Rajasthan High CourtTarun Sharma Son Of Shri Vidhyadhar ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 18 August, 2022Author:Inderjeet SinghBench:Inderjeet SinghHIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN\n                  BENCH AT JAIPUR\n\n              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11639/2022\n\nTarun Sharma Son Of Shri Vidhyadhar Sharma, Aged About 26\nYears, Resident Of 13, Aanand Nagar, Moongaska Near Tata\nShowroom, District Alwar, Rajasthan (Roll No. 908380)\n                                                                   ----Petitioner\n                                   Versus\n1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,\n       Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n2.     The Director General             Of    Police, Police Headquarter,\n       Rajasthan, Jaipur.\n3.     Rajasthan    Public      Service        Commission,         Through    Its\n       Secretary, Ajmer.\n                                                                ----RespondentsConnected with\n\n\n              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11695/2022\n\n Sonu Kumar Son Of Shri Pappu Ram Choudhary, Aged About\n 24 Years, Resident Of Village Uchhar Post Jahlatala, Tehsil\n Laxmangarh, District - Sikar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 730225)----Petitioner\n                                   Versus1.     The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Home Secretary,\n        Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.2.     The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter,\n        Rajasthan, Jaipur.3.     Rajasthan    Public      Service       Commission,         Through    Its\n        Secretary, Ajmer.----Respondents\n\n\nFor Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat.For Respondent(s)        :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH\n\n                                    Order(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 09:25:10 PM)(2 of 15)               [CW-11639/2022]\n\n18/08/2022\n\n     Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the issue involved\n\nin these writ petitions has been considered and decided by this\n\ncourt in the matter of Jugal Kishor Gurjar Vs. State of\n\nRajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5853/2022\n\nalong with other connected matters) wherein on 16.08.2022,\n\nthe following order was passed:-"1. These writ petitions since involve\n            common question, hence with consent of\n            the parties, have been heard together and\n            are being decided by the present common\n            order.2.    As prayed, the facts have been taken\n            into consideration from S.B. Civil Writ\n            Petition No.5853/2022 and the prayer made\n            therein reads as under:-"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed\n            that this Hon'ble court may very graciously\n            be pleased to accept and allow this writ\n            petition and further be pleased to :i) Issue an appropriate writ order or\n            direction in the nature thereof thereby,\n            directs the respondents to examine the\n            Chip No.T-42004 of petitioner and thereby\n            give proper marks in the 100 meter race\n            and further call for the Videography\n            recorded during the test of Physical Test\n            which was held 13.02.2022 at Maharana\n            Bhupal Stadium, Chetak Circle, Udaipur\n            and the respondents further directs to\n            declare the separate marks of petitioner of\n            all three events i.e. 100 meter race, Long\n            Jump and Chinning Up of Physical Test for\n            the post of Sub Inspector.ii) Issue an appropriate writ order or\n            direction in the nature thereof thereby\n            direct the respondents to call the petitioner\n            in the interview process and thereby give\n            appointment to the petitioner on the post\n            of Sub Inspector with all consequential\n            benefits, because the petitioner has\n            completed all three measurement/events.iii) Issue an appropriate writ order or\n            direction in the nature thereof thereby, the\n            result dated 11.04.2022 may kindly be\n            quashed and set aside and respondents be\n            directed to issue fresh result by including\n            the roll no. of petitioner for the post of\n            Sub Inspector.