Dhruv Singh Siholiya vs State Of Rajasthan And Ors

Pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.5.2018 for recruitment to the post of Constable (General Duty) under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (hereafter 'the Rules of 1989') on the petitioner applying, he was admitted to the written examination and having passed the said examination. The petitioner was informed and his admit card for PST/ PET was uploaded on the Police Department's website and all candidates were informed in terms of the advertisement in issue i.e. 25.5.2018. The petitioner however appears to have not been able to present himself for the PST/ PET for reasons of which he approached this Court by way of SBCWP No.21114/2018 titled Dhruv Singh Siholiya vs. State of Rajasthan & Others. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 25.10.2018 and the Court had directed the respondents to permit the petitioner amongst themselves on the PST/ PET to be held on 14.11.2018 at 07:00 AM at the Rajasthan Police Academy Stadium, Shastri Nagar, Jaipur. Consequence with regard to the petitioner's appointment to follow, based on his satisfying the prescribed standards under the Rules of 1989 and successfully passing the PET which entailed 5 km run within 25 minutes as prescribed.

Admittedly, pursuant to the court's order, the petitioner participated in the PST/ PET held on 14.11.2018. He however appears to have failed the PET in completing the 5 km race within maximum time permissible. The petitioner has therefore approached this Court once again.

Mr.Rajendra Gouttam appearing for Mr.Chaman Singh counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner could not complete the 5 km run within prescribed time for reasons of faulty lining as he was put at the back of the group on the start of the race.

I am of the considered view that question of the petitioner being allegedly disadvantage at the PET held on 14.11.2018 is a bald allegations without anything more. There is no reason for this court to assume contrarily the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act as to regularity of official acts obtains against the petitioner. The PET in which the petitioner participated on 14.11.2018 was not properly conducting. No malafides have been attributed to any of those conducted the PET. The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be founded on the bald allegations without anything more. More so on the question of fact, in this view of the matter, I am not inclined to interfere in the petition. Dismissed.