JUDGMENT : ALOK SHARMA, J. 1. The petitioner 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. Having passed the written examination he 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. The case of the petitioner is that despite having passed the written examination, he was not informed about the date of participation in PST/PET for reason of which could not prepare there for and denied consideration for appointment to the post of Constable in District Bundi. It has further been submitted that at the time the PET under the Rules of 1989 was conducted on 4.9.2018 at Maharao Ummed Singh Stadium, Nayapura, Kota, the running track was muddied for reason of heavy rains which resulted in obstructing the petitioner's performance up-to his potential and his resultant 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 also in the course of recruitment of Constables under the advertisement dated 25.5.2018 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 & Others vs. State of Rajasthan & Others and other connected matters, SBCWP No.13731/2018. 3. Dr. VB Sharma, AAG appearing for the respondents submitted that instruction no. xiii in the advertisement dated 25.05.2018 provided that [1] (as emphasized by Dr. VB Sharma, AAG) ^^HkRrhZ ÁfØ;k ls lEcafU/kr LFkkbZ vkns'k la[;k&12@2018] 13@2018 fnukad 22-05-2018 ,oa foKfIr foHkkx dh csclkbZV ij www.recruitment2.rajasthan.gov.in/www.police.rajasthan.gov.in miyC/k gSA HkRrhZ ds lEcU/k esa le;≤ ij tkjh lwpuk Hkh csclkbZV ij miyC/k djkbZ tk,xhA** 4. Dr. VB Sharma, AAG submitted that the above instruction clearly provided 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 District Bundi were uploaded on the designated website on 24.8.2018 while the PST/PET for District Bundi were commenced on 4.9.2018 a clear 10 (ten) days later. He submitted that admit cards of the successful candidates in the written examination in respect of District Bundi were uploaded on the designated website on 24.8.2018 while the PST/PET for District Bundi were commenced on 4.9.2018 a clear 10 (ten) days later. The petitioner ought to have been vigilant, kept track of the Police Department website and been informed well in time of the PST/PET date. 5. Dr. VB Sharma 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 in the advertisement dated 25.05.2018, the petitioner was remiss and lethargic and failed to download the requisite 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 an alleged contravention of his legal right before this court. Dr. VB Sharma, AAG further submitted that a similar issue came up before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of Ved Prakash Versus State of Rajasthan & 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 who had failed to act in accordance with instructions for the recruitment process. The court held that the delay in downloading of information in time wholly attributable to a candidate could not be a ground for interference as directed for another chance as "the petitioners cannot be heard to seek a specific personal information in this regard from the respondents." 6. Dr. VB Sharma, AAG also submitted that aside of the above this petition being filed after a delay of over three months from the date of PST/ PET, is also liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. In this regard Mr. H.C. Kandpal submitted that the PST/PET was scheduled on 4.09.2018, result of successful candidates was declared soon-after and those successful appointed, their training has also commenced. In this regard Mr. H.C. Kandpal submitted that the PST/PET was scheduled on 4.09.2018, result of successful candidates was declared soon-after and those successful appointed, their training has also commenced. Interference at this stage would entail a separate training schedule for the petitioner in the event of his passing the PST/PET and a vacant post for his appointment being available and confer on him an advantage of an adverse situation of his own making by his sheer carelessness. It has been submitted that after not having objected at the relevant time, if at all the petitioner could, he has belatedly approached this Court only on 7.1.2019. The delay in approaching this court infact indicates that the case set up by the petitioner is a mere afterthought/intent on misusing the discretionary jurisdiction of this court. 7. Heard. Perused the petition. Considered. 8. Admittedly the petitioner's PET was held on 4.9.2018 at Kota. This petition has been filed on 7.1.2019 after an inordinate and unexplained delay of over three months. There is nothing on record to show that any grievance as now agitated in this petition was set forth by the petitioner at the relevant time. 9. Indeed instruction no. xiii of the advertisement dated 25.05.2018 provided that all candidates seeking appointment as Constable would be obliged to keep abreast of information uploaded on the website of Police Department with regard to the process/progress in the recruitment. 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. The facts of the case on record indicate that following the declaration of the result of the written examination the admit cards of those eligible to participate in the PST/PET for consideration for appointment in District Bundi were uploaded on 24.8.2018. The PST/PET was to commence on 4.9.2018. There was a clear gap of ten days within which the admit card could be downloaded by the successful candidates for participating in the PST/PET at the notified place/time. 10. The PST/PET was to commence on 4.9.2018. There was a clear gap of ten days within which the admit card could be downloaded by the successful candidates for participating in the PST/PET at the notified place/time. 10. Further the condition of the running track at the stadium in issue at the time relevant to PET is a question of fact which this Court would loath to address more so belatedly at this stage when the selection process has been largely completed and those appointed after success in the recruitment 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 Kota on 4.9.2018. There is nothing on record to even prima facie justify the petitioner's allegation, such as weather report with regard to alleged heavy rains at Kota on 4.9.2018. So too there is also nothing on record to establish that the running conditions of track at Kota on 4.9.2018 when the petitioner's PET was held, was not suitable for the test being held. Contrarily the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as to regularity of official acts obtains against the petitioner. 11. I am of the considered view that there is no force in the petitioner's case as there is nothing on record to even remotely so establish that he was in any manner obstructed technically or otherwise from downloading his admit card in time from the website of the Police Department or running track was muddied on 4.9.2018 at Kota when petitioner's PET was conducted. 12. Consequently, no case of contravention of any of the petitioner's legal or fundamental right is made out in this petition. Nor has the petitioner been able to make out any case of any arbitrary action of the respondents to his detriment to warrant interference by this Court. 13. The petition is accordingly dismissed.