JUDGMENT ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct Physical Efficiency Test of the petitioners afresh after giving reasonable notice of date and time for conducting the test for recruitment on the post of Constable. 2. It is inter alia indicated in the writ petitions that an advertisement dated 25/5/2018 was issued by the respondents for recruitment on the post of Constable. The advertisement provided for three stage selection i.e. (i) Written Examination (ii) Physical Standard Test (PST) & (iii) Physical Efficiency Test (PET). For district Sirohi post of Constable in various categories i.e. Constable (GD), Constable (Driver), Constable (TSP) and Constable Driver (TSP) were advertised and the same were further bifurcated in General, OBC, SC & ST. The written examination was conducted on 14/15.7.2018 and the result was declared on 30/8/2018 in which all the petitioners qualified and became entitled to participate in PST & PET. For the purpose of PET a candidate is required to run 5 km. within certain time period based on which he is awarded marks, wherein, time allowed is maximum 25 minutes and in case of candidates with relaxation, 30 minutes. 3. It is inter alia indicated that after declaration of result on 30/8/2018, on 4/9/2018 a press note was released by the respondents on the website of the department requiring the candidates, who have qualified written test, to appear for PST & PET at 6.00 am on the very next date i.e. 5/9/2018 at Rajasthan Police Training Centre, Jodhpur. 4. It is claimed that after making lot of efforts, the admit card was downloaded late in the evening/night and after taking the print out of the admit card, the petitioners from their respective places left for Jodhpur, reached Jodhpur during night and reported for PST/PET at 6.00 am, they cleared the PST and underwent PET. All the petitioners have failed in PET by various length of time. Petitioner Maldev Devasi missed it by 44 seconds. 5. All the petitioners have failed in PET by various length of time. Petitioner Maldev Devasi missed it by 44 seconds. 5. It is inter alia indicated that the admit cards could be downloaded late in the night and the petitioners were required to travel to Jodhpur during night in crowded buses on account of 'Ramdevra fair', were not in normal physical condition to undergo PET, however, as a specific stipulation was indicated that in case the petitioners failed to appear for PST/PET, no second chance would be given, which forced the petitioners to participate and on account of extra ordinary conditions they failed in the PET. 6. It is submitted that thereafter on 7/9/2018, the respondents have passed an order giving one more opportunity to the candidates, who could not appear on 5/9/2018 in PST/PET. It is submitted that the petitioners, who despite suffering adversities had participated in PST/PET were put at a disadvantageous position to whose who did not appear at all and, therefore, in those circumstances the petitioners are entitled for grant of one more opportunity in this regard. 7. Reliance has been placed on the judgment in Ajay Kumar Yadav vs. State of U.P. and Others. : Special Appeal Defective No.1068/2012 decided on 10/12/2012 by Allahabad High Court. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents, though did not dispute the facts regarding declaration of result on 30/8/2018, uploading of the admit cards at 6.00 pm on 4/9/2018, holding the PST/PET on 5/9/2018 at 6.00 am and that those absent on 5/9/2018 having been given another opportunity on 7/9/2018 and 11/9/2018 to appear for PST/PET. However, it is submitted that the case of petitioners, who have failed cannot be compared with those, who did not appear. 8. It was further submitted that on 13/8/2018 a notification was issued by the respondents to the effect that the candidates, who are declared successful in the written examination must remain prepared for the purpose of PST/PET as they may be called for the same at any point of time and, therefore, it was required of the petitioners to remain prepared for the same. It was submitted that the prayer made in this regard does not require any consideration and the petitions deserve to be dismissed. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. It was submitted that the prayer made in this regard does not require any consideration and the petitions deserve to be dismissed. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. The facts are not in dispute, wherein, on 30/8/2018 result of the written examination was declared and on 4/9/2018 at 6.00 pm the respondents chose to upload the admit cards calling the successful candidates to appear for PST/PET at 6.00 am on 5/9/2018. A bare look at the admit cards, which have been downloaded by the petitioners and have been annexed with the writ petitions indicate that petitioner Rajesh Kumar downloaded the admit card at 10.07 pm, Dhan Raj at 11.19 pm, Maldev Devasi at 8.46 pm, Lakha Ram Meena at 8.17 pm, Gangesh Meena at 8.16 pm, Gova Ram at 8.51 pm, Rajendra Pal Singh at 10.13 pm and Mahendra Kumar at 8.07 pm etc. and they were required to appear at 6.00 am on the next morning at Jodhpur i.e. they were required to travel from their respective places to Jodhpur and participate in the PET at 6.00 am. 9. and they were required to appear at 6.00 am on the next morning at Jodhpur i.e. they were required to travel from their respective places to Jodhpur and participate in the PET at 6.00 am. 9. The respondents were well aware of the status of the uploading and the kind of opportunity which was provided to the candidates for appearing for PST/PET, which is reflected from the communication dated 7/9/2018 addressed by the Commissioner of Police, Jodhpur, Chairman of the Selection Board, to the Superintendent of Police, Jalore, Pali and Sirohi, Members of the Selection Board, inter alia indicating as under: ^^mijksDr