JUDGMENT : 1. At the outset, it may be noticed that Advocates have taken a call to abstain from judicial work and not to appear in Courts since 20th February, 2023 onwards and today as well, no advocate for and on behalf of petitioner(s) has put in appearance, therefore, few of petitioners, who are present in person, have been heard. Since grievances of petitioner(s) in these writ petitions, are substantially similar, therefore, all these writ petitions have been considered on merits as per material available on record and are being decided by this common judgment. 2. It appears from record that petitioners having participated and qualified written examination of Rajasthan Police Constable Examination-2021, for appointment on the post of Constable in different categories, but could not appear/qualify the Physical Efficiency Test (hereinafter for short “PET”) due to remaining absent being unfit on the scheduled date(s) for such test, because of suffering from either serious sickness or injury. And therefore, petitioners have preferred these writ petitions, praying for an another chance/opportunity for PET and to re-fix/reschedule dates for their PET and consequently, to consider their candidature for appointment on merits. 3. In support, petitioners have placed reliance on a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 24.08.2020 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.17260/2019 titled Deepak Singh Khatana Vs. State of Rajasthan, wherein the Court, after placing reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mahendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [ (2019) 13 SCC 706 ], in somewhat similar facts and circumstances, in respect of recruitment for the post of Sub Inspector, pursuant to advertisement dated 05.10.2016, declared that since petitioner was suffering with dengue fever at the time of scheduled date of his Physical Efficiency Test, therefore, he deserved second chance to appear in PET/PST, and accordingly, directed respondents to re-conduct the PET/PST for the petitioner. It has also been stated by petitioners that since they have qualified the written examination and were eligible to appear for PET, however because of unwanted and unavoidable circumstances of suffering from serious sickness/injury, could not appear in the PET on the scheduled date(s), and it is not deliberate or negligent fault on part of petitioner(s), therefore, sympathetic view be taken in favour of petitioners and one more chance/opportunity to participate in the PET be accorded to petitioners, so that their candidature may be considered for appointment on merits in the present recruitment process-2021. 4. Learned counsel for respondents, while opposing writ petitions, contend that for appointment on the post of Constable in various districts, the recruitment process was initiated vide advertisement dated 29.10.2021 under provisions of Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (as amended) (hereinafter for short “the Rules of 1989”). He has pointed out that in the advertisement itself it was specifically indicated that determination of vacant posts, qualification, eligibility and procedure of recruitment etc. would be governed as detailed out in Standing Order (S.O.) No. 29/2021 dated 03.09.2021, issued by the Police Headquarter, Rajasthan, Jaipur. He has pointed out that Clause No.9 of the advertisement, prescribed the procedure of recruitment, which reads as under:- 9- HkrhZ gsrq p;u izfØ;k& dkaLVscy in ij p;u jktLFkku iqfyl v/khuLFk lsok fu;e] 1989 ds fu;e 25 ,oa jktLFkku iqfyl vf/kfu;e 2007 ds fu;e 28¼3½ ds izko/kkuqlkj fd;k tk;sxkA ijh{kk ds lHkh pj.kksa ds dqy 200 vad gSa ftudh xj.kk fuEukuqlkj dh tk,xh%& ijh{kk dk pj.k dkaLVscy lkekU;@iqfyl nwjlapkj dkaLVscy pkyd cS.M fyf[kr ijh{kk 150 150 ykxw ugha 'kkjhfjd n{krk ijh{kk 30 20 20 n{krk ijh{kk ykxw ugha 30 30 fo'ks"k ;ksX;rk ¼,u-lh-lh- gksexkMZ ,oa iqfyl ls lEcaf/kr fo"k;ksa esa fMIyksek@mikf/k izkIr½ izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij vkcafVr fd;s tkus okys vad 20 ykxw ugha ykxw ugha vadksa dk ;ksx 200 200 50 5. Learned counsel for respondents has placed on record, a copy of the S.O. No.29/2021 dated 03.09.2021 on record and has pointed out that as per Clause 9 of the same, it is clear that the process of selection for the post of Constable shall be as per provisions under Rule 25 of the Rules of 1989 and in Part-I, the manner and syllabus of written examination is prescribed and in Part-II, the manner of PET is prescribed. It has been provided in Part-II that all candidates, declared successful in written examination, shall undergo Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and Physical Standard Test (PST) at a date and place specified by the DGP. PET will be held first followed by PST. In respect of PET, it is specifically stated that marks obtained in the PET shall be considered for determining the merit of successful candidates. The Candidates will undergo the PET at their own risk. Any candidate failing in PET will be disqualified. Only one chance shall be provided for PET. There will be no appeal for PET. Candidate shall be required to submit a Fitness Certificate issued by a Government Medical Officer, prior to appearing for PET. In respect of women candidates who are pregnant, it is stipulated that if a pregnant women candidate presents herself before the Board, the Board shall decide for extension of PET/PST after consideration of marks obtained in the written exam. The candidate so allowed shall submit an application for conducting PET/PST after a period of two months of her delivery. Failure to do so, will result in cancellation of her candidature. 