Jaipur v. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Home

Judgment

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Inspector General Of Police, Headquarters, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9853/2017

Balveer Singh Sherawat Son Of Shri Prabhati Lal, Resident Of Quarter No. 2, Us Block, Rajasthan Police Academy, Nehru Nagar, Jaipur. Versus ----Petitioner

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

3. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur. Inspector General Of Police, Headquarters, Rajasthan, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ashok Bansal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Karishma Soni for Mr. Vinod Kumar Gupta, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN Judgment 24/03/2025 [2025:RJ-JP:13385] (2 of 5) [CW-9854/2017]

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that present petition is filed seeking directions for issuing appointment order qua the post of Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander, in pursuance to recommendation dated 23.02.2015, as no formal appointment order was issued by the respondents. However, at a latter stage it was brought to the petitioners’ knowledge that in pursuance of the recommendation dated 23.02.2015, one Ms. Sapna was appointed as Sub-inspector vide order dated 25.02.2015.

2. It is further submitted that advertisement dated 12.05.2017 was issued by the respondents, wherein only five games were included. Considering the fact that the petitioner(s) and like candidates who have achieved various awards and have rendered outstanding performance in the National Games, learned counsel has relied upon Rule 17(2) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Services Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1989’) and has submitted that petitioner-Rameshwar Lal Jat was a National/Outstanding player of Kabaddi and petitioner-Balveer Singh Sherawat was an outstanding player in rifle shooting.

3. Consecutively, it is submitted that approximately 5 persons were recommended vide order dated 23.02.2015 by respondent No.2, out of which, in the year 2016, exceptionally one Ms. Sapna was appointed and others were not considered. In the year 2017 the said advertisement was issued for the recruitment to the post of sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander under Rule 17 (2) of the Rules of 1989, whereby surprisingly a condition was mentioned by a note appended in the same that National Game Certificate should be of at-least three years, without considering the aspect [2025:RJ-JP:13385] (3 of 5) [CW-9854/2017] that the respondents have not advertised any vacancy since year

4. In the light of the same, learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has contended that when the petitioner(s) were rightfully recommended vide letter dated 23.02.2015, however, were not considered for the post of Commander, taking note of the fact that the petitioner(s) were outstanding sportsmen and have even played National sports, their candidature should be considered. In support of the contentions, noted hereinabove, reliance is placed upon Rule 17(2), of the Rules of 1989 and it is submitted that no point of distinction was made inter-se the petitioner(s) and the selected candidate i.e. Ms. Sapna, nevertheless, she was booked and chosen by making hostile discrimination among the recommended five persons.

5. Lastly, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner(s) have approached the Court in time and this Court has intervened in the matter and their rights were crystallized therein. In the light of the above, it is prayed that the present petitions should be allowed.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that in light of the standing order 5/17 and the conditions specified in the advertisement, it was made unambiguous that if required and deemed essential the certificate/performance not existing within a period of last three years; the candidature under Rule 17(2) of the Rules of 1989, shall not be made applied, as the same is given to outstanding [2025:RJ-JP:13385] (4 of 5) [CW-9854/2017] performance on the basis of certain categorical terms and conditions.

7. It is further contended that Ms. Sapna is recommended in the year 2015, under a different set of facts, she was an existing employee of the police department and was rendering service on the post of ‘Head Constable’ therefore, being under the parent department, and facts being different in terms of gender, her candidature was considered and only upon evaluation by the committee the same was approved, and was thereafter recommended by the State and by the office of Hon’ble Governor. Contrary to which in the matter in hand though Board has evaluated and recommended the petitioner(s) in the year 2015, for want of certificate within a period of three years and the recommendation neither being accepted by the State, nor considered by government, the candidature of the petitioner(s) was not considered.

8. It is submitted that provisions of Rule 17(2) of the Rules of 1989 cannot be taken as matter of right, however is a subject to exception by the State and confirmation by the office of Hon’ble Governor. It is submitted that evaluation was carried out in the year 2015 and the certificates of the petitioners were not valid as same were dated over three years. Thence, considering the said ground, the candidature of the petitioner(s) was even not eligible to be considered in the year 2025. It is apparent that the candidature appears to be doubtful as to attract the provisions of Rule 17 (2) of the Rules 1989 has to consider various important factors like age, medical fitness, physic, academic qualification and other requirements as per the Rules of 1989. [2025:RJ-JP:13385] (5 of 5) [CW-9854/2017]

9. In light of the same, taking note of the fact that the present matter has certain issues of facts wherein, to attract the provisions of Rule 17(2) of the Rules of 1989, and allied provisions from the said governing rules categorical measures and qualifications are to be noted. In the matter in hand the same are not fulfilled by the petitioner(s). Nevertheless, when the candidature of the petitioner(s) were not considered otherwise qualified as per their best knowledge and discretion; in absence of the confirmation from the Hon’ble Governor’s office, this court is of the view that present petitions as on date cannot be allowed.

10. Accordingly, the instant petitions are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

11. A copy of this order be placed in each file. Pooja/Diksha-20-21 (SAMEER JAIN),J