Rajasthan Public Service Commission vs Ms. Parvinder Kaur and Others

Amitava Roy, C.J.

In Misc. Application 244/2014 seeking condonation of delay:-

Heard Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel for the applicant.

On a consideration of the averments made in the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the delay of 43 days in filing the accompanying D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 649/2014 is condoned.

The misc. application stands allowed.

In Appeal:-

Heard Mr. Tanveer Ahmed, learned counsel for the appellant-Commission and Mr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

Briefly stated, the facts relevant for the disposal of the instant appeal are that the respondent herein had responded to the advertisement issued by the appellant-Commission in the year 2010 for direct recruitment to the post of Sub Inspector of Police, whereafter she was duly allotted her roll number and was issued the admission card. She appeared and cleared the written examination, and thereafter, as required, appeared in the Physical Efficiency Test, which included five events i.e. Long Jump, High Jump, Short-Put, 100 metres Race and 200 metres Race. According to her, she did exceptionally well in the disciplines of Short-Put, High Jump and Long Jump. Alleging that as on the basis of deliberate irregularities and anomalies committed by the respondent No. 4 (in the writ petition) vis-�-vis the segment of race, she was eventually, disqualified and thus, was not called for the interview, she approached this Court seeking its intervention.

The respondents in the writ petition denied the allegation and claimed that the Physical Efficiency Test had been conducted strictly as per the instructions. Be that as it may, the learned Single Judge, on an assessment of the attendant facts and circumstances, disposed of the writ petition with the following operative directions:-

In view of the discussion made above and looking to the peculiar controversy and to do complete justice, I am of the opinion that as an exceptional case, official respondents are directed to undertake event of race in regard to the petitioner and record her timings and award marks accordingly. It may be undertaken in presence of an independent officer. If petitioner secures any marks in the race, which may be appropriate to qualify her in the physical efficiency test, her case may be considered for appointment as per merit and rules. Required exercise may be completed within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

Thereby, the official respondents in the writ petition were directed to undertake the event of race qua the writ petitioner and record her timings and award marks accordingly. They were further required that if the writ petitioner, on the basis of her performance, could qualify in the Physical Efficiency Test, her case be considered for appointment as per merit and the rules.

Alleging inaction inspite of such clear and unequivocal directions, the writ petitioner filed S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 208/2013 contending that though she had qualified in the Physical Efficiency Test, the appellant-Commission had not arranged for her interview, as ordered. By order dated 16.12.2013, this interim application was allowed directing the appellant-Commission to hold interview of the writ petitioner, and further required the State Government to provide her appointment, if, on the basis of her performance, she could come within the zone of merit. In passing this order, the learned Single Judge noticed that in between, the writ petitioner had qualified in the Physical Efficiency Test.

Mr. Ahmed has urged that as meanwhile, the recruitment process is long over and the Interview Board has been disbanded, it has not been feasible for the appellant-Commission to conduct interview exclusively for the writ petitioner. According to the learned counsel, such a course would also not be in conformity with the professed norms vis-�-vis the exercise already undertaken.

Mr. Sharma, in reply, has argued that not only, this plea, in absence of any challenge to the judgment and order dated 15.2.2013, is untenable, the appellant-Commission is obliged in law to comply therewith, and that, this appeal does not merit acceptance.

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the pleaded facts and the documents on record, we are inclined to sustain the plea raised on behalf of the writ petitioner (respondent herein).

The instant appeal is clearly against the order dated 16.12.2013 rendered in S.B. Civil Misc. Application No. 208/2013 seeking a direction to the appellant-Commission to hold interview in compliance of the judgment and order dated 15.2.2013 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7822/2012. That meanwhile, the writ petitioner has qualified in the Physical Efficiency Test conducted by the concerned respondents (in the writ petition), is a matter of record and has been noticed by the learned Single Judge. A bare perusal of the operative directions contained in the judgment and order dated 15.2.2013 demonstrates that in terms thereof, the writ petitioner (respondent herein), having qualified in the Physical Efficiency Test, she has a right thereunder to have her case considered further for appointment as per merit and the relevant rules. Though Mr. Ahmed has endeavoured to contend that the rules involved as well do not permit such a course, we are not inclined to uphold this demur, principally, on the ground that the judgment and order dated 15.2.2013 has not been appealed against by the appellant-Commission. As is apparent from this decision dated 15.2.2013, the directions issued by the learned Single Judge, on being satisfied that the facts involved, did present an exceptional case warranting such directions.

In the above view of the matter, we do not see any merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. The stay application also stands rejected. IA No. 23799/2014 is disposed.