(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 09:25:10 PM)(3 of 15)               [CW-11639/2022]iv) Issue an appropriate writ order or\ndirection in the nature thereof thereby, the\nrespondents may kindly be declared illegal\nby which they have wrongly calculated the\nmarks of the petitioner.v) Pass any other appropriate order which\nthis Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and\nproper in the facts and circumstances of\nthe case in favour of the petitioner.vi) Cost of the writ petition be also\nawarded in favour of the petitioner."3.     Brief facts of the case are that in\npursuance to the advertisement dated\n03.02.2021 the petitioners applied for the\npost of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander\nand after being successful in the written\nexamination they were called for the\nPhysical Efficiency Test (hereinafter to be\nreferred as PET) in which all the petitioners\nappeared, thereafter, the respondents\ncalled the successful candidates for the\ninterview but since name of the petitioners\ndid not find place in the select list, hence\nthe petitioners approached this Court by\nfiling present writ petitions.4.     Counsels for the petitioners submitted\nthat the respondents have wrongly not\nincluded their names in the list of\nsuccessful candidates of PET. Counsels\nfurther submitted that videography of all\nthe events of the PET has been done by\nthe respondents and the chips were also\nprovided and the petitioners have also\ncompleted the race within the prescribed\ntime which is clear from the chip which\nshows about their running time as\nrecorded      therein.     Counsels    further\nsubmitted that despite having performed\nbetter than the other selected candidates,\neven then, name of the petitioners have\nnot been included in the select list.\nCounsels further submitted that a news\nitem was also published in the newspaper\nregarding wrongful selection of the\ncandidates by the respondents. Counsels\nfurther submitted that no transparency &\nfairness has been maintained by the\nrespondents in the selection process.\nCounsels further submitted that the\nrespondents have failed to separately\ndeclare the marks of the petitioners\ntowards Long Jump, 100 Meter Race and\nChinups etc. Counsels further submitted\nthat the respondents have issued the(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 09:25:10 PM)(4 of 15)               [CW-11639/2022]\n\n\ndefective chips to the candidates. Counsels\nfurther submitted that in such type of\nselection process a committee must have\nbeen constituted to examine the grievance\nof the candidates but it has not been done\nby the respondents.5.    Counsels further submitted that the\nabove referred circumstances demands\nthat the videography of PET conducted by\nthe respondents be summoned & examined\nby this Court for the error committed by\nthe respondents in holding the PET and\nlastly prayed that this Court underArticle\n226holds       power   to examine the\nvideography of the PET conducted by the\nrespondents or in the alternate can direct\nthe respondents to conduct the PET for the\npetitioners afresh within the stipulated\nperiod which this Court may deem just and\nproper.6.    Counsels appearing on behalf of the\nrespondents       submitted     that      the\nrespondents have conducted the selection\nprocess in a fair manner. Counsels further\nsubmitted that for conducting the PET, a\nBoard was constituted of Higher Officers of\nthe Department i.e. Inspector General of\nPolice, Deputy Inspector General of Police\nand Superintendent of Police and the\npetitioners were awarded marks towards\neach event as per the criteria mentioned in\nthe Standing Order No.16/2016. Counsels\nfurther submitted that although the\nallegation of mala-fide & arbitrariness has\nbeen levelled by the petitioners against the\nrespondents but neither any cogent &\ntangible evidence has been placed on\nrecord by the petitioners in support of their\nallegations nor any person by name has\nbeen impleaded as party respondent in\nthese writ petitions. Counsels further\nsubmitted that the petitioners have failed\nto show violation of any Rule or Circular\nissued by the respondents. Counsels\nfurther submitted that the respondents\nhave rightly conducted the selection\nprocess as per the terms & conditions of\nthe advertisement as also the relevant\ncircular/standing order issued in this\nregard and there is no tenable ground\nwhich may call upon this Court to interfere\nand these writ petitions have been filed by\nthe petitioners just to delay the further\ncourse of action to be taken by the\nrespondents in finally completing the(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 09:25:10 PM)(5 of 15)               [CW-11639/2022]\n\n\nselection process and at the present\nmoment the department is facing very\nhard as there is shortage of personnel in\nthe department.7.In support of their contention\ncounsels relied upon the judgment passed\nby the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the\nmatter      ofMadras       Institute     of\nDevelopment Studies & Anr. Vs. K.