Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Prajapat vs The Rajasthan High Court ... on 8 November, 2024
Author: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
[2024:RJ-JD:45064-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16988/2024
Sunil Prajapat S/o Rameshwarlal, Aged About 23 Years, R/
o Near Aayush School, Pugal Road, Bangla Nagar, Bikaner
Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Rajasthan High Court, Through Registrar Exam
Cell, Jodhpur.
2. The Arya Institute Of Engineering And Technology,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shaurya Pratap Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samyak Dalal for
Dr. Sachin Acharya, Sr. Adv.
HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR Order 08/11/2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner would fairly submits that the issue raised in this petition is no longer res integra and stands concluded vide order dated 01.10.2024 passed by this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of D.B Civil Writ Petition No. 12895/2024 (Ajay Meena & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.). The order reads as under:-
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the following prayers:
"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof the respondent be consider the petitioners for appear in typewriting test on computer who shall be scheduled very soon.
(ii) Issue a writ order or direction to the respondent for consider the representation given of the (Downloaded on 12/11/2024 at 09:44:16 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:45064-DB] (2 of 7) [CW-16988/2024] petitioner and to be included in typewriting test on computer as per corrigendum dated
02.06.2024.
(iii) Issue a writ order or direction to the respondent after included in typewriting test on computer as per corrigendum dated 02.06.2024 and after passing of said test petitioners be appointed for the post of System Assistant.
(iv) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper, be passed in the interest of justice and to grant adequate relief to the humble petitioners."
2. The respondent(s) issued advertisement dated 18.12.2023 for recruitment to the post of System Assistant, 2023. In pursuant to the said advertisement all petitioners applied for the said post for which written test (first phase) was conducted by the respondent(s) on 03.03.2024. All the petitioners appeared in the said written test and result of the written test was declared by the respondent(s) on 19.03.2024. In the second phase, the type test was held by the respondent(s) on 18.05.2024 in which all petitioners appeared, however, after participating in the written test and type test they submitted representations on various dates i.e. 29.05.2024, 19.06.2024, 30.05.2024 and 05.06.2024 to the respondent(s) for conducting fresh type test on the ground that the respondent(s) have issued a corrigendum on 02.06.2024 for conducting the fresh type test for SC category (women candidates).
3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the respondent(s) are going to conduct the type test for SC category (women candidates) and one more chance be given to the petitioners along with those candidates to appear in the type test. Learned counsel further submits that there were technical faults with the computer and keyboard provided to the petitioners for which they were not responsible and they failed to type the answers properly in the said type test.
4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s) opposed the writ petition and submitted that there is no fault on their part to conduct the type test and after examination all the candidates signed the form with regard to their satisfaction that their peripherals and systems were working properly, more particularly, in para no.5 of (Downloaded on 12/11/2024 at 09:44:17 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:45064-DB] (3 of 7) [CW-16988/2024] the reply it has been submitted on behalf of the respondent(s) as under:
"That it is pertinent to mention that prior to starting of typewriting test on computer, all the candidates were being directed time and again by way of announcement to please check all the additional equipment's like monitor, keyboard, mouse etc. of the computer and also to click of the icon "Peripheral Check" and do the practice of typing. All the candidates checked the computers & additional equipment's and also practice typing before the starting of typewriting test on computer. In case, any candidate raise any objection regarding non- working of their respective computer or any of the additional equipment thereof, the same was attended immediately and required follow up action of changing the computer or equipment thereof was taken. After verifying that all the candidates have checked their computers and its additional equipments, the type writing test on computer was started. After examination, all the candidates verified the fact that their peripherals and system were working properly and voluntarily signed the certificate to this effect. In these circumstances the facts mentioned in the writ petition are not tenable and writ petition is liable to be dismissed."
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent(s) submits that as per instructions uploaded on the official website of the respondent(s) with regard to type test, in any case of difficulty, the candidate has to make a complaint to the invigilator at the time when the type test was conducted but no complaint was ever made by the petitioners to their respective invigilators.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme 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 has 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 (Downloaded on 12/11/2024 at 09:44:17 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:45064-DB] (4 of 7) [CW-16988/2024] 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:
"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 (Downloaded on 12/11/2024 at 09:44:17 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:45064-DB] (5 of 7) [CW-16988/2024] 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.
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".(Downloaded on 12/11/2024 at 09:44:17 PM)
[2024:RJ-JD:45064-DB] (6 of 7) [CW-16988/2024]
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."
8. This writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioners are estopped to challenge the process of selection after participating in the same as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra); secondly, the petitioners have not made any complaint at the time of written test to their respective invigilator with regard to any fault either in the computer or with the keyboard provided to them in the examination hall; thirdly, the petitioners have voluntarily signed the certificate that their computer and keyboard are functioning properly at the time when the type test was conducted.
(Downloaded on 12/11/2024 at 09:44:17 PM)[2024:RJ-JD:45064-DB] (7 of 7) [CW-16988/2024]
9. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. Hence, the present writ petition is hereby dismissed."
In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed.
(SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ 9-divyaP/-
(Downloaded on 12/11/2024 at 09:44:17 PM)Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)