Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Mahind Kumar Gurjar S/O Prathviraj ... vs The State Of Rajasthan on 10 August, 2021
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5631/2021
Mahind Kumar Gurjar S/o Prathviraj Gurjar, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Village And Post Bichhalas, Tehsil Atru District Baran
Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Government
Of Rajasthan, Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Chairman Ghoghra Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer Rajasthan
3. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its
Secretary Ghoghra Ghati, Jaipur Road, Ajmer Rajasthan
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Y.S. Jadoun.
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH Order 10/08/2021 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-
"It is therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed before this Hon'ble Court that the entire record may be called for, this writ petition may be allowed and;
a. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the petitioner by considering educational qualification of the petitioner and;
b. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, quash the condition which compel the petitioner for providing proof of earning the educational qualification before the examination conducted by the Commission otherwise candidature of the candidates has been considered will ineligible and;(Downloaded on 13/08/2021 at 09:31:57 PM)
(2 of 6) [CW-5631/2021]
c. By an appropriate writ, order or
direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to the allow the petitioner's candidature and if petitioner get selected then to grant appointment for the post of School Lecturer in terms of the advertisement dated 13.04.2018 (Annex.1) and;
d. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be restrained from rejecting the candidature of the petitioner on the count or unreasonable condition of उक्त पद की अपेक्षित शेषणिक अहर्ता के अंतिम वर्ष में सम्मिलित हुआ हो या सम्म्लित होने वाला व्यक्ति भी आवेदन करने के लिए पात्र होगा किं तु उसे आयोग द्वारा आयोजित परीक्षा से पूर्व शैक्षणिक अहर्ता अर्जित करने का सबूत देना होगा अन्यथा वह अपात्र होगा, for the post of School Lecturer (Agriculture) and;
e. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to afford appointment to the petitioners on the post of Police Constable. f. Any other order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstance of the case may also kindly be passed in favour of the Appellant in the interest of justice, equity and good conscience."
In pursuance to the advertisement dated 13.04.2018 the petitioner applied for the post of School Lecturer (Agriculture), according to the advertisement the education qualification mentioned as under:-
"अनिवार्य शैक्षणिक योग्यता : (प्राध्यापक - चित्राकल समस्त पदों के लिए) सरकार द्वारा मान्य शिक्षा स्नातक (बी एड ) और सुसंगत विषय में सनात्कोत्तर डिग्री या उसके समतुल्य कोई अन्य अर्हता नोट :- उक्त पद की अपेक्षित शैक्षणिक अर्हता के अंतिम वर्ष में सम्मिलित हुआ हो या सम्मिलत होने वाला व्यक्ति भी आवेदन करने के लिए पात्र होगा, किं तु उसे आयोग द्वारा आयोजित परीक्षा से पूर्व शैक्षणिक अहर्ता अर्जित करने का सबूत देना होगा, अन्यथा वह अपात्र होगा |"(Downloaded on 13/08/2021 at 09:31:57 PM)
(3 of 6) [CW-5631/2021] Counsel for the petitioner submits that at the time of submitting the application form the petitioner was student of B.Ed.
and result of the said examination was not declared. Counsel further submits that the written examination was conducted by the respondents on 09.01.2020, however, on the said date the result of B.Ed examination was not declared. Counsel further submits that the respondents have rejected his candidature on the ground of not having the requisite qualification prior to date of written examination. Counsel further submits that this condition is arbitrary in nature as subsequent advertisement issued in the year 2021 for the Police Sub-Inspector post, the RPSC has made a condition for having requisite qualification prior to the date of interview. Counsel further submits that final result of the selection process has already been declared on 15.01.2021 and he prayed for quashing of this condition.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
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 wherein 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 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:(Downloaded on 13/08/2021 at 09:31:57 PM)
(4 of 6) [CW-5631/2021] "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 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.
(Downloaded on 13/08/2021 at 09:31:57 PM)(5 of 6) [CW-5631/2021]
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."
This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras Institute of Development Studies V. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam."
(Downloaded on 13/08/2021 at 09:31:57 PM)(6 of 6) [CW-5631/2021] The writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioner has participated in the selection process after reading the terms and conditions of the advertisement dated 13.04.2018, therefore, he is estopped to challenge the same; secondly, in view of the judgment passed by passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar (supra) a candidate cannot challenge the terms and conditions of the advertisement after participating in the selection process; thirdly, the result of the examination in question has already been declared by the RPSC and third party rights have been created, therefore, I am not inclined to exercise the extra-
ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J MG/172 (Downloaded on 13/08/2021 at 09:31:57 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)