Colony, Near Abhinav School, Subhash Circle, Basant Vihar, Kota v. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary

Judgment

4. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Forest, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur. Principal Conservator Of Forest, Department Of Forest, Near Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur. Divisional Forest Officer, Bundi, Department Of Forest, Bundi. Vandana Sharma W/o Vishal Shringi, Pragya Nagar, Bijaynagar, Ajmer, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pradeep Singh For Respondent(s)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 16/07/2025

1. Heard counsel for respective parties, perused the pleadings and material available on record.

2. Instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner way back on 23.03.2011, seeking following prayer:- “i) by an appropriate order or direction respondents may kindly be directed not to treat the petitioner unsuccessful in Physical test and by an order, direction or mandamus respondents be directed to consider the case of petitioner for Physical Efficiency Test after completion of delivery in satisfaction to the Gynecologist. The respondents be further directed to fix another date for such test and to inform the petitioner well in time. ii) the act of respondents whereby she was compelled to appear in Hemmer Throw test may be treated as ineffective, meaningless and illegal and accordingly the respondents be directed to allow the petitioner to appear in Physical Test afresh by treating as if she has [2025:RJ-JP:26559] (2 of 7) [CW-4103/2011] not appeared in Physical Test and further on being found suitable appoint the petitioner on the post of Forest Guard by giving notional benefits since the date similarly situated persons are appointed, the consequential benefits may also be given to the petitioner;”

3. The factual matrix of case in brief is that vacancies of Forest Guard in various Districts were notified by the Forest Department vide advertisement dated 23.09.2010 and in District Bundi, 50 vacancies were notified. Petitioner, applied against the vacancies of District Bundi under the category of General (Female). In the advertisement, scheme of recruitment was prescribed by way of conducting (i) Written examination, (ii) Physical efficiency test, and (iii) Interview. The written examination was held on

30.01.2011 wherein petitioner appeared and was declared qualified to appear for PET. For female, PET comprised of three events, (i) Shot put throw 4Kg upto 4.5 m, (ii) Standing Broad Jumps upto 1.35 m, and (iii) 14 Km Running in four hours.

4. Petitioner has come up with a case that she conceived pregnancy in the Month of November, 2010 and having the pregnancy of four months at the scheduled time of Physical Efficiency Test i.e. on 21.03.2011 and 22.03.2011. It is a case of petitioner that she submitted an application to defer her PET on the ground of her pregnancy, however, same was not accepted, hence, this petition has been filed.

5. In addition to above, this Court finds that the petitioner has also pleaded that she was forced to appear in PET on 21.03.2011, but she was not prepared, hence could not qualify PET and was declared ineligible, however, petitioner is seeking to declare her [2025:RJ-JP:26559] (3 of 7) [CW-4103/2011] PET as ineffective & illegal. The prayer No. 2 of the petitioner is clear to that effect.

6. In the reply filed by the respondents, it has been pleaded that petitioner never disclosed the factum of her pregnancy and she willfully participated in the first event of PET i.e. Shot put throw on 21.03.2011. Since she could not qualify that test, she was declared ineligible, hence, she did not participate in the other two events of PET. Now petitioner wants to get second chance of PET taking resort of her pregnancy but she is estopped by her own conduct.

7. Petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply filed by the respondents No.1 to 3. In the rejoinder, the petitioner has not disputed the factum of participation in the events of PET. She admits that she presented herself before the respondent on the scheduled date of PET i.e. 21.03.2011. Petitioner admits in her rejoinder that as per the advise of respondents just to adjudge the physical events of PET, she threw the Shot Put. It has further been pleaded that in fact she made a prayer to defer her PET and her participation in the PET may not be treated as willful and voluntary, hence, a fresh chance to appear in PET be given to her, after completion of pregnancy & declaration of fitness by Gynecologist.

8. It is noteworthy that during course of this writ petition, vide interim order dated 30.03.2011, one post of Forest Guard (Female) was ordered to be kept vacant. The private respondent No.4 namely Vandana Sharma, who has successfully qualified the written PET & interview and was the next succeeding candidate in merit, in the female category, but appointment of vacant post was [2025:RJ-JP:26559] (4 of 7) [CW-4103/2011] not offered to her, due to keeping one post vacant by the Court vide interim order dated 30.03.2011. Hence, she moved an application for impleadment. Her application came to be allowed vide order dated 13.07.2011 and she was directed to be impleaded as Respondent no. 4.

9. Having heard counsel for both parties and on perusal of the pleadings as well as attached documents, this Court finds that it is an admitted case of petitioner that she presented herself before the respondents on 21.03.2011, i.e. on the scheduled date of PET. Further, it appears that petitioner, admittedly has participated in the first event of PET i.e. Shot Put Throw.

