Rakesh Kumar Mehara vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

The petitioner applied for recruitment as Constable under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter 'Rules of 1989'), pursuant to an advertisement dated 25.05.2018. Having passed the written examination he was required to participate in the Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) on 9.9.2018. It has been submitted that the admit card for PST/ PET was uploaded only on 7.9.2018 and the petitioner could not conveniently make himself available particularly for PET on 9.9.2018 as he had to travel to Jodhpur which is over a 300 km from Dausa where the petitioner is residing. In the circumstances the petitioner's performance at the PET which entailed running a 5 km race in 25 minutes was sub-par and he could not qualify. It has been prayed that in the circumstances a second opportunity be given to the petitioner to participate in the PET afresh and be considered for appointment based thereon.

Heard. Considered.

The petitioner's admit card for PST/ PET was uploaded on 7.9.2018 and the requisite PST/PET was to be held at Jodhpur on 9.9.2018 after a clear one day gap. Aside of the petitioner, other candidates across the State of Rajasthan who applied for the post of Constable in District Barmer and passed the written examination also had their admit cards uploaded on 7.9.2018. They thereupon participated in the PET at Jodhpur on 9.9.2018. The petitioner himself also so did without demur. No grievance of the alleged short period between the uploading of the admit card and holding of the PST/ PET was made by the petitioner. There is also nothing in law which entitled the petitioner to notice of more than one clear day for the conduct of his PET. After not having objected at the relevant time, if at all the petitioner could, taken his chance and thereafter having failed, the petitioner has approached this Court only on 9.12.2018 i.e. after a delay of over three months from the date of PET in which he failed. The delay in approaching this court is unexplained and infact indicates that the case set up by the petitioner is a mere afterthought/ with an cynical intent to misuse the discretionary jurisdiction of this court. That cannot be countenanced by the court.

I am therefore of the considered view that there is no force in the petition. Nothing on record even remotely establishes, that the petitioner was in any manner obstructed technically or otherwise from giving his best at the PET held on 9.12.2018. The petitioner is also estopped from challenging the conduct of PET on 09.09.2018 in which he willingly participated. An allegation on the examination after failing cannot be permitted.

Consequently, no case of contravention of any of the petitioner's legal or fundamental right is made out in this petition. Nor has the petitioner been able to make out a case of any arbitrary action of the respondents to his detriment to warrant interference by this Court and issue of directions as sought.

The petition is accordingly dismissed.