Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Kailash Kumar S/O Shri Asu Ram vs State Of Rajasthan on 17 May, 2022
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 3029/2022
in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2968/2022
1. Kailash Kumar S/o Shri Asu Ram, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Vpo-Choura, District Jalore, Rajasthan.
2. Rajpal Meena S/o Shri Babu Lal Meena, Aged About 24
Years, R/o Village Post Nayla, Tehsil Jamwaramgarh,
District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. Rinku Meena S/o, Shri Jagdish Prasad Meena, Aged About
25 Years, R/o Bhatala Ki Dhani, Saipura, Amer, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. Jagdish Kumar S/o Shri Chena Ram, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village-Kilwa, Post- Dabal, Tehsil Sanchore,
District Jalore, Rajasthan.
5. Vinod Meena S/o Shri Laxmi Narayan Meena, Aged About
27 Years, R/o Plot No- 108, Brij Vihar Near Golden
Domes, Jagatpura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
6. Uma Meena D/o Hari Narayan Meena, Aged About 23
Years, R/o D-2, Teen Murti Circle Uniyara Garden, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
7. Geeta Anjali Meena D/o Jagdish Meena, Aged About 24
Years, R/o C-142, Model Town-C, Jagatpura Road, Malviya
Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
8. Deepak Meena S/o Vraddi Chand Meena, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 197, Vivek Vihar, Jagatpura, District Jaipur.
9. Dinesh Chand Meena S/o Shri Bhima Ram Meena, Aged
About 32 Years, R/o 42, Meeno Ka Bas, Charatpura,
Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
10. Ravi Meena S/o Shri Birdi Chand Meena, Aged About 26
Years, R/o 197, Vivek Viahr, Jagatpura, District Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Personnel And Administration, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Chairman, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 09:58:36 PM)
(2 of 9)
Institute Of Agriculture Management Premises,
Durgapura, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No. 4850/2022
in
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4882/2022
1. Ashok Kumar S/o Ram Lal, Resident Of Amliyo Ka Bas,
Sojat City, District Pali (Rajasthan).
2. Mahendra Singh Jakhar S/o Bhagirath Singh, Resident Of
378, Pratap Nagar Extension, Murlipura Scheme, Jaipur
3. Sachin Singh S/o Dileep Singh, Resident Of V.p.o
Vijaypura, Hindaun City (Dist. Karauli)
4. Amit Jangir S/o Mool Chand Jangir, R/o Vpo Pantharia
Pilani, Tehsil Surajgarh, (Dist. Jhunjhunu)
5. Arvind Bhakhriwal S/o Mohan Lal Bhakriwal, Resident Of
V.p.o Nimeda, Via, Jhotwara, Jaipur
6. Pappu Ram Bairwa S/o Sh. Dhana Ram Bairwa, Resident
Of House No.222, Jhalana Mahal, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur
7. Avinash Kumar Baindara S/o Ram Karan Baindara, R/o
117 Roop Nagar 2 Mahesh Nagar 80 Feet Road, Jaipur.
8. Deepak Kumar S/o Suresh Chand, R/o Ward No. 2
Mainawas Tehsil. Weir District Bharatpur.
9. Harshavardhan Singh S/o Devendra Singh Shekhawat,
R/o Bhind Ramlila Maidan Dharmana Road District, Sikar
10. Jitendra S/o Budha Ram, R/o 1074 Society Nagar Pali,
District, Pali.
11. Kriodi Lal Meena S/o Harsahay Meena, R/o Vpo Jhanpada
Kalan Kotkhawda District, Jaipur
12. Lokesh Kumar Meena S/o Mukesh Meena, R/o Novishwa
Todabhim District, Karauli.
13. Manish Verma S/o Manmohan Verma, R/o C-21 Jp Colony
Balai Basti Tonk Phatak, Jaipur.
