SUNIL MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner applied to be recruited as a Constable following the advertisement dated 25.5.2018. Being admitted to the written examination in the recruitment process under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1989'), the petitioner was called for Physical Standard Test (PST) and if successful for the Physical Efficiency Test (PET). The petitioner was finally selected in the ST category to which he admittedly belongs having secured 55.25 marks in the aggregate as against the cut off of 52.875 in that category. Yet he was not appointed. He sought information of the reasons for his non- appointment whereupon it transpired that despite his higher merit he was pushed down in the select list in terms of Rule 14(2)(iii) of the Rules of 1989 for reason of having passed the PST with relaxation i.e. on requirement of chest circumference both inflated and deflated. Resultantly those who had passed the PST without relaxation even if their aggregate mark was lower than the petitioner's were appointed while the petitioner was not.

(2.) Hence the petition alleging that the petitioner being passed with relaxation on PST requirement was wholly arbitrary when in fact he never sought such relaxation as allegedly granted. It is submitted that the alleged relaxation was not required. In the circumstances finding that he was allegedly found not having the requisite chest parameters as per the Rules of 1989, the petitioner had his chest measurements done at the Government Hospital, Alwar where they were found as required under the Rules of 1989. It has been prayed that either the petitioner be therefore placed in seniority in the select list as per his aggregate marks considering him as fulfilling prescribed PST standards as per the Rules of 1989 or in the alternative a Medical Board be appointed by this Court for measurement of the petitioner's chest parameters when both deflated and inflated and appropriate directions as to the petitioner's appointment then be issued by this Court.

(3.) The matter coming up before this court on 11.01.2019, a copy of the petition was furnished to Dr.V.B. Sharma, AAG and it was directed that his name be shown in the cause list. It was then so shown. On the petition then listed before this Court on 26.2.2019, it was recorded as above:-