\nSivasubramaniyan & Ors., reported in\n(2016) 1 SCC 454 wherein it has been\nheld as under :-14. The question as to whether a person\nwho consciously takes part in the process\nof selection can turn around and question\nthe method of selection is no longer res\nintegra.15.InDr. G. Sarana vs. University of\nLucknow & Ors., (1976) 3 SCC 585, a\nsimilar question came for consideration\nbefore a three Judges Bench of this Court\nwhere the fact was that the petitioner had\napplied to the post of Professor of\nAthropology in the University of Lucknow.After having appeared before the Selection\nCommittee but on his failure to get\nappointed, the petitioner rushed to the\nHigh Court pleading bias against him of the\nthree experts in the Selection Committee\nconsisting of five members. He also alleged\ndoubt in the constitution of the Committee.\nRejecting the contention, the Court held:(SCC p.591, para 15)\n"15. We do not, however, consider it\nnecessary in the present case to go into\nthe question of the reasonableness of bias\nor real likelihood of bias as despite the fact\nthat the appellant knew all the relevant\nfacts, he did not before appearing for the\ninterview or at the time of the interview\nraise even his little finger against the\nconstitution of the Selection Committee. He\nseems to have voluntarily appeared before\nthe committee and taken a chance of\nhaving a favourable recommendation from\nit. Having done so, it is not now open to\nhim to turn round and question the\nconstitution of the committee. This view\ngains strength from a decision of this Court\nin Manak Lal's case where in more or less\nsimilar circumstances, it was held that the\nfailure of the appellant to take the identical\nplea at the earlier stage of the proceedings\ncreated an effective bar of waiver against\nhim. The following observations made(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 09:25:10 PM)(6 of 15)               [CW-11639/2022]\n\n\ntherein are worth quoting: (AIR p.432,\npara 9)\n'9. ..."It seems clear that the appellant\nwanted to take a chance to secure a\nfavourable report from the tribunal which\nwas constituted and when he found that he\nwas confronted with an unfavourable\nreport, he adopted the device of raising the\npresent technical point."16.InMadan Lal & Ors. vs. State of JΚ &\nOrs.(1995) 3 SCC 486, similar view has\nbeen reiterated by the Bench which held\nthat: (SCC p.493, para 9)\n"9. Before dealing with this contention, we\nmust keep in view the salient fact that the\npetitioners as well as the contesting\nsuccessful candidates being respondents\nconcerned herein, were all found eligible in\nthe light of marks obtained in the written\ntest, to be eligible to be called for oral\ninterview. Up to this stage there is no\ndispute    between      the   parties.   The\npetitioners also appeared at the oral\ninterview conducted by the Members\nconcerned     of   the    Commission     who\ninterviewed the petitioners as well as the\ncontesting respondents concerned. Thus\nthe petitioners took a chance to get\nthemselves selected at the said oral\ninterview. Only because they did not find\nthemselves to have emerged successful as\na result of their combined performance\nboth at written test and oral interview,\nthey have filed this petition. It is now well\nsettled that if a candidate takes a\ncalculated chance and appears at the\ninterview, then, only because the result of\nthe interview is not palatable to him, he\ncannot turn round and subsequently\ncontend that the process of interview was\nunfair or the Selection Committee was not\nproperly constituted.In the case ofOm\nPrakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla1it has been clearlylaid down bya Bench of\nthree learned Judges of this Court that\nwhen the petitioner appeared at the\nexamination without protest and when he\nfound that he would not succeed in\nexamination he filed a petition challenging\nthe said examination, the High Court\nshould not have granted any relief to such\na petitioner.17.InManish Kumar Shahi vs. State of\nBihar, (2010) 12 SCC 576, this Court\nreiterated the principlelaid down inthe(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 09:25:10 PM)(7 of 15)               [CW-11639/2022]\n\n\nearlier judgments and observed: (SCC\np.584, para 16)\n"16. We also agree with the High Court\nthat after having taken part in the process\nof selection knowing fully well that more\nthan 19% marks have been earmarked for\nviva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled\nto challenge the criteria or process of\nselection. Surely, if the petitioner's name\nhad appeared in the merit list, he would\nnot have even dreamed of challenging the\nselection.     