14. Seema Meena S/o Ram Karan Meena, R/o 71,raj Nagar
Vistar Hirapura Luniyawas Post Jamdoli Tehsil, Sanganer
Jaipur.
15. Mukesh Kumar Sharma S/o Mool Chand Sharma, R/o
Bashant Vihar Colony Gupteshwar Road ,dausa.
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 09:58:36 PM)
(3 of 9)
16. Neetish Kumar Dhobe S/o Munna Lal Dhobe, R/o Keshav
Nagar Ward No. 8 Chomu District, Jaipur.
17. Priyanka Sharma Wife Of Sh. Nitin Kumar Dhand, R/o Jat
Ki Kul, Laxmangarh- Sikar.
18. Pravindra S/o Ramu Ram, R/o Vpo- Thirpali Bari Tehsil
Rajgarh District, Churu.
19. Priyanka Sharma S/o Pawan Kumar Sharma, R/o Vpo
Banura Tehsil, Dataramgarh District Sikar.
20. Rajveer Singh Sodha S/o Rajesh Kumar Sodha, R/o City
Behind Dispensary No. 2 , Ward No. 41 Sikar.
21. Ravi Kumar Meena S/o Shiv Charan Meena, R/o Vill.
Suratpura Post Bpoti Tehsil, Sapotra District- Karauli.
22. Rekha Meena S/o Ramsingh Meena, R/o Dev Nagar
Sanwali Road, Sikar.
23. Rishiraj Singh S/o Virendra Singh, R/o F-73,74 Raj Nagar
Behind Bharat Petrol Pump, Jaipur Road, Bikaner.
24. Ritesh Kumar Meena S/o Suva Lal Meena, R/o Vill.
Himmatapura, Post Toonga Tehsil Bassi , Jaipur.
25. Rohit Sharma S/o Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, R/o Ward
No. 3 Raghunath Ji Ka Bara Mandir Durjod Vpo, Dujod
Via- Sanwali District, Sikar.
26. Shankar Lal Meena S/o Lala Ram Meena, R/o P.no. 1
Kalyan Nagar-6 Opposite 7 Miles Tonk Road, Sanganer
District,jaipur.
27. Shri Ram Bhuradia S/o Chand Ram Bhuradia, R/o Vpo
Chomu District Jaipur.
28. Subhkaran Dhaka S/o Mohan Singh Dhaka, R/o Village
Dhaka Ki Dhani Post Sabalpura Tehsil Dhod, District.
Sikar.
29. Suraj Pal Singh Shekhawat S/o Nand Singh Shekhawat,
R/o Village- Bharana Tehsil Dataramgarh Post Bhirana
District, Sikar -332025
30. Sushil Kumar Bhimwal S/o Laxmi Narayan Bairwa, R/o
Plot. No. 84 Roop Nagar 2, Mahesh Nagar District. Jaipur
31. Vidya Raj Verma S/o Kanhaiy Lal Verma, R/o 801-B,
Shivaji Nagar Civil Lines, Jaipur.
32. Vishal Kumar Kumawat S/o Rajendra Kumawat, R/o P.no
33 Anand Vihar Colony Mehta Nagar 9, Dukan Kalwar
Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur.
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 09:58:36 PM)
(4 of 9)
33. Abhishek Sharma S/o Hariprasad Sharma, R/o Hariprasad
Sharma Nearby Jain Mandir, Vardhman Nagar Hindaun
City District, Karauli.
34. Anuradha S/o Mahender Singh, R/o Ward No.1, Near Old
Sdm Court, Anupgarh District- Sri Ganganagar.
35. Suman Bishnoi S/o Bega Ram, R/o Ward No 10, Near
Rawla Bus Stand, Anupgarh District- Sri Ganganagar.
36. Sunil Meena S/o Madan Lal Meena, R/o Sanwali Road
Shyam Nagar District- Sikar.
37. Sunil Kumar Sewag S/o Rajendra Prasad Sewag, R/o
Opposite Shiv Temple, Near Jain Mandir Shivbari District-
Bikaner.
