BHIM SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER by this writ petition has prayed that a direction should be issued to the respondent to hold the parade test for sending him to undergo promotion cadre course for placing his name on the approved list of Sub -Inspector of Police. Petitioner was initially appointed as a Constable in Civil Police in the Police Department. Thereafter he was promoted to the post of Head Constable, then to the Assistant Sub -Inspector of Police and then to the post of Sub -Inspector of Police in officiating capacity. The petitioner while working as Sub -Inspector of Police, to Rishabh Deo appeared in the qualifying examination as provided in the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1974 (here in after referred to as the Rules). He successfully passed the written test as well as the interview. Petitioner while working on the post of Sub -Inspector, at Rishabhdeo went for investigation to Jaipur on 28 -12 -1983 in Criminal Case No. 152/83 under Section 302 IPC. When he returned back to the Police Station, Rishabhdeo on 5 -1 -1984 he came to know that a radiogram message was received requiring him to appear for out door test on 5 -1 -1984 at Udaipur. This radiogram message was received in the Police Station on 29 -12 -1983 by the Wireless Operator. As soon as the petitioner reached Rishabh Deo on 5 -1 -1984 he immediately rushed to Udaipur and he was allowed to take P.T. test and 8 kms walking test he moved an application for taking parade test but the same was not taken on the ground that the parade test had already taken place on January 1, 1984. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has been wrongly denied to undergo the parade test.

(2.) IN the reply filed by the respondents, they have not disputed the position that the petitioner had gone to Jaipur for investigation of case No. 152/83 but no positive reply has been filed showing that the petitioner was intimated about the date of the parade test and its time well in advance. From the factual averments made, it is apparent that the petitioner had gone to Jaipur for investigation of a criminal case and he returned back on 5 -1 -1984 and as soon as he came to know about it he rushed to Udaipur and he was permitted to undergo the P.T. as well as walking tests, but parade test was not taken because he had not appeared for the same. The question is whether the petitioner was informed that parade test is going to be held on 5 -1 -1984 or not. When the petitioner had gone on duty for investigation of a case to Jaipur, it was the duty of the respondent to have intimated him at Jaipur that parade test is going to be held on 5 -1 -1984 so that he should make himself available at Udaipur on 5 -1 -1984. It has not been shown that whether the petitioner was really informed of this fact or not. This may be a bona fide lack of communication, but the petitioner cannot be put to permanent loss. It would have been fair and just that when the petitioner reached Udaipur on 5 -1 -1984 and requested the Authorities that for this bonafide reason he could not appear in time, they should have considered the matter sympathetically and should have taken the parade test but the same seems to have not been done. In all fairness it would not have mattered much if the parade test of the petitioner had taken on 5 -1 -1984 when P.T. Test and walking test was taken.