fo"k;kUrxZr ys[k gS fd izklafxd vkns'k ds lUnHkZ esa v|ksgLrk{kjdrkZ }kjk fnukad 04-09-18 o 05-09-18 dks ftyk ikyh] fnukad 05-09-18 fljksgh ,oa fnukad 05-09-18 o 07-09-18 dks ftyk tkyksj ds dkfu- HkrhZ o"kZ 2018 esa fyf[kr ijh{kk esa mŸkh.kZ gq, vH;FkhZx.k dk 'kkjhfjd ekirkSy ,oa n{krk ¼vkÅVMksj½ ijh{kk jktLFkku iqfyl izf'k{k.k dsUnz] e.Mksj jksM] tks/kiqj es yh xbZ gSA bl nkSjku vkids ftyksa ds dbZ vH;FkhZx.k dks 'kkjhfjd ekirkSy ,oa n{krk ijh{kk dh le; ij lwpuk izkIr ugha gksus ds dkj.k fu/kkZfjr fnukad ,oa le; ij mifLFkr ugh gks ik;sA lEHkor% iqfyl osc lkbZV ij vH;FkhZx.k ds 'kkjhfjd ekirkSy ,oa n{krk ijh{kk gsrq viyksM fd;s x;s izos'k i=ksa esa rduhdh dkj.kksa ls nsjh gksus ds dkj.k dqN vH;FkhZx.k dks le; ij lwpuk izkIr ugha gks ikbZA fnukad 07-09-18 dks ftyk tkyksj o fljksgh ds ,sls dbZ vH;FkhZx.k dks vkÅVMksj ijh{kk esa mifLFkr gksus dk volj iznku fd;k x;k FkkA^^ 10. A perusal of the said communication would reveal that several of the candidates for lack of information in time could not appear for PST/PET and possibly on account of technical reasons of uploading the admit cards on the Police Department's website, they did not receive information in time, therefore, an opportunity in this regard was granted to the candidates, who did not appear. The admission of the respondents regarding the nature of communication sent to the candidates is glaring and it is also apparent that the respondents for reasons best known to them, chose to grant almost no time to the candidates for appearing in PST/PET. 11. The admission of the respondents regarding the nature of communication sent to the candidates is glaring and it is also apparent that the respondents for reasons best known to them, chose to grant almost no time to the candidates for appearing in PST/PET. 11. Despite specifically putting a query to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents as to what prompted the respondents in holding the PST/PET on such a short notice and why the candidates could not be given sufficient time in this regard, no convincing response was forthcoming, as initially it was submitted that probably on account of availability of ground for PET a short notice was given, however, the said reason appears to be baseless inasmuch as the ground to be used for the purpose is the Rajasthan Police Training Centre, Mandore Road, Jodhpur, which is respondent's own ground. 12. The other submission made by learned counsel for the respondents i.e. as the notification dated 13/8/2018 was issued to the effect that candidates, who are declared successful in the written examination must remain prepared for the purpose of PST/PET as they may be called for at any point of time and, therefore, the candidates cannot make any grievance, is also baseless inasmuch as the said notification was issued for the candidates who had cleared the written examination, however, the result of the petitioners was declared on 30/8/2018 and, therefore, the notification dated 13/8/2018 (Annex.R/1) was not meant for them. 13. Besides the above fact, another important aspect which is required to be noticed is that despite holding PST/PET on 5/9/2018 and on subsequent dates, a lot of posts in all categories are lying vacant as is evident from the chart made available by the learned counsel for the respondents, wherein, for the post of Constable (GD) out of 50 posts, 20 are vacant, for Constable (Driver) out of 16 posts, 11 are vacant, for Constable TSP out of 92, 88 are vacant, and for Constable Driver (TSP) 05 out of 05 posts are vacant. In view of the vacancies available, despite PST/PET held twice by the respondents, the respondents otherwise cannot have any objection in case the petitioners, despite adversities, as noticed hereinbefore, attempted their PST/PET and failed, some by very small margin, are accorded one more opportunity in this regard. 14. In view of the vacancies available, despite PST/PET held twice by the respondents, the respondents otherwise cannot have any objection in case the petitioners, despite adversities, as noticed hereinbefore, attempted their PST/PET and failed, some by very small margin, are accorded one more opportunity in this regard. 14. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Yadav came to the conclusion that though it is true that a person is not entitled to the post for which he is not eligible/qualified/fit, a candidate must be given a reasonable time to prepare for the endurance test and what amount of time would be reasonable depends upon the severity of the physical test and as the appellant therein was not given adequate time and indication, the Court granted another opportunity to the appellant for facing endurance test. The SLP against the order was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court. 15. The principle laid down in the case of Ajay Kumar Yadav clearly applies to the facts of the present case. Consequently, for granting inadequate time and indication to the petitioners for appearing in PET, the action of the respondents in this regard cannot be sustained and the petitioners are entitled to another chance to clear the PET. 16. During the course of submissions, when it was put to both the learned counsel regarding reasonable time within which PST/PET can be held for according one more opportunity to the petitioners, both the sides submitted that the same may be held on 15/10/2018 at Rajasthan Police Training Centre, Mandore Road, Jodhpur. 17. In view of the above discussion, the rejection of the petitioners candidature on account of their failure to clear the PET on 5/9/2018 is quashed, the respondents are directed to hold fresh PET for the petitioners only on 15/10/2018 at Rajasthan Police Training Centre, Mandore Road, Jodhpur and if they pass in PET and stand in over all merit, they may be accorded appointment pursuant to the advertisement dated 25/5/2018. No order as to costs.