38. Rakesh Nath S/o Sohan Nath, R/o Lakudi Magari Bilara
District- Jodhpur.
39. Shekhar Shrimali S/o Jitendra Kumar Shrimali, R/o
Bajrang Chowk Luni Tehsil Luni District- Jodhpur.
40. Suresh Sankhla S/o Mohan Ram Sankhla, R/o Balesar
Tehsil, Balesar Jodhpur.
41. Ankita Sharma S/o Siyaram Sharma, R/o Vpo Sindoli
Tehsil,dausa District- Dausa.
42. Durga Rathore S/o Bajrang Singh, R/o 56 Vishnu Nagar
Behind Rto Office B.j.s Colony District Jodhpur.
43. Sanjay Singh S/o Sh Sawai Singh, Village Ladiya, Post
Chiplata, Tehsil Shri Madhopur, District Sikar (Raj.)
44. Ashoka Verma S/o Radhey Shyam Verma, Resident Of
Village Jamwa Ramgarh
----Petitioners
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department Of
Personnel And Administration, State Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Through Its Chairman
Premises Of Rajasthan Agriculture Management Institute,
Jaipur-302 018.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma
Mr. Sunil Samdaria
For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.S. Singhvi, AG assisted by Mr.
Siddhant Jain
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 09:58:36 PM)
(5 of 9)
Mr. Darsh Pareek
Mr. k.S. Chandel
Mr. Nalin G. Narain
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
17/05/2022
1. Heard on the stay applications.
2. In pursuance to the advertisement dated 04.07.2018, the
petitioners applied for the post of Stenographer and the exam for
the said post was conducted by the respondent(s) in two phases.
The final result of Phase-Ist examination was declared on
16.07.2021 the final result of Phase-IInd examination was declared
on 18.02.2022. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions
before this Court on 14.02.2022 & 11.03.2022 respectively with a
prayer that respondent(s) be directed to declare the revised result
of Phase-IInd examination after adopting the formula of
normalization.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent(s)
have committed illegality in not adopting the formula of
normalization as they have adopted the formula of normalization
in Patwari recruitment where the exam was conduced in four shifts
whereas the Phase-IInd examination for the post of Stenographer
was conducted in seventeen shifts. Counsel further submits that
although the respondent(s) have appointed the Expert Committee
but no such report has been placed on record.
4. In support of their contentions, counsel for the petitioners
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prem Sagar Manocha Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) reported in (2016) 4 SCC 571.
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 09:58:36 PM)(6 of 9)
5. Counsel further submits that prime facie the case is made out in their favour and balance of convenience is also there and there would be irreparable loss if the interim order is not passed in favour of the petitioners.
6. Learned Advocate General opposed the writ petition and submitted that the matter was referred to the Expert Committee and conscious decision has been taken by the respondent(s) in not adopting the formula of normalization on the basis of the report of the Expert Committee. Counsel further submits that the advertisement in question was issued in the year 2018 and nearly four years have passed by now and for one reason or another the recruitment could not be completed till date. Counsel further submits that the petitioners have chosen to participate in the selection process and at the fag end when the selection is nearby the completion and they have approached this Court by way of filing these writ petitions challenging the action of the respondent(s). Counsel further submits that the petitioners are estopeed to challenge the process of selection after participating in the same.
7. In support of the contention, counsel relied upon the judgment passed by the the Hon'ble Suprme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 357 in paras No.13 to 18 it has been held as under:-
"13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla (2002), this Court laid down the principle that when a candidate appears at an examination without objection and is subsequently found to be not successful, a challenge to the process is precluded. The question of entertaining a petition challenging (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 09:58:36 PM) (7 of 9) an examination would not arise where a candidate has appeared and participated. He or she cannot subsequently turn around and contend that the process was unfair or that there was a lacuna therein, merely because the result is not palatable. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar MANU/SC/7926/2007 :
(2007) 3 SCC 100, this Court held that:
"18. It is also well settled that those candidates who had taken part, in the selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein were not entitled to question the same.(See Munindra Kumar v. Rajiv Govil (1991) and Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission).
