[2025:RJ-JP:4688-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 305/2023 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.27195/2018 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. The Director General Of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur. 3. The Inspector General Of Police (Recruitment), Rajasthan, Jaipur. 4. The Commissioner, Police Commissionerate, Jaipur. ----Appellants Versus Sanjay Kumar Arya S/o Hari Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Jaisinghpura Tehsil Kotputli District Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Samee Khan on behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad with Mr. Zaid Ul Haq, Mohd. Gholam Noorani, Mr. Prithvi Pal & Mohd. Kasim Khan HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 03/02/2025 1. Heard. 2. The challenge to the order of learned Single Judge is premised on two grounds. 3. The first submission of learned counsel for the appellant- State is that the respondent-writ petitioner did not prefer any appeal, though it was specifically provided in the advertisement that if a candidate is not satisfied with the physical examination results, he/she may file an appeal on that day itself. [2025:RJ-JP:4688-DB] (2 of 4) [SAW-305/2023] The other submission of learned counsel for the appellant- State is that the learned Single Judge has committed illegality in allowing the petition by acting upon chest measurement, which was carried out after about nine months of the initial measurement. 4. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant-State places reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Sanjay Meena (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.6067/2021 and other connected matters, decided on 14.09.2021) and the decision of this Court at Principal Seat Jodhpur in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No.382/2020, decided on 09.09.2020). 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner submits that the first ground is contrary to the pleadings of the case and, therefore, the same may be rejected. He submits that once the respondent-writ petitioner’s appeal was not decided, the respondent-writ petitioner was entitled to appropriate discretionary relief. Learned counsel submits that though this Court had ordered for chest measurement belatedly, the discretion which has once been exercised, may not be interfered with. 6. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner has clearly stated in para 13 of the writ petition that he immediately filed an appeal before the respondents-appellants, but no heed was paid by them resulting in depriving the writ petitioner from appointment on the post of Constable. This averment of fact made on affidavit by the writ-petitioner was not disputed by the respondents-appellants in [2025:RJ-JP:4688-DB] (3 of 4) [SAW-305/2023] their reply. Nowhere in the reply, it has been stated that either no appeal was filed or that appeal was dismissed and the same was communicated. 7. Fairness of the procedure in the process of selection required the appellant-State to provide an opportunity for second measurement on the same day, on appeal being preferred. This is clearly stipulated in Clause 11 (Written Examination), sub-clause (i) (Physical Standard Test) of the Advertisement dated 25.05.2018. It clear provided for an appeal. The provision states that the candidates should be called for Physical Standard Test and the Board after examination, will inform the candidates regarding their measurement. The provision relating to appeal clearly states that if any candidate is not satisfied with the measurement, on submission of fee of Rs.500/-, he/she could appeal against the measurement. If the candidate is successful in the appeal, he/she would be returned the fee and the candidate would be allowed to participate in the further process of selection “Physical Efficiency Test”. 8. As the appellant-State did not dispute specific averments made in the writ petition that the appeal filed by the respondent- writ petitioner was not decided, it is clear that the appellant-State did not act fairly and violated their own guideline. The other important fact of the case is that the respondent- writ petitioner was allowed to participate in the further process of selection i.e. Physical Efficiency Test. It is only after the test were completed that at the time of declaring result, he was declared unfit. This was contrary to the laid down procedure. If the respondent-writ petitioner was not found fit at the time of Physical [2025:RJ-JP:4688-DB] (4 of 4) [SAW-305/2023] Standard Test, he could not be allowed to participate in the further process of Physical Efficiency Test. 9. What appears to be probable is that the respondent-writ petitioner had filed an appeal and though the appeal was not decided, the respondent-writ petitioner was allowed to participate in the further process of selection i.e. Physical Efficiency Test. 10. True it is that the Writ Court directed re-measurement and the same was conducted after nine months, the fact remains that the respondent-writ petitioner was deprived of an opportunity to have second measurement done on that very day even though, he had preferred an appeal. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the re-examination was conducted after about nine months of the test, the respondent-writ petitioner is entitled to appropriate relief, once it has been found that he was deprived of his valuable right of appeal. Examination after nine months of the test is proof of the fact that the respondent-writ petitioner, on the date of re-examination, was otherwise fit and fulfilling the minimum requirement of Physical Standard Test. 11. In view of the above consideration, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/102