- (1.) Heard counsel for the petitioner.
(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers:- "Hence prayed that your Lordhsips may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and further pleased to: i) direct the respondents to Physical Efficiency Test (PET) of the petitioner and further pleased to ; ii) direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to participate in the further selection process and further pleased to; iii) direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of constable with all consequential benefits, if found suitable in merit."
(3.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition has been considered and decided by a Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Revant Ram Meghwal & Ors. D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 124/2019, decided on 31.07.2019 wherein it has been held as under:- 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 hereaftercalled "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. 4. Since the State had disclosed that it had videographed the runs for various PETs, the Single Judge through order dated 09.10.2018 directed the appointment of a Commissioner to go examine the video footage concerning the particular day when PET was held and report to the Court. In terms of these directions, the Commissioner carried out the task assigned in the presence of counsel representing the parties and submitted his report dated 22.10.2018, along with the external hard disk and 4 pen drives made available to him by the State. The report was taken on record and the Commissioner was requested to supply a copy of the report on pen drive to the counsel representing the writ petitioners. Parties were granted the opportunity to file objections to the report, if any, before the next date; none did. 5. During arguments, the learned counsel for the parties, to the extent the report was in their favour, relied on it. The Single Judge, after considering the parties' arguments, held that the video provided mostly captured the PET from 03 vantage points, 02 front cameras at the starting point and 01 back camera at the finishing point. No videography footage was provided in relation to the overall running track / ground and as such, the Commissioner was able to gauge and report the condition of the track at the start / finish section. The Commissioner, aware that he was not required to draw inferences as to whether the track conditions were impeding to such an extent as to restrict the candidates from finishing the run in a given time frame followed - in the words of the impugned judgment a "doctrinal approach by surveying the available material." The learned Single Judge quoted the observations relevant to each case; in the present case, the commissioner had observed that: "Only the start/finish section of the Jaipur track is visible in the video. The 4:02 P.M. videography reveals existence of water on the track. Though it is difficult to extrapolate the condition of the entire track but by looking at the feet of the candidates, it can be said that the track got reasonably sticky." ;