14. The same view was reiterated in Amlan Jyoti Borroah where it was held to be well settled that candidates who have taken part in a selection process knowing fully well the procedure laid down therein are not entitled to question it upon being declared to be unsuccessful.
15. In Manish Kumar ShahI v. State of Bihar, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations:(SCCp.584, para 16) "16. We also agree with the High Court that after having taken part in the process of selection knowing fully well that more than 19% marks have been earmarked for viva voce test, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the criteria or process of selection. Surely, if the Petitioner's name had appeared in the merit list, he would not have even dreamed of challenging the selection. The Petitioner invoked jurisdiction of the High Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India only after he found that his name does not figure in the merit list prepared by the Commission. This conduct of the Petitioner clearly disentitles him from questioning the selection and the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to entertain the writ petition. Reference in this connection may be made to the Judgments in Madan Lal v. State of J &K, Marripati Nagaraja v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Dhananjay Malik and Ors. v. State of Uttaranchal, Amlan Jyoti Borooah v. State of Assam and K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines.
16.In Vijendra Kumar Verma v. Public Service Commission, candidates who had participated in the selection process were aware that they (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 09:58:36 PM) (8 of 9) were required to possess certain specific qualifications in computer operations. The Appellants had appeared in the selection process and after participating in the interview sought to challenge the selection process as being without jurisdiction. This was held to be impermissible.
17. In Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi, candidates who were competing for the post of Physiotherapist in the State of Uttrakhand participated in a written examination held in pursuance of an advertisement. This Court held that if they had cleared the test, the Respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection process or to the methodology adopted. Having taken a chance of selection, it was held that the Respondents were disentitled to seek relief Under Article 226 and would be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement or the procedure of selection. This Court held that (SCC P.318, para18) "18. It is settled law that a person who consciously takes part in the process of selection cannot, thereafter, turn around and question the method of selection and its outcome".
18.In Chandigarh Admn. v. Jasmine Kaur, it was held that a candidate who takes a calculated risk or chance by subjecting himself or herself to the selection process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair after knowing of his or her non-selection. In Pradeep Kumar Rai v. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, this Court held that:(SCC P. 500, para17) "17. Moreover, we would concur with the Division Bench on one more point that the Appellants had participated in the process of interview and not challenged it till the results were declared. There was a gap of almost four months between the interview and declaration of result. However, the Appellants did not challenge it at that time. This, it appears that only when the Appellants found themselves to be unsuccessful, they challenged the interview. This cannot be allowed. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. Either the candidates should not have participated in the interview and challenged the procedure or they should have challenged immediately after the interviews were conducted."
(Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 09:58:36 PM)(9 of 9) This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras Institute of Development Studies V. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam."
8. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. The stay applications filed on behalf of the petitioners deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the recruitment process is pending for its finalization for last four years and for one reason or another various persons are approaching this Court by way of filing writ petitions and on earlier occasions as per the directions issued by this Court in various writ petitions the examination has been conducted by the respondent(s) and thereafter only the result has been declared as agreed by the counsel for the parties; secondly, a conscious decision has been taken by the respondent(s) in not adopting the formula of normalization on the basis of the report of the Expert Committee, therefore, in my considered view, this Court is not supposed to sit as an Appellate Court over the decision taken by the Expert Committee; lastly, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, I am not inclined to stay either the result of the recruitment in question or pass any other interim order in favour of the petitioners because that would create more hardship to the selected candidates.
10. In that view of the matter, the stay applications stand dismissed. Copy of this order be placed in respective file.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J CHETNA BEHRANI /57-58 (Downloaded on 24/12/2022 at 09:58:36 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)