Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 2530 (RAJ)

Prahalad Khemada v. State of Rajasthan

2019-09-18

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved against non-selection of the petitioner for the post of Constable General for District Bhilwara pursuant to the Constable Recruitment-2018. 2. The petitioner on clearing the written examination was called for PST on 06.09.2018. The petitioner cleared the Physical Standard Test ('PST') and participated in the Physical Efficiency Test ('PET') and cleared the same as well. 3. In the list of selected candidates, the name of the petitioner did not appear despite petitioner obtaining higher marks than the cut-off in his category i.e. SC. The petitioner sought information under Right to Information Act from the respondents, which indicated that the petitioner had obtained 05 marks in the PET, however, the copy of the result, which was not too legible indicated as if chest measurement of the petitioner normal was 27.06 cm. and expanded was 87.9 cm. 4. After filing the petition, an additional affidavit was filed alongwith further documents indicating that the petitioner got himself examined by the Medical Officer Incharge, Community Health Centre, Gotan, Nagaur, which indicated that normal chest of the petitioner as 81 cm. and in the RTI, again the petitioner was informed that during PST his normal chest was 77.6 cm. and expanded 87.9 cm. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondents in coming to the conclusion that the normal chest of the petitioner was 77.6 cm. is contrary to the report of the Medical Officer Incharge (Annex.7), which has indicated the same as 81 cm. and therefore, the action of the respondents in not selecting the petitioner on account of provisions of Rule 14(2)(iii) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 ('the Rules'), is not justified. 6. Submissions have been made that the petitioner may be got re-examined by the Medical Board, in this regard reliance has been placed on order dated 04.10.2018 passed by this Court in Kamlesh Kumar Vaishnav v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : SBCWP No.15253/2018. 7. It is further submitted that the indication made regarding expansion of about 10 cm. is per se not possible. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that the indication made in the result regarding the chest measurement of the petitioner is correct and there is no scope for doubting the said measurement indicated in the said result. 7. It is further submitted that the indication made regarding expansion of about 10 cm. is per se not possible. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents made submissions that the indication made in the result regarding the chest measurement of the petitioner is correct and there is no scope for doubting the said measurement indicated in the said result. Further submissions have been made that the report of the Medical Officer Incharge pertains to a period after six months and the very nature of measurement of chest is variable and therefore, the said report in this regard cannot be relied on by the petitioner and therefore, the prayer for subjecting the petitioner to further medical examination by the Medical Board after passage of now over one year be rejected and the writ petition be dismissed. 9. Further submission was made with reference to the entire list of about 757 candidates that the plea raised regarding improbability of the candidate expanding his chest by 10 cm. has no basis as there were large number of instances wherein the candidates being expanded their chest to the said extent even beyond it. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record alongwith the combined merit list for the post of Constable General due for District Bhilwara, which was produced for perusal of the Court under directions. 11. The facts are not in dispute wherein the petitioner applied in the category of SC for the post of Constable General, passed the written examination and was subjected to PST/PET. The provisions of Rule 14(2)(iii) of the Rules are very clear, wherein in the case of candidates belonging to SC/ST category, they are entitled to relaxation of 5 cm. in case of measurement of chest, however, it is provided that in case, the candidates of the same category with normal measurement are available, they would be given preference irrespective of the marks obtained by the candidates. The normal measurement of the chest has been indicated as 81 cm. In the PST, the chest measurement of the petitioner has been indicated as 77.6 cm., which was the normal standard and the petitioner was granted relaxation and he was permitted to participate in the PET. 12. The normal measurement of the chest has been indicated as 81 cm. In the PST, the chest measurement of the petitioner has been indicated as 77.6 cm., which was the normal standard and the petitioner was granted relaxation and he was permitted to participate in the PET. 12. The challenge led by the petitioner based on the report dated 27.03.2019 (Annex.7) and now offering to subject himself to further examine by the Medical Board, cannot be granted. 13. As submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, the measurement of chest in contradistinction to measurement of height is variable, which based on exercise etc. can be developed. Admittedly, the petitioner was subjected to PST on 06.09.2018 by the respondents and after more than 07 months, the petitioner got himself examined by the Medical Officer Incharge on 27.03.2019 and now after passage of over one year, his offering to subject himself for medical examination by the Medical Board, cannot be granted. 14. In so far as the order in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Vaishnav (supra) is concerned, the said order was passed on 04.10.2018 i.e. (within almost one month) of the date the petitioner therein was subjected to PST by the respondents and therefore, the said order cannot be relied on by the petitioner. 15. In so far as the submission made regarding improbability of the petitioner expanding the chest by the petitioner is concerned, a look at the list produced by the respondents containing the result of 757 candidates reveals that the submissions made in this regard are also contrary to the fact situation, wherein several of the candidates have expanded their chest beyond 10 cm. One such candidate being one Ravi Vishnoi, who had normal chest 89.8 cm., which has been expanded to 100.1 cm. and another candidate Arjun Ram, who had normal chest 89.9 cm., which has been expanded to 102.9 cm. (these names are within first 20 candidates out of 757 candidates). 16. In view thereof, no case for interference is made out in the present writ petition, the same is, therefore dismissed.