The     petitioner     invoked\njurisdiction of the High Court underArticle\n226of the Constitution of India only after\nhe found that his name does not figure in\nthe merit list prepared by the Commission.This conduct of the petitioner clearly\ndisentitles him from questioning the\nselection and the High Court did not\ncommit any error by refusing to entertain\nthe writ petition."18.In the case ofRamesh Chandra Shah\nand others vs. Anil Joshi and others,\n(2013) 11 SCC 309, recently a Bench of\nthis Court following the earlier decisions\nheld as under: (SCC p.320, para 24)\n"24. In view of the propositionslaid down\ninthe above noted judgments, it must be\nheld that by having taken part in the\nprocess of selection with full knowledge\nthat the recruitment was being made under\nthe General Rules, the respondents had\nwaived their right to question the\nadvertisement or the methodology adopted\nby the Board for making selection and the\nlearned Single Judge and the Division\nBench of the High Court committed grave\nerror by entertaining the grievance made\nby the respondents."8.    Counsels further relied upon the\njudgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the matter ofRajneesh Khajuria\nVs. Wockhardt Limited & Anr., reported\nin (2020) 3 SCC 86, wherein it has been\nheld as under :-17.In another judgment reported asPrabodh Sagar v. Punjab State Electricity\nBoard & Ors.7 , it was held by this Court\nthat the mere use of the expression "mala\nfide" would not by itself make the petition\nentertainable. The Court held as under:(SCC p.640, para 13)\n"13. ... Incidentally, be it noted that the\nexpression "mala fide" is not meaningless\njargon and it has its proper connotation.(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 09:25:10 PM)(8 of 15)               [CW-11639/2022]\n\n\nMalice or mala fides can only be\nappreciated from the records of the case in\nthe facts of each case. There cannot\npossibly be any set guidelines in regard to\nthe proof of mala fides. Mala fides, where it\nis alleged, depends upon its own facts and\ncircumstances. We ourselves feel it\nexpedient to record that the petitioner has\nbecome more of a liability than an asset\nand in the event of there being such a\nsituation vis-à-vis an employee, the\nemployer will be within his liberty to take\nappropriate steps including the cessation of\nrelationship between the employer and the\nemployee. The service conditions of the\nBoard's employees also provide for\nvoluntary (sic compulsory) retirement, a\nperson of the nature of the petitioner, as\nmore fully detailed hereinbefore, cannot\npossibly be given any redress against the\norder     of   the   Board     for   voluntary\nretirement. There must be factual support\npertaining to the allegations of mala fides,\nunfortunately there is none. Mere user of\nthe word "mala fide" by the petitioner\nwould not by itself make the petition\nentertainable. The Court must scan the\nfactual aspect and come to its own\nconclusion i.e. exactly what the High Court\nhas done and that is the reason why the\nnarration has been noted in this judgment\nin extenso. ..."19.In a judgment reported asUnion of\nIndia & Ors. v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.10, it\nhas been held that allegations of mala fides\nare often more easily made than proved,\nand the very seriousness of such\nallegations demands proof of a high order\nof credibility. The Court held as under:\n(SCC p. 770, para 21)\n"21. Doubtless, he who seeks to invalidate\nor nullify any act or order must establish\nthe charge of bad faith, an abuse or a\nmisuse by the authority of its powers.While the indirect motive or purpose, or\nbad faith or personal ill will is not to be\nheld established except on clear proof\nthereof, it is obviously difficult to establish\nthe state of a man's mind, for that is what\nthe employee has to establish in this case,\nthough this may sometimes be done. The\ndifficulty is not lessened when one has to\nestablish that a person apparently acting\non the legitimate exercise of power has, in\nfact, been acting mala fide in the sense of(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 09:25:10 PM)(9 of 15)               [CW-11639/2022]\n\n\npursuing an illegitimate aim. It is not the\nlaw that mala fides in the sense of\nimproper motive should be established only\nby direct evidence. But it must be\ndiscernible from the order impugned or\nmust be shown from the established\nsurrounding factors which preceded the\norder. If bad faith would vitiate the order,\nthe same can, in our opinion, be deduced\nas a reasonable and inescapable inference\nfrom proved facts. (S. Pratap Singh v.\nState of Punjab[(1964) 4 SCR 733 : AIR\n1964 SC 72] .) It cannot be overlooked\nthat the burden of establishing mala fides\nis very heavy on the person who alleges it.