6. Learned counsel for respondents contended that as per terms and conditions indicated in the advertisement dated 29.10.2021 as also in the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, it stands clear that there is no provision/rule to provide another chance/opportunity for PET, if candidate does not appear in PET on or between the scheduled date(s) for his/her PET. Only relaxation, in case of pregnant women candidates has been provided, subject to prescribed limits as indicated in the S.O. dated 03.09.2021. It has been submitted that indisputably, none of the petitioner(s) has/have appeared in the PET on or within the fixed time, date and scheduled for physical test. In absence of any provision/rule, the deferment and extension of PET beyond the prescribed schedule was not permissible and therefore, request of deferment of PET by petitioner(s), as per suitability of candidates, on acquiring their fitness, was not acceptable. Learned counsel submits that schedule of PET in respect of the present recruitment of Constable has over and the process of selection has already been completed. Learned counsel submits that prayer made by petitioner(s) is not liable to be acceptable and all these writ petitions are required to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel submits that schedule of PET in respect of the present recruitment of Constable has over and the process of selection has already been completed. Learned counsel submits that prayer made by petitioner(s) is not liable to be acceptable and all these writ petitions are required to be dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for respondents has placed reliance on order dated 18.09.2018 passed in SB Civil Writ Petition No.14086/2018 titled Sunil Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan which was affirmed by the Division Bench in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1685/2018 vide order dated 14.11.2018. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court dated 30.01.2020 passed in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1310/2019 titled Dropadi Jyani Vs. State of Rajasthan. Further the order/judgment dated 09.11.2022 passed by the Division Bench in DB Special Appeal Writ No.1129/20252 titled State of Rajasthan Vs. Bharat Yadav as also on the order dated 03.02.2023, passed by the Division Bench in DB Review Petition (Writ) No. 218/2022, affirming the order dated 09.11.2022, have also been placed on record. In all these cases, prayer for deferment of PET of the petitioner(s), was declined in absence of any provision either in the advertisement or in the relevant Rule or Standing Order. 8. Heard. Considered. 9. A copy of the advertisement dated 29.10.2021, whereby the recruitment process-2021 for appointment on the post of Constable was initiated and a copy of the S.O. No.29/2021 dated 03.09.2021, are available on record. A perusal of relevant Clause No.9 of the advertisement dated 29.10.2021 as mentioned hereinabove as also Clause 9 of the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, clearly indicates that the process of selection for the post of Constable shall be as per provisions under Rule 25 of the Rules of 1989. It is not in dispute that final merit list for selection for the post in question of Constable, is to be prepared on the basis of marks obtained in written examination as well as in PET, therefore, it is essential for candidate to successfully qualify the PET/PST as per the prescribed criteria, for consideration of his/her candidature for selection on merit. In the advertisement dated 29.10.2021, it is specifically indicated in bold letters that the procedure for selection shall be governed and finalized as per the S.O. No.29/2021 dated 03.09.2021. In the advertisement dated 29.10.2021, it is specifically indicated in bold letters that the procedure for selection shall be governed and finalized as per the S.O. No.29/2021 dated 03.09.2021. In the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, it is stipulated that any candidate failing in PET will be disqualified and only one chance shall be given for PET and there will be no appeal for PET. As much as candidate shall be required to submit fitness certificate issued by the Government Medical Officer prior to appearing for PET. There is no provision in the advertisement/S.O for deferment or providing a second chance/opportunity for PET, except in case of pregnant women candidates. It is admitted case of petitioner(s) that he/she was/were given an opportunity to appear in the PET as per the schedule during which the PET was conducted by respondents. Petitioner(s) failed to appear in PET for which petitioner, states different reasons either because of suffering from serious sickness/injury or fever, for whatsoever reason may, but it is undisputed fact that petitioner(s) did not appear for PET on the scheduled time & date(s). As per scheme of preparing merit list, in absence of appearing in PET, the candidature of petitioner(s) cannot be considered for appointment on merits. Therefore, petitioner(s) has/have made prayer for an another chance/opportunity and to reschedule the date for their PET. But petitioner(s) have failed to point out any provision or rule under which they can claim another chance/opportunity for the PET, to enable them for consideration of their candidature for appointment on merits. 