DINESH MEHTA,J. - (1.) These review petitions, arise out of separate orders, however passed on one single day, i.e., 22.5.2019, by a Division Bench of this Court, of which, one of us (Dinesh Mehta, J) was a member.
(2.) Many appeals relating to Physical Efficiency Test of Constable Recruitment, were decided by separate orders, considering the difference in facts, particularly with respect to the date, time and place of Physical Efficiency Test, which were held for recruitment to the post of Constable. While deciding the appeals, this Court considered the finding arrived at by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petitions filed by the review petitioners were dismissed.
(3.) For the purpose of deciding these review petitions, the facts which need to be narrated briefly, are as under:- 3.1. The review petitioners - writ petitioners preferred writ petitions before this Court inter alia contending that on the scheduled date when their Physical Efficiency Test(s) were held, the condition(s) of the track was/were not ideal and hence, they were not able to perform to the best of their potential. It was alleged that it rained immediately prior/ during the test, for which the ground/ track became wet/ swampy. 3.2. During the pendency of the writ petitions, learned Single Judge appointed a learned counsel of this court to be a Commissioner, who went through the video recording of the run with respect to the track conditions of various dates and time, when the Physical Efficiency Tests were conducted. 3.3. As neither of the parties had filed any objection with respect to the report submitted by the Commissioner, learned Single Judge decided the bunch of cases on the basis of the report so furnished by the Commissioner and found that except in case of candidates who appeared in the test at Kota- where there were heavy rains on 08.09.2018 at 12:48 pm, in all other cases, the conditions of track were reasonably firm and dry. 3.4. A finding came to be recorded by learned Single Judge that the track conditions did not affect the performance of the candidates. As a result of such finding, writ petitions of those petitioners, who appeared in Physical Efficiency Test at Kota out of the bunch of cases, were allowed and respondents were directed to hold fresh Physical Efficiency Test for such petitioners at Rajasthan Police Training Centre, Mandore Road, Jodhpur. 3.5. It is pertinent to note that said bunch of cases decided by learned Single Judge on 27.11.2018 was led by SB Civil Writ Petition No.13731/2018 (Revat Ram Meghwal Vs. State of Raj. and ors.). 3.6. The candidates, whose writ petitions were dismissed by learned Single Judge, preferred special appeals under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules. Some of such appeals came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court on 30.01.2019. 3.7. While hearing a group of appeals led by DB Special Appeal (W) No.1907/2018 (Ravi Kumar Khatik Vs. State of Raj. and Ors.), the Division Bench of this Court was of the view that learned Single Judge was not justified in drawing the distinction between the conditions when the track looked swampy, muddy potholed and other conditions such as when the track was muddy, slightly muddy and wet. The Division Bench, thus allowed the appeals and set aside the order of learned Single Judge, dismissing the writ petitions. Relevant paras no.8 and 9 of the said judgment are reproduced hereunder:- "8. A look at the data detailed by the learned Single Judge gives a vital information which appears to have been overlooked by the learned Single Judge. At Jaipur, on 29.08.2018 the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted in the morning and in the evening. The condition of the track as of 08:46 A.M. is the same of 04.02 P.M. and this shows the level to which the track had got affected. At Kota, Physical Efficiency Test was conducted at 09:00 A.M., 12:00 Noon and 02:00 P.M. on 07.09.2018, 08.09.2018 and 09.09.2018. The data shows that on all three dates the track was affected due to rainfall. The date of the Physical Efficiency Test held on 10.09.2018 at 09:00 A.M. and 10:00 A.M. shows same position. Physical Efficiency Test conducted in Kota on 11.09.2018 and 13.09.2018 also shows the same position. At Udaipur, Physical Efficiency Test conducted on 07.09.2018 and 08.09.2018 at 11:00 A.M. and 12:00 P.M. likewise shows the track to be affected due to rainfall. 9. Under the circumstances the nuanced distinction drawn by the learned Single Judge as noted above is too tenuous. There is enough material to show that on all the dates the tracks were badly affected due to rainfall and merely because at a given time extent of damage to the track was more vis-a-vis other occasions would be no ground to drawn the distinction as has not been drawn by the learned Single Judge."? 3.8. Some of the appeals came up for consideration before a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, which upon considering the facts appertain, rejected the appeals filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioners. It will be appropriate to make reference of a detailed judgment passed by the Bench on 22.05.2019 in case of Shrawan Kumar Choudhary Vs State of Rajasthan [D. B. Special Appeal (W) No. 154/2019]. 3.9. The review petitioners before us are those, whose appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench on their own facts as the track was not found wet/muddy. 3.10. It is noteworthy that on the day when the special appeals filed by the present review petitioners were dismissed, the Bench had heard the appeal filed by the State against the basic judgment rendered in case of Revat Ram Meghwal (supra), which was allowed by learned Single Judge. Pertinent it is to note, that order in said appeal being DB Special Appeal (W) NO.124/2019 (State of Raj. and Ors. Vs. Revat Ram Meghwal) was reserved on such date, though it was pronounced on 31.07.2019. 3.11. The Division Bench allowed the appeal filed by the State and held that the learned Single Judge was not justified in issuing directions to conduct Physical Efficiency Test afresh as the facts and figures did not show manifest unfairness or arbitrariness. The Division Bench while relying upon its decision dated 22.05.2019 rendered in case of Shrawan Kumar Choudhary (supra) held that learned Single Judge was not justified in undertaking the exercise of going into the status / conditions of the ground. ;