[2025:RJ-JP:28620] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4985/2012 Desh Raj Yogi S/o Sh. Dhanshi Ram Yogi, Village And Post Khor, Tehsil Behror, District Alwar. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To The Government, Home Department, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Director General Of Police, Police Head Quarter, Jaipur 3. Commandant, Hadi Rani Mahila Batalian I.r., Ajmer. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sorabh Purohit For Respondent(s) : Mr. Somitra Chaturvedi, DGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 29/07/2025 1. This is a second round of litigation on behalf of petitioner, seeking to declare him qualified in the efficiency test of running of 25 rounds in one hour, and to consider his candidature for appointment on the post of Constable (Driver), pursuant to vacancies, notified vide advertisement dated 14.10.2010. 2. As per record, no interim order in favour of petitioner has been passed in the instant writ petition. 3. Indisputably, in the first writ petition being SB Civil Writ Petition No.12695/2011, filed by petitioner, the issue was raised by petitioner that he has wrongly been disqualified in the event of efficiency test related to running of 25 rounds in one hour. The first writ petition came to be disposed of, vide order dated 25.11.2011, with liberty to petitioner to submit a representation [2025:RJ-JP:28620] (2 of 3) [CW-4985/2012] before respondents, to reconsider the qualification of the event of efficiency test of running of 25 rounds within one hour. 4. In pursuance of the order dated 25.11.2011, representation was submitted by the petitioner, which has been decided by respondents, vide order dated 17.02.2012 (Ann.7), whereagainst instant writ petition has been filed. 5. A perusal of order dated 17.02.2012, goes to show that petitioner was declared not qualified in the efficiency test of running, since he completed only 24 rounds within one hour, whereas requirement was to complete 25 rounds in one hour. 6. Counsel for petitioner has raised a point that at the time of deciding the representation of petitioner, respondents were under obligation to show the video clippings, but without showing the video clippings, representation has been decided, which is unjustified. 7. This Court is not convinced with such an argument of the counsel for petitioner since respondents have enclosed the details of petitioner in respect of his efficiency test of running alongwith order dated 17.02.2012. As per details, it is explicit that within one hour, petitioner could complete only 24 rounds, hence, merely not showing the video clippings to petitioner, does not hold him qualified in the efficiency test. Such an argument is merely technical in nature, hence, does not lead to change in merits of the case. 8. Another point, raised by counsel for petitioner that in the details of petitioner, his efficiency test of running has been disclosed to be held on 01.07.2011, whereas his efficiency test was conducted on 30.06.2011, is also does not worth merit [2025:RJ-JP:28620] (3 of 3) [CW-4985/2012] acceptance since in the details, petitioner’s name with code, timings etc. have been indicated. Even if it is assumed that there is mismatch in indicating the date, same does not affect the result of petitioner on merits. 9. As a result, the writ petition is hereby dismissed. 10. Stay application and pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/32