Raj HC | No reason to cancel PET on the basis of a better technique to ensure accuracy in PET; Court dismisses series of petitions

Rajasthan High Court: The Division Bench of Indrajit Mahanty, CJ. and Satish Kumar Sharma, J., dismissed a series of Special appeals (writ) which were filed against order dated 3-9-2020, whereby writ petitions filed by the present appellants and others challenging the result of Physical Efficiency Test (PET) conducted in the recruitment process of Sub Inspector under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereinafter `the Rules of 1989’) had been dismissed.

Pursuant to an Advertisement dated 5-10-2016 recruitment process for the post of Sub Inspector was initiated under the Rules of 1989. As per scheme of the recruitment the candidates securing 36% in each paper and 40% in aggregate in written examination were called upon for PET. The appellants herein after qualifying written examination participated in PET. The result of PET was declared on 8-1-2020, wherein all appellants were declared fail which was challenges by way of writ petitions. During pendency of writ petitions, they were provisionally allowed for the interview, but ultimately, their writ petitions were dismissed by the impugned order, against which these special appeals had been filed.

Counsel for the appellants have contended that at the time of PET, they were informed that they have qualified the test, but afterwards they were deliberately and malafidely declared fail only to accommodate the candidates who were already serving in police department. He further contended that on earlier occasion in the recruitment of police constables, the respondents also used Micro chips for the purpose, but this time instead of Micro chip, stop watch has been used by which accuracy cannot be adhered to, therefore, whole PET deserves to be cancelled or the appellants should be provided one more chance for PET.

Counsel for respondents submitted that the stop watch was used for all candidates in PET. No discrimination was caused to the appellants. They all were aware of using the stop watch, but they did not object to it at the time of PET; therefore, they cannot be now allowed to make objections after they were declared fail in the PET.

Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that videography was conducted for specific purpose i.e. (i) to ensure that the police personnel deputed at different test centers would not favour any particular candidate, (ii) to avoid impersonation, and (iii) to keep a vigil on law and order situation if such a situation would have arisen; and not for adjudging the time taken by the candidates in activities of PET. However, a High

Level Committee was constituted to consider the grievances of the candidates through videography and no inconsistency was found in the marks allocated to the appellants.

The Court found that there is no provision under the relevant Rules that the candidates shall be instantly informed about the result at the time of PET. The Court further found that as per scheme of the recruitment only those candidates are qualified for interview who had secured minimum 50% marks in PET. The present appellants have not obtained the minimum qualifying marks in PET. Hence, even after securing more marks than the cut off, they were not eligible for selection as per Rules. If the present appellants are given one more chance for PET, it would be grave injustice and discrimination with other candidates who have obtained more marks in written test than the appellants, and who also could not qualify PET.

The Court noticed that the contentions of the appellants were self contradictory as on one hand, they claim to have qualified the PET, and at the same time, they are objecting the condition of the field being muddy.

The Court dismissing the petitions found that the Hon’ble Single Judge had rightly considered all the aspects of the matter in light of the judicial pronouncements cited by both the sides.[Jitendra Rathore v. State of Rajasthan, 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 1210, decided on 20-09-2021]


Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Join the discussion

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.