\nThe allegations of mala fides are often\nmore easily made than proved, and the\nvery seriousness of such allegations\ndemands proof of a high order of\ncredibility.As noted by this Court inE.P.\nRoyappa v. State of T.N.[(1974) 4 SCC 3 :1974 SCC (LŠ) 165 : AIR 1974 SC 555]\ncourts would be slow to draw dubious\ninferences from incomplete facts placed\nbefore them by a party, particularly when\nthe imputations are grave and they are\nmade against the holder of an office which\nhas    a     high   responsibility    in   the\nadministration.      (See      Indian     Rly.Construction Co. Ltd. v. Ajay Kumar."9.    Counsels further relied upon the\njudgment passed by this court in the\nmatter of Vishwas Sinsinwar Vs. The\nState of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil\nWrit Petition No.1629/2020) decided\non 03.09.2020, wherein para No.28,it has\nbeen held as under:-"28. The third argument raised by counsel\nfor the petitioners with regard to\nsummoning the videography is also not\nacceptable as the respondents have\ndisclosed in their additional affidavit the\npurpose of videography i.e. (i) to ensure\nthat the police personnel deputed at\ndifferent test centres would not favour any\nparticular     candidate   (ii)    to    avoid\nimpersonation (iii) to keep a vigil on law\nand order situation if such a situation\nwould arise.10. Counsels further relied upon the\njudgment passed by the Division Bench of\nthis court in the matter of Jitendra\nRathore Vs. The State of Rajasthan &\nOrs.     (D.B.    Special    Appeal      Writ\nNo.682/2020 & along with other(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 09:25:10 PM)(10 of 15)              [CW-11639/2022]\n\n\nconnected       matters)    decided    on\n25.08.2021, wherein para Nos.13, 19 & 20,\nit has been held as under:-"13. As observed above, the version of the\nappellants that they were informed at the\ntime of PET having qualified the test has\nbeen     found     to    be   baseless.   The\nvideography of PET has not been\nconducted to adjudge or verify the time\ntaken by the candidates in running activity.\nIn order to maintain transparency and to\nhave      effective     control    over    the\nimpersonation       and     favoritism,    the\nvideography was conducted. On complaints\nreceived from unsuccessful candidates, a\nHigh level Committee comprising of\nInspector General of Police (Headquarter)\nRajasthan           Jaipur        (Chairman),\nSuperintendent of Police (Recruitment &\nPromotion      Board)      Rajasthan    Jaipur\n(Member) and Additional Superintendent of\nPolice, Legal Cell, Police Headquarter,\nJaipur (Member) was constituted to\nconsider the grievances of the candidates.\nAfter verification by this Committee, no\ninconsistency was found in awarding the\nmarks in PET. It has been categorically\nsubmitted on affidavit that the accurate\ntime taken in activities of running cannot\nbe ascertained from videography. In such a\nsituation no fruitful purpose would be\nserved by calling the videography in\ncourt. ]19. Above contention is self contradictory\nto the stands taken by the appellants. On\none hand, they claim to have qualified the\nPET, and at the same time, they are\nobjecting the condition of the field being\nmuddy. All the candidates including the\nappellants did not raise any objection at\nthe time of PET. Thus, the objection as to\ncondition of the field is also not tenable at\nall.20. In view of the above discussion and\nreasons stated, we find that the Hon'ble\nSingle Judge has rightly considered all the\naspects of the matter in light of the judicial\npronouncements cited by both the sides.\nNo case is made out to interfere in the\nimpugned order. Accordingly, the present\nspecial appeals are dismissed."11. Counsels further relied upon the\njudgment passed by the Division Bench of(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 09:25:10 PM)(11 of 15)              [CW-11639/2022]\n\n\nthis court in the matter ofState of\nRajasthan & Ors. Vs. Revant Ram\nMeghwal & Ors.reported in 2020(1)\nWLC 255, wherein para No.10, it has been\nheld as under:-"10. In a recent decision of this Court\ndealing with a similar situation, where re-\ntest had not been permitted, but was\ngranted in some other venue a learned\nSingle Judge had held that the refusal to\ngrant a re-test was discriminatory. Setting\naside the Single Judge's order, this court\nheld, after quoting observations in Shravan\nKumar Choudhary vs. The State of\nRajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.\n154/2019 Decided On: 22.05.2019)- which\nhad dealt with precisely the same issue\nconcerning a direction to grant re-test\nbecause stadium conditions were bad, as\nfollows:"9. Granting a second opportunity or re-\ntest, under the circumstances of this case,\nin the court's opinion, would not be a\njustified exercise of judicial review powers.