Mahesh Nitharwal vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The case of the petitioner is that he having passed the written examination for appointment to the post of Constable under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1989') held pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.5.2018, he was called for the Physical Standard Test (PST) and thereafter required to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) which entailed running 5 kms within the prescribed time on 4.9.2018 at Maharao Ummed Singh Stadium, Kota.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time the PET under the Rules of 1989 was conducted on 4.9.2018 at Kota, the running track was muddied for reason of heavy rains which resulted obstructing the petitioner's performance up-to-his potential and his failure. Counsel submitted that the petitioner has a capacity to run the 5 km within a period of 25 minutes as required to pass the PET. The case of the petitioner is that the representation, with regard to running track conditions not being suitable for PET on 4.9.2018 for reasons of which the petitioner could not perform up-to-his potential, was filed interalia to the Superintendent of Police, Kota on 4.9.2018. No response however emanated from the Superintendent of Police, Kota. It has been submitted that in the case of Revant Ram Meghwal (supra) in respect of PET interalia at Kota on 8/9/10.9.2018, the Court on the basis of the Commissioner report held, that as the PET at Kota on 8/9/10.9.2018 was unfair and vitiated by adverse weather conditions and muddied running track owing which the candidates were disadvantaged, they therefore deserved another chance to participate afresh in the PET for evaluation of their physical efficiency as per the prescribed norms. It has been submitted that the petitioner suffering similar disadvantage as there who participated in the PET at Kota on 8/9/10.9.2018 be given a second chance for the PET as they were in SBCWP No.13731/2018 titled Revant Ram Meghwal & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, and other connected matters decided by the Principal seat of this Court at Jodhpur on 27.11.2018.

Heard. Considered.

There is nothing on record of the petition including any weather report with regard to alleged heavy rains at Kota on 4.9.2018. So too there is also nothing on record to establish that the running conditions of track at Kota on 4.9.2018 when the petitioner's PET was held, was not suitable for the test being held. Merely because the Principal seat of this Court at Jodhpur in the case of Revant Ram Meghwal (supra) held that the track was muddied and not suitable for PET on 8/9/10.9.2018 at Kota, it does not follow as of necessity or as a sequitur that the running track was similarly muddied and not suitable for holding the PET at Kota on 4.9.2018 in which the petitioner participated. It is not in dispute that several of the other candidates, who participated in PET at Kota on 4.9.2018 were selected on the basis of their performance therein. Even the purported representation dated 4.9.2018 to the Superintendent of Police, Kota at the instance of the petitioner complaining with regard to the muddied conditions of the running track for reasons of heavy rains on 4.9.2018, is not without suspicion. There is no proof of the petitioner's representation being furnished to the Superintendent of Police, Kota, as no receipt in regard thereto obtains on record of the petition.

In view of the overall facts of the case, I am of the considered view that no case of any arbitrary action/ omission of the respondents in holding the PET on 4.9.2018 at Kota to his disadvantage or prejudice is made out.

There is no force in the petition. Dismissed.