ORDER : 1. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that controversy involved in this matter has already been decided by Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in State of Rajasthan & ors. v. Revant Ram Meghwal & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Writ No. 124/2019), decided on 31.07.2019; the operative portion of the said judgment reads as under: “6. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the observations of the Commissioner with respect to each run and the report with the relevant screenshots indicated a meticulous exercise based on available material and an exhaustive report has been prepared. The Single Judge held as follows: “The Commissioner has provided six screen shots of the run, 02 at the beginning, 02 during the run and 02 at/around end of the run. The matting's meant for recording the time of candidates, appear wet, however, the end of the run picture, is quite clear and is representative of the status of the track. The candidate visible in the picture is wearing white sport shoes, which in the pictures are 'sparkling white' at the end of the 5 km. run. The entire visible portion of the shoes from both the cameras indicate that apparently no mud had stuck the said white shoes and therefore, the observations made by the Commissioner i.e. “look at the feet of the running candidates shows that the condition of the track would not have been wet-muddy” cannot be faulted. In view thereof, the submissions sought to be made by learned counsel for the parties qua only one run has no substance. Generally it may be observed, that though the condition of the track essentially is a question of fact which could not have been adjudicated on account of conflicting versions by the petitioner sand the respondents but for the availability of the videography and the court having taken assistance of the Commissioner, whose observations made in this regard have been accepted by most of the petitioners and the respondents and contents thereof not at all in dispute, the same has facilitated the resolution of the issues raised by the petitioner. The efforts made by learned Court Commissioner Mr. Sharad Kothari, Advocate in presenting a report complete in all respects deserves appreciation. The efforts made by learned Court Commissioner Mr. Sharad Kothari, Advocate in presenting a report complete in all respects deserves appreciation. In view of the above discussion, based on the report of the Commissioner, which has been accepted by the parties, and qua one report the feeble objections raised have been rejected by the Court, the cases wherein the track has been found dry & firm / reasonably firm & settle /reasonably firm and the condition of the track was not found as wet-muddy, the petitions filed by the petitioners have no substance, the petitions wherein the condition of the track has been found as reasonably sticky /swampy, muddy & potholed / pretty muddy slightly muddy/ somewhat muddy, the candidates deserve one more opportunity to undergo the PET.” 7. The State in its appeal contends that whether the track was muddy or slippery, as to permit a competitive run for the purpose of recruitment at all, was disputed. It was pointed out that none of the writ petitioners had completed the mandatory run of 13 rounds. The State argues that out of 309 candidates, 159 candidates in-fact participated in the PET, of which 82 qualified. In support of this argument, the State relies upon the additional affidavit filed in a companion case (Suresh Vishnoi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 228/2019), which was heard but later on withdrawn by the candidate. The said affidavit annexes tabular statements that disclose facts and details relating to each stadium and the PET conducted in respect of various Commissionerate and battalion, which was resorted to by the State Police for recruitment of police constables. 8. The State argues that out of the 151 candidates who participated in the PET, no less than 82 (or 54.9%) qualified and were declared successful. Therefore, the approach and directions of the learned Single Judge were not justified, in ordering a fresh PET. 9. Counsel for the writ petitioners urged this court not to upset the orders of the Single Judge, stating that the conduct of a fresh PET provided a level playing field to the candidates, who could not qualify in the previous physical test, especially the 5 km run, because the conditions at the time of the test, and the venue were in the most un-conducive conditions. This resulted in arbitrariness. This resulted in arbitrariness. Counsel emphasized that the mere circumstance that some candidates qualified, or that the petitioners participated during the event, did not render the recruitment process any less illegal or discriminatory. Therefore, the directions impugned by the learned Single Judge were sound, and did not call for interference. 10. In a recent decision of this Court dealing with a similar situation, where re-test had not been permitted, but was granted in some other venue a learned Single Judge had held that the refusal to grant a re-test was discriminatory. Setting aside the Single Judge's order, this court held, after quoting observations in Shravan Kumar Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 154/2019 Decided On 22.05.2019) which had dealt with precisely the same issue concerning a direction to grant re-test because stadium conditions were bad, as follows: “9. Granting a second opportunity or re-test, under the circumstances of this case, in the court's opinion, would not be a justified exercise of judicial review powers. No doubt, the petitioners had 12 hours notice; however all others (including the 23 who participated successfully and the 90 odd others who took part) also had short notice. Furthermore, to compete in a physical efficiency test, it is not the availability of a few days or even a couple of weeks, that is important. Testing endurance parameters, is one of the important objectives of the PET, which includes a 5 km run to be completed within a stipulated time. It cannot reasonably be argued that such endurance or stamina can be built overnight or in a few days; what is essential to do so, is constant and consistent practice. If one keeps these aspects in mind, it cannot be said that the writ petitioners were placed under such tremendous disadvantage as to be the reason why they could not clear the PET. 10. Another reason, which this court has to take note of is that among the 77 odd unsuccessful candidates, only a handful have come forward, claiming prejudice. If one keeps these aspects in mind, it cannot be said that the writ petitioners were placed under such tremendous disadvantage as to be the reason why they could not clear the PET. 10. Another reason, which this court has to take note of is that among the 77 odd unsuccessful candidates, only a handful have come forward, claiming prejudice. Granting the facility of a re-test to these candidates who approached the court, in the opinion of the court would mean at one stroke denying similar treatment to others who have no grievance, and more importantly creating an entirely different set of circumstances, from the one under which the rest of the candidates participated, including those who successfully cleared the PET. This aspect was highlighted recently by this court in the context of recruitment to the post of police constable, where the complaint was that the weather conditions for the 5 km run were not conducive, on account of rain, resulting in the candidates' inability to complete the PET successfully. A Division Bench of this court, held in Shravan Kumar Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 154/2019 Decided On 22.05.2019) as follows: “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 along with 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. 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 in significant 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 favourable 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 favourable conditions), in the same selection process, which is inherently untenable and contrary to Article 14 and cannot be permitted.” 11. Even in the re-test (which was conducted with sufficient notice, in terms of the orders of the single judge) only a few (and not all) candidates managed to clear the PET. Upholding the grant of a second opportunity of PET carried out in most favourable circumstances, to only a few, therefore in the opinion of the court, was not justified. Granting relief also on the ground that there were vacancies which could be filled with the writ petitioners or other candidates, in the opinion of the court would mean that the executive government's choice of selecting from other candidates, who have since become eligible, is completely curtailed; the pool from which selection can be resorted to might and would be wider; however, the impugned order restricts it to the petitioners.” 11. This Court is of the opinion that the same reasoning would apply with greater force and rigour in this case, as well. Out of the 151 candidates who in fact participated in the PET, nearly 55% i.e. 82 qualified. Therefore, it could not be said that the facts showed manifest unfairness or arbitrariness in the case of the petitioners. After all, they like others (both successful and unsuccessful candidates) participated; they could not qualify. But a sizeable number of the participants qualified. Most of those who did not qualify did not approach the court. More number of candidates qualified and passed the PET, than those who did not. If one keeps all these facts in mind, the directions issued in the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the present appeal has to succeed; it is allowed. All pending applications are disposed of.” 2. In view of aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed in the same terms as that of Revant Ram Meghwal (supra). 3. Stay application also stands dismissed accordingly.