10. The case make out by the petitioner that she was forced to appear in the PET seems to be a spurious plea, which is after thought and cannot be taken as bonafide plea. Though, petitioner has filed two applications on record dated 16.03.2011 &

21.03.2011, to show that she made prayer to defer her PET, but it appears that later on she participated in the event of Shot Put throw test on 21.03.2011. Her plea that her participation was off hand and without preparation, is of no significance. Her plea that her participation was not voluntary & willful, rather she forced to take part in PET has been categorically denied by the respondents. In the opinion of this Court, such plea pertains to a disputed question of fact, which may not be adjudicated without appreciation of evidence. In the writ jurisdiction, disputed question of fact, cannot be adjudicated. Presumption goes against petitioner. Plea of participation by petitioner in PET under force or coercion is neither acceptable not probable nor it is practically possible. Hence, such plea is rejected. [2025:RJ-JP:26559] (5 of 7) [CW-4103/2011]

11. It is noteworthy that in the advertisement dated 23.09.2010, there is no clause for deferment of PET nor any second chance for PET is permissible. In the guidelines, following instruction is only prescribed, which reads as under:- “ अभ्यቕኍ(cid:5) शारीरिरक द्ቌता परी्ቌा में स्वयं की जि(cid:23)म्मेदारी पर भाग लेगा । इस परी्ቌा के समय किकसी भी ्ቚकार की अस्वस्ቕኍता, शारीरिरक हानि% अቕኍवा मृत्यु की दशा में उसे कोई ्ቌनितपूनित- देय %हीं होगी । शारीरिरक रूप से अस्वस्ቕኍ अभिभयाቕኍ(cid:5) एवं गभ-वती महिहलाओं को उ%के स्वास्थ्य के दृजि56कोण से शारीरिरक द्ቌता परी्ቌा में भाग % ले%े की सलाह दी (cid:23)ाती है । ” These guidelines do not extend any strength to the case of petitioner.

12. This Court finds that petitioner by her own, presented herself before the respondents and participated in the first event of PET, on 21.03.2011, which fact has not been disputed by her; she was declared ineligible in the first event of Shot put throw, hence, her first prayer to defer the PET is baseless. Another prayer of petitioner, to provide her a second chance of PET is de hors to the method of selection. A second opportunity to appear in PET is neither prescribed in the advertisement nor the statute Rules, permits any second chance of PET to the candidate, who remained unsuccessful, for whatever reasons, in first chance of PET event.

13. Counsel for petitioner has relied upon the order dated

31.10.2012, passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in Smt. Saraswati Kumari Vs. State of Rajasthan: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 389/2012. A perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that, the prayer of petitioner was only to defer the physical examination on the ground of pregnancy and not for giving an additional or fresh opportunity. In that case, petitioner never participated in the [2025:RJ-JP:26559] (6 of 7) [CW-4103/2011] events of PET, hence, that case was based on different factual matrix and does not render any support to the case of petitioner.

14. Reference of another judgment of Madras High Court passed in case of R. Devika Vs. The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Recruitment Board and Ors.: Writ Petition No. 30538 of 2018, has been given by counsel for petitioner. In this judgment, the Madras High Court relied upon the decision of the Rajasthan High Court dated 30.05.2017 passed in case of Laxmi Devi Vs. State (Home Department) and Ors. On facts of that case, a pregnant women, who was aspirant in the recruitment of Grade II Police Constable, participated in the running event of PET and could complete the running by shortage of 0.30 seconds. As per norms, the event of 30m running was to be completed within

17.50 seconds whereas she completed in 18.20 seconds and for such reason she was declared unsuccessful in PET. The consideration before the High Court of Madras was that petitioner, who was carrying 5th/6th Month of pregnancy, may not be put at bar with the other aspirant candidates for the post in question and therefore, by relaxation of shortage of 0.30 seconds, she was declared successful in PET. The factual matrix of that case is entirely different. In the present case, petitioner is not praying to declare her qualified in the PET. Petitioner has come up with a case of forcing her to participate in the event of Shot Put Throw of PET by the respondents, which has no legs to stand. Hence, because of differentiation of factual matrix, the judgment of Madras High Court in case of R. Devika (supra) does not render any support to the case of petitioner. [2025:RJ-JP:26559] (7 of 7) [CW-4103/2011]

15. In the case at hand, petitioner had admittedly participated in the one event of Shot Put Throw in the PET on 21.03.2011.

16. In view of above, this Court does not find any legal right of petitioner to claim second chance to appear in the PET and no equity lies in favour of petitioner. The private respondent No.4 is next succeeding candidate in merit for appointment, who has already qualified PET and stands next in merit under the female category. Hence, her candidature may be considered against the vacancy, ordered to be kept vacant under the interim order. No case in respect of prayer of deferment of PET is make out and Principle of Estoppel comes in play to seek such prayer, once petitioner has participated in PET. Hence, prayer of petitioner cannot be accepted.

17. As a result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed.

18. Interim order dated 30.03.2011 stands vacated.

19. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. NITIN /75 (SUDESH BANSAL),J