ALOK SHARMA,J. - (1.) This petition relates to candidate who applied for recruitment as Constable under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter 'Rules of 1989'), pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.05.2018. The petitioner having passed the written examination in terms of Rules of 1989 was required to participate in the Physical Standard Test (PST) and Physical Efficiency Test (PET) on the date notified on the Police Department's website indicated in the advertisement.
(2.) (2 of 7) [CW-26981/2018] The case of the petitioner is that despite having passed the written examination, he could not participate in PST/PET for the reason that he could not download the admit card being a resident of rural area. Resultantly he was denied consideration for appointment to the post of Constable in Jaipur. Mr.H.C. Kandpal, Asst. GC appearing for the respondents submitted that instruction no.xiii in the advertisement dated 25.05.2018 provides that ...[VARNACULAR TEXT UMITTED]... (as emphasized by Mr.H.C. Kandpal) Mr.H.C. Kandpal submitted that the above instruction clearly provides that all information pertaining to recruitment of Constables in the recruitment of 2018 from time to time would be made available on the website of the Police Department. He submitted that admit cards of the successful candidates in the written examination in respect of Jaipur Commissionerate were uploaded on the designated website on 24.8.2018 and the PST/PET for Jaipur Commissionerate were commenced on 29.8.2018 - a clear 5 (five) days later. Mr.H.C. Kandpal submitted that if inspite of the information of the dates of PST/PET in various districts being uploaded on the website of the Police Department as provided for in the instructions of the advertisement dated 25.05.2018, the petitioner was remiss and lethargic because of his failure to download the said information timely and for this reason was unable to appear for the PST/PET on the due date, he can have no cause to agitate before this court. Mr.H.C. Kandpal further submitted that a similar issue came up before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Ved Prakash Versus State of Rajasthan and Others, SBCWP No.18065/2018 decided on 27.11.2018. Therein while dismissing the petition the court held that as the requisite information with regard to the holding of PST/PET was uploaded on the website of the Police Department as indicated in instruction no.xiii of the advertisement dated 25.05.2018, the respondent-Police Department could not be held responsible for the failure of the petitioners to keep abreast with the available information as to the dates of the PST/PET and be directed to provide another opportunity for PST/PET to the petitioners. The court held that the delay in downloading of information well in time could not be a ground for interference. The court further held that "the petitioners cannot be heard to seek a specific personal information in this regard from the respondents." Mr.H.C. Kandpal also submitted that aside of the petitioner having no case on merit in view of the specific instruction in the advertisement with regard to the obligation of the candidates to keep abreast of the information of recruitment process 2018 for the post of Constable from time to time on the Police Department's website indicated, this petition being filed after a delay of more than 3 months also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. In this regard Mr.H.C. Kandpal submitted that last of the PST/PET as per the original schedule was held on 15.09.2018, result of successful candidates declared and those successful appointed, the training of those so appointed also commenced. The petitioner has belatedly approached this court with delay without just cause and to grant indulgence to him by directing a fresh PST/PET for him, even in the absence of just cause and legal ground, would disrupt the whole training schedule and confer on the petitioner an advantage of an adverse situation of his own making by his sheer in-aptitude, carelessness and delay. Further the delay in approaching this court infact indicates that the case set up is a mere afterthought intent on misusing the discretionary jurisdiction of this court. Mr.Kandpal submitted that this court should not exercise it discretionary jurisdiction in the facts as no equity for the petitioner can be found. Heard. Considered.
(3.) Indeed instruction no.xiii of the advertisement dated 25.05.2018 provided that all candidates would be obliged to keep abreast of information uploaded on the website of Police Department with regard to the process/progress in the recruitment for the post of Constables in 2018. That instruction of the advertisement is not under challenge before this court. Consequently in determining the issue agitated by the petitioner the aforesaid instruction will have to be taken into consideration.;