JUDGMENT Inderjeet Singh, J.:-- Counsel for the petitioners submits that the issue involved in these writ petitions has been considered and decided by the Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the matter of 'Shravan Kumar Choudhary v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors.' (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 154/2019, decided on 22.05.2019) where-in it has been held as under; "1. The appellant is aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ petition. He had complained of arbitrariness in the selection process, i.e. - that the track conditions while conducting the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) were poor inasmuch as the track on which he was made to run was water logged and unfit. The appellant had relied upon the learned Single Judge's ruling in Revant Ram Meghwal & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13731/2018, decided on 27.11.2018]. 2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground, inter alia, of delay, since the writ petition was filed after the decision in Revant Ram (Supra). 3. Learned counsel for the appellant made various submissions. Firstly, it was urged on the basis of findings of Revant Ram (Supra), that the track conditions were undoubtedly poor. In support Mr. Mardia, learned counsel relied on certified photographs stated to be taken at the site and pointed out that the track was extremely wet. He next submitted that the appellant had in fact qualified the run and completed it in 24 minutes for which he could obtain only 5 marks. Mr. Mardia, learned counsel submitted that the appellant fell short by two marks and, therefore, missed being in the select list. More substantially, it was urged that the denial of appropriate conditions amounted to deprivation of fair and objective basis for determining the merit and physical efficiency of the candidate. 4. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. v. Sudhakar Pandey 2014 SCC OnLine All 16518. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the denial of proper conditions amounted to change of circumstances and change of the rules of the game which had been notified previously. It was also submitted that the mere circumstance that others could complete their run successfully and qualify did not preclude the appellant from challenging the procedure as unfair, which it was, in the facts of this case. 5. It was also submitted that the mere circumstance that others could complete their run successfully and qualify did not preclude the appellant from challenging the procedure as unfair, which it was, in the facts of this case. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent urged that this Court ought not interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge. It was submitted that the petitioner did not object to the conduct of the run contemporaneously or immediately thereafter but chose to wait till the judgment in Revant Ram (Supra) was delivered. It was further argued that as far as the objective conditions are concerned, it had rained only in the morning for about four hours i.e 8:30 a.m. - 12:30 p.m. At the time that the petitioner was asked to take the PET i.e after 5 p.m., there was in fact no rain. Learned counsel relied upon the material on record - which appear to be part of the additional affidavit filed by the State in D.B. Civil Appeal No. 228/2019 (Suresh Bishnoi v. State) to state that on the particular date i.e. on 4th September, 2018, out of the 579 candidates who qualified and were entitled to participate in the test, as many as 263 candidates in fact qualified. 6. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court on which reliance has been placed inter alia held as follows: "22. It is pertinent to mention hereunder that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had dealt with the aforesaid question in the matter reported in Rajesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.; (2005) 5 SCC 172 wherein it has been held that where the criteria of preparation of merit was subsequently changed after holding of the examination, no candidate had any occasion to protest as such the plea of promissory estoppel would not apply where the candidates who had applied but not selected had challenged the said selection in the candidates who had applied but not selected had challenged the said selection in the writ petitions, as nothing was established to show that they had altered their position to their detriment by applying pursuant to the advertisement. 23. 23. Therefore, submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the contesting respondents on the strength of the decision rendered in Ranjit Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (in Writ Petition No. 61659 of 2010 & other connected matters), that the view taken by the Selection Board is perverse and blunder has been committed by the Selection Board, is factually correct. It may be noted that the Court is under constitutional obligation to interfere in such matters, otherwise it would amount to confer immunity to selection Board in the matters of conducting selection in illegal and arbitrary manner. In these circumstances, it is wrong to say that the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge are perverse and erroneous. 25.