\nNo doubt, the petitioners had 12 hours\nnotice; however all others (including the 23\nwho participated successfully and the 90\nodd others who took part) also had short\nnotice. Furthermore, to compete in a\nphysical efficiency test, it is not the\navailability of a few days or even a couple\nof weeks, that is important. Testing\nendurance parameters, is one of the\nimportant objectives of the PET, which\nincludes a 5 km run to be completed within\na stipulated time. It cannot reasonably be\nargued that such endurance or stamina can\nbe built overnight or in a few days; what is\nessential to do so, is constant and\nconsistent practice. If one keeps these\naspects in mind, it cannot be said that the\nwrit petitioners were placed under such\ntremendous disadvantage as to be the\nreason why they could not clear the PET.10. Another reason, which this court has to\ntake note of is that among the 77 odd\nunsuccessful candidates, only a handful\nhave come forward, claiming prejudice.\nGranting the facility of a re-test to these\ncandidates who approached the court, in\nthe opinion of the court would mean at one\nstroke denying similar treatment to others\nwho have no grievance, and more\nimportantly creating an entirely different\nset of circumstances, from the one under(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 09:25:10 PM)(12 of 15)              [CW-11639/2022]\n\n\nwhich     the    rest    of  the     candidates\nparticipated,      including     those      who\nsuccessfully cleared the PET. This aspect\nwas highlighted recently by this court in\nthe context of recruitment to the post of\npolice constable, where the complaint was\nthat the weather conditions for the 5 km\nrun were not conducive, on account of rain,\nresulting in the candidates' inability to\ncomplete the PET successfully. A Division\nBench of this court, held in Shravan Kumar\nChoudhary vs. The State of Rajasthan &\nOrs. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 154/2019\nDecided On: 22.05.2019) as follows:\n"7. Quite apart from the ground on which\nthe learned Single Judge dismissed the writ\npetition, i.e. delay, this Court is not inclined\nto interfere with the selection process or\nthe impugned order. When a complaint\nsuch as the present one with respect to\nless than ideal conditions or poor\nconditions in which candidates are made to\nperform take up PET is confronted by the\nCourt, it needs to carefully analyse the\nfacts since intervention in judicial review\nhas larger repercussions which affect non-\nparties.8. The state has placed material on record\nto    suggest     that    whatever     be    the\ncircumstances, rain moisture or ideal track\nconditions, of the total number of\ncandidates who participated on the basis of\nprevailing conditions, 45.42 qualified. The\nadditional affidavit (concededly which is\nnot part of the present appeal record as it\nis a part of the record in D.B. Civil Appeal\nNo. 228/19) shows that the variation\nbetween the days like the one when the\nappellant was made to participate and\nother days when there was no rain, was\nnot so significant as to result in\narbitrariness. The chart which is produced\nalongwith the said additional affidavit\nshows that on an average on the best days- when weather conditions were normal,\nthe number of qualified candidates were in\nthe range of 63-64%; the lowest in such\nrange was about 25%. In between, there\nwere days on which the conditions were\nnot ideal as in many venues it appeared to\nhave rained. Having regard to all these\nfactors, it cannot be said that the\nconditions under which the present\nappellant was made to participate in the\nPET were so poor as to deny him a level(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 09:25:10 PM)(13 of 15)              [CW-11639/2022]\n\n\nplaying field. What is a matter of record is\nthat 579 candidates did participate of\nwhom 263 were successful and did qualify.