CWP-9218, 9824 & 12427-2019 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP-9218-2019 (O&M) Rijwana ......Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ......Respondents 2. CWP-9824-2019 (O&M) Rakhi ......Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ......Respondents 3. CWP-12427-2019 (O&M) Preeti ......Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ......Respondents Reserved on : 31.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2026 Date of Uploading : 08.09.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP-9218-2019). Mr. Kamal Kumar Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP-9824 & 12427-2019). Mr. Harmeet Singh Oberoi, Advocate, for the respondents. **** VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.09.08 10:22 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-9218, 9824 & 12427-2019 (O&M) -2- SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. All the above writ petitions have been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to reappear in the long jump/high jump event and other subsequent events of the selection process in equal physical standards of lights etc. which were provided to other similarly situated candidates. The petitioners further seek a direction to the respondents to offer them appointment, in case they qualify the selection process. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents to call for the record/video recording of the physical efficiency test of the petitioners. 2. Since all the petitioners in these writ petitions are asking for direction to the respondents to allow them to reappear in the high jump/long jump, therefore, all the writ petitions are decided vide this common judgment. 3. Learned counsels for the petitioners contend that the physical test for the recruitment was held at 08:00 P.M in night when nothing was visible. They, therefore, pray that these writ petitions be allowed and one chance to reappear in the physical test be granted to the petitioners.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the selection process is over and that the petitioners have already availed two chances and as per the rules, there is no provision for giving three chances. He, therefore, prays that these writ petitions be dismissed. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.09.08 10:22 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-9218, 9824 & 12427-2019 (O&M) -3- 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the files of these writ petitions with their able assistance. 6. It would be apposite to reproduce herein-below the relevant paragraphs of the written statement filed by the respondents:-“7 to 9. That averments made in para no.7 to 9 of the writ petition is wrong and hence denied. It is submitted respectfully that the tests has been conducted through the arrangement of lighting through Ambulance Vehicle, a good number of candidates have cleared the test. “The PET (Physical Efficiency Test) and PMT (Physical Measurement Test) have been conducted as per rule mentioned in Employment Notice. Para-8 (Recruitment Process) Phase-II Note-I (i) of the employment Notification No. SI/RPF-02/2018 (Annexure P-1 of the petition) provides that for the events of long jump and high jump, the candidates will be given 2 chances each. There is no provision of 3rd chance for long jump & high jump.”

10 & 11. That averments made in para no.10 & 11 of the writ petition is wrong and hence denied. It is submitted the proper opportunity for the test was provided to the petitioner as provided to other candidates who appeared in the said test in the same batch and there was no discrimination.” 7. A perusal of the above reproduced paragraphs of the written statement shows that the Physical Efficiency Test and Physical Measurement Test have been conducted as per rules. As per the provisions under the rules, three chances for long jump/high jump could not be granted. It is the case of VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.09.08 10:22 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-9218, 9824 & 12427-2019 (O&M) -4- the petitioners that only their test was held at 08:00 P.M in the night, whereas, there were other candidates also, who appeared in the same test at the same point of time. Once Physical Efficiency Test of other candidates was also held at the same point of time and as per the written statement, the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted through arrangement of proper lighting, this Court does not find any merit in all the writ petitions. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are dismissed. 8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 03.09.2026 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.09.08 10:22 I agree to specified portions of this document

CWP-9218, 9824 & 12427-2019 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP-9218-2019 (O&M) Rijwana ......Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ......Respondents 2. CWP-9824-2019 (O&M) Rakhi ......Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ......Respondents 3. CWP-12427-2019 (O&M) Preeti ......Petitioner Vs. Union of India and others ......Respondents Reserved on : 31.08.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 03.09.2026 Date of Uploading : 08.09.2026 Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? NO Whether full judgment is pronounced? YES CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present : Mr. Devender Kumar, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP-9218-2019). Mr. Kamal Kumar Mor, Advocate, for the petitioner (in CWP-9824 & 12427-2019). Mr. Harmeet Singh Oberoi, Advocate, for the respondents. **** VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.09.08 10:22 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-9218, 9824 & 12427-2019 (O&M) -2- SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. All the above writ petitions have been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to reappear in the long jump/high jump event and other subsequent events of the selection process in equal physical standards of lights etc. which were provided to other similarly situated candidates. The petitioners further seek a direction to the respondents to offer them appointment, in case they qualify the selection process. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of directions to the respondents to call for the record/video recording of the physical efficiency test of the petitioners. 2. Since all the petitioners in these writ petitions are asking for direction to the respondents to allow them to reappear in the high jump/long jump, therefore, all the writ petitions are decided vide this common judgment. 3. Learned counsels for the petitioners contend that the physical test for the recruitment was held at 08:00 P.M in night when nothing was visible. They, therefore, pray that these writ petitions be allowed and one chance to reappear in the physical test be granted to the petitioners.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the selection process is over and that the petitioners have already availed two chances and as per the rules, there is no provision for giving three chances. He, therefore, prays that these writ petitions be dismissed. VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.09.08 10:22 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-9218, 9824 & 12427-2019 (O&M) -3- 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the files of these writ petitions with their able assistance. 6. It would be apposite to reproduce herein-below the relevant paragraphs of the written statement filed by the respondents:-“7 to 9. That averments made in para no.7 to 9 of the writ petition is wrong and hence denied. It is submitted respectfully that the tests has been conducted through the arrangement of lighting through Ambulance Vehicle, a good number of candidates have cleared the test. “The PET (Physical Efficiency Test) and PMT (Physical Measurement Test) have been conducted as per rule mentioned in Employment Notice. Para-8 (Recruitment Process) Phase-II Note-I (i) of the employment Notification No. SI/RPF-02/2018 (Annexure P-1 of the petition) provides that for the events of long jump and high jump, the candidates will be given 2 chances each. There is no provision of 3rd chance for long jump & high jump.”

10 & 11. That averments made in para no.10 & 11 of the writ petition is wrong and hence denied. It is submitted the proper opportunity for the test was provided to the petitioner as provided to other candidates who appeared in the said test in the same batch and there was no discrimination.” 7. A perusal of the above reproduced paragraphs of the written statement shows that the Physical Efficiency Test and Physical Measurement Test have been conducted as per rules. As per the provisions under the rules, three chances for long jump/high jump could not be granted. It is the case of VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.09.08 10:22 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-9218, 9824 & 12427-2019 (O&M) -4- the petitioners that only their test was held at 08:00 P.M in the night, whereas, there were other candidates also, who appeared in the same test at the same point of time. Once Physical Efficiency Test of other candidates was also held at the same point of time and as per the written statement, the Physical Efficiency Test was conducted through arrangement of proper lighting, this Court does not find any merit in all the writ petitions. Accordingly, all these writ petitions are dismissed. 8. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE 03.09.2026 Virender Whether speaking/non-speaking : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No VIRENDRA SINGH ADHIKARI 2026.09.08 10:22 I agree to specified portions of this document