An earlier executive circular creates no enforceable right to three attempts under later recruitment rules.

The petitioners were candidates in the 2025 recruitment for Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander.

After qualifying in the written examination, they took the Physical Efficiency Test (PET).

Their claims concerned the Long Jump: Vinod Kumar sought a fresh test because he participated during heavy rain; Jaswant Singh claimed he was denied another attempt after a foul; Girdhari Singh disputed the recorded measurement; and Gaffar Khan alleged arbitrary assessment.

They relied principally on a Home Department communication dated 17 February 1989, which they said provided three Long Jump attempts.

The recruitment was governed by the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989, and a Standing Order dated 7 July 2025.

The Court directed production of the relevant PET videography and examined it before deciding the connected petitions.

Whether the communication dated 17 February 1989 entitled the petitioners to three attempts in the Long Jump in the present recruitment.

Whether rainfall, disputed measurement, or an alleged foul justified a fresh Long Jump attempt or re-conduct of the PET.

Rule 21(2) of the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 authorises the Director General of Police to prescribe the PET, while Rule 21(5) requires candidates to appear before a Physical Efficiency Board for a test conducted as prescribed by the Director General of Police.

Executive instructions may supplement statutory rules where those rules are silent, but cannot supplant or override them; the Court relied on Sant Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1910, as reiterated in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal, (2013) 16 SCC 147.

In judicial review of PET assessments, the Court will not substitute its assessment for that of the competent board absent a demonstrated departure from procedure, patent error, or mala fides.

A fresh test may also be refused where it would give selected candidates a second opportunity under different conditions and create unequal standards within the same selection; the Court relied on Shravan Kumar Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 154/2019, decided 22 May 2019.

Rule 21 empowered the Director General of Police to prescribe the PET, and the Standing Order dated 7 July 2025 governed the present recruitment.

Neither that order, the Rules, nor the advertisement expressly provided three Long Jump attempts or a right to a re-test.

The Court held that the pre-Rules 1989 communication could not operate as an independent, perpetual source of an enforceable right in this recruitment; it also distinguished Narayan Lal v. State of Rajasthan as concerning a recruitment to which the 1989 Rules did not apply.

The Court further held that other agencies’ express provision for multiple attempts could not be imported into this selection.

As to rainfall, all candidates at the venue faced the prevailing conditions, and a fresh test would expose the petitioners to different conditions and risk unequal treatment.

On measurement, the Court reviewed the videography and found no apparent error or procedural departure; it found no basis to replace the board’s assessment.

The alleged foul likewise did not justify a fresh attempt under the governing instructions.

All four writ petitions were dismissed, pending applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.