10. In case of Deepak Singh Khatana (supra) on which petitioners have placed reliance, learned Single Judge has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered in case of Mahendra Pratap Singh (supra). A perusal of judgment of the Apex Court, indicates that in the said case, the Competent Authority had issued a circular permitting candidates to participate in Physical Efficiency Test on any subsequent date, who have not participated in the Physical Efficiency Test on account of physical illness. A perusal of judgment of the Apex Court, indicates that in the said case, the Competent Authority had issued a circular permitting candidates to participate in Physical Efficiency Test on any subsequent date, who have not participated in the Physical Efficiency Test on account of physical illness. The case of petitioner(s) in the said case was that though they were not physically fit to participate in the PET and yet, they were compelled to participate therefore, on the basis of circular issued by the Competent Authority fixing a subsequent date and deferring the physical test for those candidates who were unable to participate for physical test on account of their physical illness, petitioners sought a second chance. Under that peculiar facts and circumstances, prayer to grant second chance to petitioner(s) for PET/PST was acceded. This Court cannot and does not disagree with the ratio of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Mahendra Pratap Singh (supra), however, applying that ratio to the facts of case at hand, there is no provision neither in the advertisement dated 20.09.2021 nor in the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, by which indisputably the present recruitment process for appointment on the post of Constable-2021 is governed, for providing a second chance/opportunity for PET to candidates who did not/could not appear for PET on the scheduled time & date(s). Rather under Clause 9 of the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, it is specifically stipulated that “only one chance shall be given for PET”. Thus in absence of any provision or rule for deferment or providing a second chance/opportunity of PET, in the present recruitment process, the judgment of the Apex Court in case of Mahendra Pratap Singh (supra), and the judgment of Coordinate Bench in case of Deepak Singh Khatana (supra) do not render any help/support to the case of petitioner(s). 11. On facts of the present case, the ratio of law as expounded in cases of Sunil Kumar (supra) & Dropadi Jyani (supra) stands squarely applicable. In case of Sunil Kumar (supra) vide order dated 18.09.2018, learned Single Judge has observed as under : “The petitioner has participated in a recruitment process, where the appointments are required to be granted based on inter se merit of the candidates by including the marks obtained at Written Examination and PET subject to their fulfilling PST. In case of Sunil Kumar (supra) vide order dated 18.09.2018, learned Single Judge has observed as under : “The petitioner has participated in a recruitment process, where the appointments are required to be granted based on inter se merit of the candidates by including the marks obtained at Written Examination and PET subject to their fulfilling PST. Though unfortunate it is that the petitioner suffered accident and consequential knee surgery, the PET of the petitioner cannot be postponed indefinitely, i.e. till such time the petitioner declared fit to undergo PET. A bare look at the requirements of PET indicates that the same is quite stressful, wherein a candidate is required to run for 5 kilometers within maximum 25 minutes, based on which, the marks are awarded. The Doctors have presently advised the petitioner to avoid running in any form for next 3 months and, therefore, it is absolutely speculative as to when the petitioner would gain medical fitness to undertake 5 kilometers running and, therefore, the plea seeking deferment of the PET of the petitioner cannot be countenanced.” The aforesaid order/judgment dated 18.09.2018 has been affirmed by the Division Bench in DB Special Appeal (Writ) No.1685/2018 vide order dated 14.11.2018 and held as under : “Successfully clearing the written examination for being appointed as a Constable GD the problem which the appellant faced was of not being able to participate at the physical efficiency test to be held on 10.09.2018. During the physical efficient test, the petitioner was required to run 5 kms. in 25 minutes. The appellant suffered an accident and had to undergo operation of the left knee on 03.08.2018 he was advised not to run for the next three months. 