\nIn these circumstances, unless the result\nshows an extremely startling result where\nit can be discerned plainly that no\ncandidate or a very insignificant number of\ncandidates could qualify, the Courts should\nbe very circumspect in returning a finding\nof arbitrariness.9. The judgment of the Allahabad High\nCourt, in the opinion of the Court, is not\napplicable. It is primarily based on the\nreasoning     that    change     in   weather\nconditions result in the change in the rules\nof the game i.e. introducing rules later\nafter    the     commencement        of    the\nrecruitment process. The judgment of the\nAllahabad High Court, with respect, in the\nopinion of the court, does not correctly lay\ndown the law.10. One more consideration persuades this\nCourt to decline relief. It is that out of the\n579     who     participates,    some    were\nsuccessful and some were not. Yet all of\nthem did participate and accepted the\nconditions, as it were. Permitting the\npetitioner/appellant or any other candidate\nthereafter to take a re-test by directing the\nState to hold a fresh PET would itself be an\nunfair procedure as it would not only allow\na few candidates who approach the Court\nto have a second shot or attempt, or a\nsecond innings as it were, but also create\nan unfair advantage inasmuch as the\nconditions would be entirely different and\nperhaps favorable to the candidate. This\nwould result in two yardsticks, being\ninjected into (one whereby all others\naccept participate and are assessed under\npoor conditions, and the second whereby\nthose who approach the Court are given a\nsecond chance, resulting in their competing\nin favorable conditions), in the same\nselection process, which is inherently\nuntenable and contrary toArticle 14and\ncannot be permitted.11. Even in the re-test (which was\nconducted with sufficient notice, in terms\nof the orders of the single judge) only a\nfew (and not all) candidates managed to\nclear the PET. Upholding the grant of a\nsecond opportunity of PET carried out in\nmost favourable circumstances, to only a\nfew, therefore in the opinion of the court,(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 09:25:10 PM)(14 of 15)              [CW-11639/2022]\n\n\nwas not justified. Granting relief also on\nthe ground that there were vacancies\nwhich could be filled with the writ\npetitioners or other candidates, in the\nopinion of the court would mean that the\nexecutive government's choice of selecting\nfrom other candidates, who have since\nbecome eligible, is completely curtailed;\nthe pool from which selection can be\nresorted to might and would be wider;\nhowever, the impugned order restricts it to\nthe petitioners."12. Heard counsels for the parties and\nperused the record.13. These writ petitions filed by the\npetitioners deserve to be dismissed for the\nreasons; firstly, a Board was constituted by\nthe respondents, comprising of Higher\nOfficers of the Department i.e. Inspector\nGeneral of Police, Deputy Inspector\nGeneral of Police and Superintendent of\nPolice to have a check and vigil over the\nholding & completing the PET so as to take\ncare of even each & every iota of problem\nor difficulty which a candidate may face\nduring    the    said   process;   secondly,\nstraightaway the allegation of mala-fides &\narbitrariness has been levelled by the\npetitioners against the respondents but\nneither any material in support of the said\nallegation has been placed on record by\nthe petitioners nor any person by name\nhas been impleaded as party respondent in\nthe writ petitions and there are several\nverdicts of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that\nin absence of sufficient cogent material in\nsupport of the allegation of malafides &\narbitrariness, no credence can be attached\nto the said allegation; thirdly in my\nconsidered view, summoning & showing\nthe videography & chips to each & every\ncandidate will unnecessarily delay the\ncompletion of the selection process as it\nwill open the gates of flood & the pandora\nbox; fourthly the issue of videography &\nChip as argued by counsels for the\npetitioners, has already examined by this\nCourt in detail in the matter of Vishwas\nSinsinwar (supra) and the contention\nraised therein with regard to summoning\nvideography and chip was turned down by\nthis Court in that matter, as such the same\nissue raised herein is of no substance and\nlastly, in view of the judgments referred(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 09:25:10 PM)(15 of 15)              [CW-11639/2022]\n\n\n                                                  above, in my considered view no case is\n                                                  made out for interference by this court\n                                                  underArticle 226of the Constitution of\n                                                  India.14. Hence, these writ petitions fail and\n                                                  are hereby dismissed.15. Copy of the order be placed\n                                                  separately in each file."In that view of the matter, these writ petitions are dismissed\n\n                                   in view of the judgment passed by this court in the matter of\n\n                                   Jugal Kishor Gurjar (supra).(INDERJEET SINGH),J\n\n                                   MG/182 & 192(Downloaded on 25/08/2022 at 09:25:10 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)