Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 285 (RAJ)

Suman Bishnoi v. State of Rajasthan

2019-01-22

ARUN BHANSALI

body2019
JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to redraw a new merit and afford appointment to the petitioner on the post of Police Constable. 2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that the petitioner applied for the post of Constable General Non TSP pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.05.2018. In the written examination petitioner secured 43 marks and was called for PST and PET. In PST the petitioner passed the same and it is claimed that in PET also petitioner completed the run within the stipulated period. 3. In the final selection cut off issued by the respondents for the post in district Nagaur, where the petitioner had applied, the cut off in petitioners category i.e. OBC has been indicated as 37.75 and as the petitioner had obtained more marks even in the written examination and then passed her PST and PET, she was entitled to be afforded appointment. However, in the select list her name is missing and, therefore, the action of the respondents in this regard needs to be rectified. 4. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, inter alia, indicating that as per the physical standards laid down, the minimum weight for a Constable General (Female) is required to be 47.5 kg.; during the PST, despite the petitioner failing the minimum weight requirement, she was declared to have cleared the PST. However, on a complaint being made in this regard, she was weighted thrice in presence of Superintendent of Police, I.G. Police, Ajmer Range and Principal, Physical Training Institute, Kishangarh, Ajmer, wherein, in three weighing scales her weight has been indicated as 39.9 kg., 40 kg. and 39.9 kg. respectively. 5. A note-sheet in this regard was prepared and videography was also done, petitioner herself signed the proceedings and, therefore, once the petitioner failed in the PST, she was ineligible and was therefore not accorded appointment and, as such, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 6. By order dated 14.01.2019 the respondents were directed to produce the videography conducted by the respondents during the course of rechecking of the petitioners weight as indicated in Annexure-R/1. 6. By order dated 14.01.2019 the respondents were directed to produce the videography conducted by the respondents during the course of rechecking of the petitioners weight as indicated in Annexure-R/1. A DVD has been produced by the respondents and has been perused by the Court, wherein, the indications made in the note-sheet Annexure-R/1 with regard to the weight of the petitioner are fully substantiated 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that petitioner may be afforded one more opportunity to get her physical standard (weight) checked in view of the discrepancy on part of the respondents. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 9. As noticed vide Annexure-R/1, the petitioner was subjected to rechecking of weight on three different scales, wherein, weight of the petitioner was much below the required minimum weight and petitioner placed her signatures on the said proceedings, however, in the writ petition the petitioner chose not to disclose the said fact and came out with the facts as if proceedings as indicated in Annexure-R/1 did not happen, which clearly amounts to suppression of material facts on part of the petitioner. 10. The weight being a variable factor/standard, the prayer made that the petitioner may now be again subjected to rechecking/reconfirmation of her weight, also cannot be accepted. 11. Besides the above, as the rechecking of the petitioners weight has been undertaken in presence of three high level officers of the Police, who have also signed the proceedings, which have been cross-checked from the videography, there is no reason to disbelieve the said proceedings. 12. In view of the above discussion, as the petitioner has failed in the PST on account of being under weight, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition filed by the petitioner has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.