Arun Singh v. State Of Rajasthan And Others

Alok Sharma, J.:— The case of the petitioner is that he having passed the written examination for appointment to the post of Constable under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereafter ‘the Rules of 1989’) held pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.5.2018, was called for the Physical Standard Test (PST) and thereafter required to participate in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) which entailed running 5 kms within the prescribed time on 30.8.2018 (which counsel states was extended to 6.9.2018) at Shri Pratap Yadav Stadium, Chitrakoot, Jaipur. He submits that at the time the PET under the Rules of 1989 was conducted on 6.9.2018 at Jaipur, the running track was muddied for reason of heavy rains which resulted obstructing the petitioner's performance up-to-his potential and his failure. It has been submitted that the petitioner should in the circumstances be given another opportunity as given to several candidates who failed the PET at Kota on 8/9/10 September, 2018 vide order dated 27.11.2018 passed by the Principal seat of this Court at Jodhpur in the case of Revant Ram Meghwal v. State of Rajasthan connected matters, SBCWP No. 13731/2018, in the course of recruitment of Constables under the advertisement dated 25.5.2018

2. Heard. Perused the petition. Considered.

3. Admittedly the petitioner's PET was held on 6.9.2018 at Shri Pratap Yadav Stadium, Chitrakoot, Jaipur. This petition has been filed on 4.12.2018 after an inordinate and unexplained delay of over three months. Since then the selection process has been completed and those appointed are undergoing training for over the last two months. The issue with regard to the condition of track in the course of PET for recruitment of Constable in other Districts and Court's order thereon is of no event for the purpose of PET at Shri Pratap Yadav Stadium, Chitrakoot, Jaipur. Aside of the delay in filing this petition, there is nothing on record to even prima facie justify the petitioner's allegation.

4. In view of the overall facts of the case, I am inclined to dismiss this petition both for reasons of laches and it not being supported by any material to make out a case of the petitioner's legal right being infringed.

5. Petition is accordingly dismissed.