Rajneesh @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan

This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following

reliefs:-

“1. the respondent department may kindly be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for the appointment on the post of Police Constable in

view of terms of advertisement dated 14.07.2013.

After considering the case of the petitioner, issuedappointment order qua the petitioner for the post of Police Constable with all consequential

benefits.

Any other writ, order or direction, which isfavourable to the petitioner, may kindly be passed, as an alternative relief.

Cost of the writ petition may kindly be awarded tothe petitioner.â€​

 2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the

controversy is covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Ram Chandra Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B.Civil Writ Petition

No.5719/2016 decided on 15.02.2018), which reads as under:

“1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer :-

“1.By an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable

(GD) in pursuance of Rajasthan Poilce Constable, 2013 from the date junior to him in merit were given appointment with all consequential benefits.

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 petitioner.â€​

Learned counsel for the parties agree that the controversy has been decided by this Court in Heera Ram Vs. State & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ

 Petition No.10872/2015) decided on 18.01.2018. The judgment reads as under :-

“1. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs :

“A. by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of

Constable (GD) as per his merit position in the SC category with all consequential benefits.

B. pass any other appropriate relief which this Hon`bleCourt may deem fit, just and proper in the facts and circumstance of the case in favour of the

petitioner.

C. Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour ofthe petitioner.â€​

The factual matrix necessary for adjudication of the writ petition is that the petitioner appeared in the selection process of appointment on the post

of Constable (GD) in pursuance of advertisement dated 14.7.2013 (Annex.1). He secured 64.125 marks, whereas the cut-off for SC category was

60.5, thus, the petitioner being more meritorious candidate than the last selected candidate, thus, was entitled to be appointment on the post aforesaid.

Learned counsel for the respondent states that the disqualification of petitioner was not on account of merit. The petitioner appeared on

08.1.2015 for Physical Fitness and PET. During the fitness his chest was measured by the Selection Board in which chest of the petitioner in deflated

position was found to be 79.80 Cms, whereas as per Rule 14(2) of the Rules of 1989, so also, in terms of point no.8(v) of the advertisement dated

14.7.2013 (Annex.1) for male candidate his chest measurement must be 81 Cms (deflated) and 86 Cms (inflated). However, Clause (iii) of Rule

14(2) provides that “candidates belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe whose height and chest measurements are less by 5 Cms shall be

deemed to be physically fit in case requisite number of suitable SC/ST candidate possessing physical fitness stands as laid down by Rule 14(2) are not

available. Thus, the said relaxation is subject to aforesaid contingency. Since the petitioner’s deflated chest itself was not found to be of

mandatorily required measurement i.e. 81 Cms, therefore, it cannot be said that he fulfilled the requirement of Physical Fitness. Counsel for the

respondent has shown precedent law of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7878/2016, decided on

24.01.2017), the relevant portion of which reads as follows :

“Reply has been filed. In the reply, it is stated that the case of the petitioner was rejected as he did not meet the physical standards test conducted

on 16.03.2015 and the measurement was :

Height 167.40 cms.

Chest (deflated) 84.60 cms.

Chest (inflated) 89.10 cms.

Thus, he fell short of the prescribed height of 168 cms as his height was found to be 167.40 cms and was therefore, declared failed. The petitioner has

challenged the same in the year 2016 i.e. almost after more then one year. Selection list has been finalized. Not a word has been mentioned in the

petition with respect to the delay. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner had filed an appeal before the concerned

authority but the said appeal has not been decided till date. There is no mention with respect to filing of the appeal in the petition nor any appeal has

been placed on record. Reply was filed way back in November, 2016. No rejoinder to the reply has been filed till date. Therefore, the said contention

can only be taken as an afterthought, specially when the respondents too have stated in their reply that no appeal was filed by the petitioner.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the order and judgment dated 04.09.2015 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No. 5079/2015 (Ramswaroop Vs. State of Rajasthan & ors.) vide which a direction was issued to the respondents to arrange fresh medical

examination at the cost of the petitioner. The said order and judgment does not help the petitioner. Petitioner Ramswroop, in the said case had

approached the Hon’ble Court without loosing any time. The question of delay was not before the said Court. The selection process is long over.

The physical test was conducted in the year 2015â€​.

Counsel for the respondent has further shown Division Bench of this Court in Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., D.B. Civil Special

Appeal (Writ) No.107/2017, decided on 13.02.2017, stating that the said judgment has already been affirmed.

It was further argued by counsel for the petitioner that petitioner being more meritorious has been deprived on account of false physical

measurement. Learned counsel for the respondent denied this proposition also and stated that it was open for the petitioner to have preferred an

appeal as and when petitioner had the knowledge of physical examination and since there is no such appeal, the physical condition noted by the

respondents acquired finality.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing record of case and the precedent law, this Court is of the opinion that the case law cited by

the respondent is absolutely applicable in the case in hand as this Court in Devendra Kumar (supra) held that appeal has not been filed in time and

selection process is over, therefore, no interference is called for. Thus, in light of the precedent law as well as taking into consideration the fact that no

appeal having been preferred, no interference is warranted. The writ petition is dismissed.â€​

Since in the present petition, it is also admitted position that the petitioner had secured relaxation under Rule 14 (2) of the Rules 1989 and the other

candidates having physical fitness without taking the relaxation were available, therefore, no cause of indulgence is made out. Hence, the writ petition

is dismissed on the same terms as aforementioned precedent law laid down by this Court in Heera Ram (Supra).â€​

In light of the aforequoted judgment, the present writ petition is also dismissed in the same terms.