(iii) This Court is of the view that once Board had issued circular dated 20.07.2011 clearly providing that alternative filed shall be arranged where there is no possibility of water logging, the concerning authorities were not justified in holding the Physical Efficiency Test on 21.7.2011 and 22.7.2011 at the same track and field where, admittedly, there was water logging and the condition of track/ field was improved by putting sand, etc. In case no alternative track/ field was available which does not appear to have been searched by the opposite parties, the Physical Efficiency Test scheduled for 20.7.2011 to 22.7.2011 should have been postponed and held on some other subsequent dates when the conditions of ground were improved and conducive to hold the test. The representations of petitioners could not have been rejected on the ground that some persons were able to successfully complete the physical Efficiency Test as it was a test for determining the minimum standard of physical efficiency and not comparative physical efficiency. In case a person is more physically efficient, it does not mean that the other person is not having the normal standard of physical efficiency as per requirement. It is to be noted that the delay of more than one hour 31 minutes to start the test on 21.7.2011 at Azamgarh and the report dated 23.7.2011 aforesaid clearly goes to show that the condition of ground on which the test was held was not conducive to hold the Physical Efficiency Test. The candidates were first subjected to physical labour by bringing and putting sand over the water logged portions before they could participate in the test. The candidates were first subjected to physical labour by bringing and putting sand over the water logged portions before they could participate in the test. It is a matter of common knowledge and common prudence that the efficiency of a candidate participating in Physical Efficiency Test would be much better than a candidate or the person who is first subjected to physical labour for more than one and half hour and thereafter asked to run 10 kms in 75 minutes that too in such adverse conditions. As such the authorities holding the Physical Efficiency Test on 21.7.2011/ 22.7.2011 had not acted in accordance with the circular dated 20.7.2011 and had rather violated the said circular". 7. Quite apart from the ground on which the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, i.e. delay, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the selection process or the impugned order. When a complaint such as the present one with respect to less than ideal conditions or poor conditions in which candidates are made to perform take up PET is confronted by the Court, it needs to carefully analyse the facts since intervention in judicial review has larger repercussions which affect non-parties. 8. The state has placed material on record to suggest that whatever be the circumstances, rain moisture or ideal track conditions, of the total number of candidates who participated on the basis of prevailing conditions, 45.42 qualified. The additional affidavit (concededly which is not part of the present appeal record as it is a part of the record in D.B. Civil Appeal No.228/19) shows that the variation between the days like the one when the appellant was made to participate and other days when there was no rain, was not so significant as to result in arbitrariness. The chart which is produced alongwith the said additional affidavit shows that on an average on the best days - when weather conditions were normal, the number of qualified candidates were in the range of 63-64%; the lowest in such range was about 25%. In between, there were days on which the conditions were not ideal as in many venues it appeared to have rained. Having regard to all these factors, it cannot be said that the conditions under which the present appellant was made to participate in the PET were so poor as to deny him a level playing field. In between, there were days on which the conditions were not ideal as in many venues it appeared to have rained. Having regard to all these factors, it cannot be said that the conditions under which the present appellant was made to participate in the PET were so poor as to deny him a level playing field. What is a matter of record is that 579 candidates did participate of whom 263 were successful and did qualify. In these circumstances, unless the result shows an extremely startling result where it can be discerned plainly that no candidate or a very insignificant number of candidates could qualify, the Courts should be very circumspect in returning a finding of arbitrariness. 9. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court, in the opinion of the Court, is not applicable. It is primarily based on the reasoning that change in weather conditions result in the change in the rules of the game i.e. introducing rules later after the commencement of the recruitment process. The judgment of the Allahabad High Court, with respect, in the opinion of the court, does not correctly lay down the law. 10. One more consideration persuades this Court to decline relief. It is that out of the 579 who participates, some were successful and some were not. Yet all of them did participate and accepted the conditions, as it were. Permitting the petitioner/ appellant or any other candidate thereafter to take a re-test by directing the State to hold a fresh PET would itself be an unfair procedure as it would not only allow a few candidates who approach the Court to have a second shot or attempt, or a second innings as it were, but also create an unfair advantage inasmuch as the conditions would be entirely different and perhaps favorable to the candidate. This would result in two yardsticks, being injected into (one whereby all others accept participate and are assessed under poor conditions, and the second whereby those who approach the Court are given a second chance, resulting in their competing in favorable conditions), in the same selection process, which is inherently untenable and contrary to Article 14 and cannot be permitted. 11. For the above reasons, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed". Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG and Mr. 11. For the above reasons, the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed". Dr. V.B. Sharma, AAG and Mr. Rupin Kala, G.C. have not disputed the fact of passing of the judgment in the matter of Shravan Kumar Choudhary (supra). In that view of the matter, all these writ petitions are dismissed in view of the judgment passed in the matter of Shravan Kumar Choudhary (supra).