n\nrecruitment for the post of Constable, was quashed and special\n\nappeal was allowed. Further, Review Petition (Writ) No. 218/2022\n\npreferred to review the final order dated 09.11.2022, came to be\n\ndismissed vide order dated 03.02.2023 and while dealing the\n\nalternative argument of learned counsel for review petitioner,\n\nwhich has also been made here that since petitioner had qualified\n\nthe written examination, but could not appear in PET due to\n\nmeeting with an accident and suffering an injury/illness, therefore,\n\nsympathetic view to allow him in PET be taken. The Division Bench\n\nhas observed as under -"We find no force in the alternative argument of the counsel\n      for the Review Petitioner that sympathetic view be taken in\n      favour of the petitioner. Sympathy alone cannot be a ground\n      to grant relief to the petitioner. It is well settled principle of\n      law that sympathy which is not within the precincts of law,\n      cannot be the basis to grant something which is otherwise\n      impermissible. The relief sought for cannot be granted to the\n      review petitioner by adopting a sympathetic view."14.   At this juncture, this Court deems it just and proper to make\n\na clarification that in case ofSunil Kumar(supra), the appellant\n\nrelied upon the Clause 12 of the Standing Order, seeking\n\ndeferment of Physical Efficiency Test and the Division Bench, in its\n\norder dated 14.11.2018, has observed that the Clause 12,\n\nextracted in the order itself, does not relate to deferment of\n\nundergoing Physical Efficiency Test. In the present S.O. dated\n\n03.09.2021, Clause 12 pertains to medical examination in similar\n\nterms    finds   place,   but     such      Clause        talks   about   medical\n\nexamination of those candidates who have declared successful on\n\nmerits after qualifying the written test and PET/PST. The medical\n\nexamination, conducted under Clause 12 is not applicable before(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)[2023/RJJP/004178]                      (16 of 16)                    [CW-17092/2022]\n\n\n                                   completion of selection process and at the stage of appearing for\n\n                                   PET. Thus, it is made clear that the Clause 12 of the S.O. dated\n\n                                   03.09.2021, does not come to rescue to the petitioner(s) for\n\n                                   seeking deferment of the PET.15.    For the reasons and discussions made hereinabove, the\n\n                                   prayer of petitioner(s) to provide second chance/opportunity for\n\n                                   PET is not acceptable and instant writ petitions, having no\n\n                                   substance, are hereby dismissed. No costs.16.    Interim stay order(s) passed in favour of petitioner(s), if any,\n\n                                   stand(s) vacated accordingly.17.    Stay application and other pending application(s), if any,\n\n                                   stand disposed of.18.    Copy of this judgment be placed in each file.(SUDESH BANSAL),J\n                                   SACHIN/ 56, 57, 65, 67,\n                                   68, 69, 72, 75, 79, 80,\n                                   81, 82 & 83(Downloaded on 11/11/2023 at 04:31:10 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)