SBCWP NO.3576/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.3576/1997. Pushpendra Kumar Sharma Versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- February 18, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Himmat Singh for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that respondents be directed to take into account marks obtained by him in physical efficiency test for preparing the merit list of selection held for the post of Sub Inspector of Police in the year 1996. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the physical efficiency test is one of the necessary criterion for selecting a candidate to the police service. If a candidate acquires higher marks in the physical efficiency test than other candidates, he should be given more preference on the basis of marks obtained by him in the test reflected from their comparative merit. SBCWP NO.3576/97. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have illegally construed the provisions of Rule 21(6) and proviso thereof in maintaining that marks of only written examination and interview and aptitude test would be added to prepare merit. Learned counsel in this connection cited the mark sheet issued to the candidate in relation to the selection held in the year 1992 (Annexure-7) and submitted that in the case of a candidate by the name of Virendra Kumar Sharma when selection was held by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, marks of the physical efficiency test were also added. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that in the scheme of the rules especially Rule 23 of the Rules where it is directed that merit has to be prepared on the basis of marks secured in the written as well as interview and the candidate having lesser marks of 45% in aggregate and since petitioner secured only 43.11% marks, he was not selected. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record, I find that Rule 21(6) of the Rules provides that physical efficiency test carry 100 marks and only such a candidate who secure 50% marks shall be eligible for selection. SBCWP NO.3576/97. 3 Learned counsel for RPSC in reply has denied having received any application for re- totalling. Under Rule 21(3) all the candidates who are declared successful shall be required to appear for physical efficiency test and the candidate who secure 50% marks therein, shall be eligible for selection. Under Rule 21(6), candidates who are declared successful in the written test under sub- rule 21 (3) and in the physical efficiency test under sub-rule 21(5) shall be eligible for aptitude test and interview, provided that the number of candidates called for aptitude test and interview shall be restricted to three times the number of vacancies on the basis of merit based on the aggregate marks obtained in the written and in the physical efficiency test. The marks so awarded in the interview shall be added by the Commission to the marks obtained in the written test by each such candidate and then as per Rule 23 of the Rules of 1989, merit list shall be prepared. The Commission shall not recommend candidates, who have secured less than 36% marks in interview and 45% marks in the aggregate. There is some relaxation in the case of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. It is, therefore, reflected from sub-rule (3) that ultimate merit which is prepared, is total marks in written & aptitude test as well as SBCWP NO.3576/97. 4 interview, in contradiction to sub-rule (6), it would be evident that marks obtained in the physical efficiency test are taken into consideration only for the purpose of deciding number of candidates who are called for aptitude test and interview which number is restricted to three times the vacancies on the basis of merit based on aggregate or both. So far as the mark-sheet (Ann.7) which the petitioner produced with this writ petition is concerned, relate to Shri Virendra Kumar Sharma that was of the time when Rules of 1974 were in force and not of the Rules of 1989 and, therefore, there cannot be any basis to hold the rule, which is now in vogue, has not been correctly followed. I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil