STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. REVANT RAM MEGHWAL
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (AT: JODHPUR)
STATE OF RAJASTHAN
Revant Ram Meghwal
Click here to view full judgement.
S.RAVINDRA BHAT, J. -
(1.) The State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal, aggrieved by directions issued in a batch of writ petitions filed by candidates for the post of Police Constable, who claimed directions to re-schedule and re-conduct their Physical Efficiency Test ('PET') and based on its result, appoint them as Constable (General) / Constable Driver etc. By the impugned judgment, a learned single judge allowed the writ petition and issued the direction claimed.
(2.) The recruitment to the post of Constable (by the appellant State) was initiated through an advertisement dated 25.05.2018, whereby District / Unit-wise posts under various categories were specified. The prescribed method for recruitment was through a written examination followed by Physical Standard Test ('PST') and Physical Efficiency Test ('PET'). The PET envisioned a 5 km. run which had to be completed in a maximum of 25 minutes for candidates other than Ex-serviceman and those belonging to Shahariya and SC/ST of TSP area for whom the maximum time provided was 28 minutes and 30 minutes respectively. The writ petitioners, (respondents hereafter called "the candidates") after qualifying the written examination, were called for PST/PET by uploading their admit cards. The PET was scheduled on various dates and at designated stadiums where all the candidates appeared, passed PST and then participated in the 5 km. run for PET, in which the candidates failed. In their writ petitions, the common allegations levelled were that the venue where they undertook the PET run, experienced heavy rains, which resulted in the running track getting muddy. Therefore, the candidates faced problems and could not perform to their potential.
(3.) It was alleged by the candidates that the PET being conducted despite the poor condition of the stadium/track, resulted in the candidates failing in the PET. All writ petitions contained omnibus averments irrespective of the fact of whether the petitioners could complete the 5 km. run or not; in some writ petitions news-paper cuttings and certain photographs of the stadiums were annexed to substantiate the allegations made in this regard. The authenticity of the same and whether the status of the stadiums had any relevance to the PET undertaken by the petitioners could not assessed. The State resisted the writ petitions and urged that despite rains, the ground conditions did not hamper the candidates in undertaking the 5 km. run; several other candidates had participated in the PET and had cleared the test. The State relied on certain data produced for the perusal of the Court to say that the ratio of the successful candidates to the unsuccessful candidates was more or less the same during the entire period when the PET was conducted i.e. 04.09.2018 to 13.09.2018. Therefore, irrespective of the ground being rain affected, no relief was warranted.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.