2. The appellant made a request to defer he being subjected to the physical efficient test, the department refused because this would have delayed drawing up to the final merit list and those who had cleared the written examination and had also cleared the physical efficient test. The appellant filed a writ petition as under: 12. Medical Examination:- Immediately after the declaration of the merit list, candidates whose names appear in the merit list shall be required to undergo a Medical Test by a Government Medical Officer. The appellant filed a writ petition as under: 12. Medical Examination:- Immediately after the declaration of the merit list, candidates whose names appear in the merit list shall be required to undergo a Medical Test by a Government Medical Officer. The Appointing Authority shall move the Chief Medical and Health Officer/Principal Medical Officer concerned to detail one or more medical officers, as required, for this purpose as per enclosed proforma (Annexure E). Candidates who are found temporarily unfit and whose defect can be rectified within 6 months as per the opinion of the Medical Officer shall be eligible for appointment after the said period provided they are found fit by medical board. Candidates who fail to conform to the prescribed standards of medical fitness even on re-examination within stipulated time shall be declared medically unfit for appointment and their candidature shall stand cancelled. 3. The learned Single Judge has correctly pointed out that the said clause pertained to the requirement of government servants to be declared medically fit after being medically examined before they are to joint government service. The clause simply records that those fond temporarily medically unfit and whose defects can be rectified within six months, shall be eligible for appointment after said period provided they are found to be fit by the medical board. The clause does not relate to deferment of undergoing physical examination test.” (Emphasis Supplied) 12. The Division Bench, in case of Dropadi Jyani (supra), followed and placed reliance on the observations made in case of Sunil Kumar (supra), dismissed the special appeal vide order dated 30.01.2020, declining to accord any second chance for the Physical Test. 13. The ratio of law as expounded in the case of Sunil Kumar (supra) of learned Single judge and in case of Dropadi Jayani (supra) of the Division Bench, have been followed by the Division Bench, recently in case of State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Bharat Yadav & Anr. in DB Special Appeal Writ No.1129/2022 vide order dated 09.11.2022 wherein the order of learned Single Judge, allowing writ petition and issuing direction to respondents to re-conduct the PET of petitioner in respect of recruitment for the post of Constable, was quashed and special appeal was allowed. Vs. Bharat Yadav & Anr. in DB Special Appeal Writ No.1129/2022 vide order dated 09.11.2022 wherein the order of learned Single Judge, allowing writ petition and issuing direction to respondents to re-conduct the PET of petitioner in respect of recruitment for the post of Constable, was quashed and special appeal was allowed. Further, Review Petition (Writ) No. 218/2022 preferred to review the final order dated 09.11.2022, came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.02.2023 and while dealing the alternative argument of learned counsel for review petitioner, which has also been made here that since petitioner had qualified the written examination, but could not appear in PET due to meeting with an accident and suffering an injury/illness, therefore, sympathetic view to allow him in PET be taken. The Division Bench has observed as under – “We find no force in the alternative argument of the counsel for the Review Petitioner that sympathetic view be taken in favour of the petitioner. Sympathy alone cannot be a ground to grant relief to the petitioner. It is well settled principle of law that sympathy which is not within the precincts of law, cannot be the basis to grant something which is otherwise impermissible. The relief sought for cannot be granted to the review petitioner by adopting a sympathetic view.” 14. At this juncture, this Court deems it just and proper to make a clarification that in case of Sunil Kumar (supra), the appellant relied upon the Clause 12 of the Standing Order, seeking deferment of Physical Efficiency Test and the Division Bench, in its order dated 14.11.2018, has observed that the Clause 12, extracted in the order itself, does not relate to deferment of undergoing Physical Efficiency Test. In the present S.O. dated 03.09.2021, Clause 12 pertains to medical examination in similar terms finds place, but such Clause talks about medical examination of those candidates who have declared successful on merits after qualifying the written test and PET/PST. The medical examination, conducted under Clause 12 is not applicable before completion of selection process and at the stage of appearing for PET. Thus, it is made clear that the Clause 12 of the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, does not come to rescue to the petitioner(s) for seeking deferment of the PET. 15. The medical examination, conducted under Clause 12 is not applicable before completion of selection process and at the stage of appearing for PET. Thus, it is made clear that the Clause 12 of the S.O. dated 03.09.2021, does not come to rescue to the petitioner(s) for seeking deferment of the PET. 15. For the reasons and discussions made hereinabove, the prayer of petitioner(s) to provide second chance/opportunity for PET is not acceptable and instant writ petitions, having no substance, are hereby dismissed. No costs. 16. Interim stay order(s) passed in favour of petitioner(s), if any, stand(s) vacated accordingly. 17. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. 18. Copy of this judgment be placed in each file.