Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Ravi Kumar Kulhari S/O Shri Mandroop ... vs Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam ... on 9 September, 2022
Author: Inderjeet Singh
Bench: Inderjeet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7345/2022
Ravi Kumar Kulhari S/o Shri Mandroop Kulhari, Aged About 28
Years, R/o Vpo Swami Sehi, Tehsil Surajgarh, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7336/2022
Hemant Singh S/o Shri Ramawatar, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Village Rebari Bas, Post Janau, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7337/2022
Vikram Singh S/o Shri Surajbhan Singh, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o House No. 245, Village Paju (32), Bhiwani (Haryana)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur Through Chairman
Cum Managing Director
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(2 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7349/2022
Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Shishram, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village And Post Kyamsar, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7351/2022
Shyam Lal S/o Shri Malla Ram, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Shree
Krishan Nagar Kosana, Tehsil Pipar City, District Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7367/2022
Nitesh S/o Shri Om Prakash Nehra, Aged About 27 Years, R/o
Vpo Swami Sehi, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(3 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7368/2022
Mandeep S/o Shri Sube Singh, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Vpo
Salam Ka Bas, Badsari Ka Bas, Tehsil Surajgarh, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7369/2022
Ajay Kumar Meena S/o Shri Rakesh Meena, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Village Ratoli, Post Dhawan, Tehsil Todabhim, District
Karauli (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7370/2022
Vishal S/o Shri Sube Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Vpo
Ardawata, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.) Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(4 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7413/2022
Priyanka Bangarwa D/o Shri Manoj Kumar, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Village Rayala, Post Jherli, Tehsil Surajgarh, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7414/2022
Rakesh Kumar S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 23 Years, R/o
Vpo Lilawathi, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7415/2022
Abishek Mitharwal S/o Shri Tarachand Mitharwal, Aged About 20
Years, R/o Village And Post Papra, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(5 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7416/2022
Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Amar Singh, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Vpo
Khudia, Post Badangarh, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7426/2022
Sanjesh Kumar S/o Shri Chhote Lal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o
Vpo Jerthi (Subhash Nagar), Via Kudan, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7428/2022
Himanshu Sharma S/o Shri Suresh Kumar, Aged About 24 Years,
R/o Ward No.6, Solana, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(6 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7429/2022
Amit Kumar S/o Shri Dara Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o
Village Nuhand, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7434/2022
Vikash Kumar S/o Shri Chhater Singh, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Vpo Bhojan, Tehsil Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7435/2022
Pradeep Kumar S/o Shri Rajpal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo
Padampura, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(7 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7436/2022
Sumit Kumar S/o Shri Rajkumar, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Village Kaji, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7814/2022
Ankit Tanwar S/o Shri Tarachand Tanwar, Aged About 20 Years,
R/o Near Jini Jat, Ward No.19, Pilani, Tehsil Surajgarh, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7904/2022
Rahul Kumar Son Of Shri Mansha Ram, Aged About 23 Years,
Resident Of Village Bass Brahmanan, Tehsil Rajgarh, District
Churu (Raj.) At Present Resident Of C-36, 80Ft. Road, Mahesh
Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its
Chief Managing Director.
2. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its
Secretary (Admn.)
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(8 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
3. Jt. Director (Per. And Admn), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Personnel Officer (Estt.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Chief Accounts Officer (Rr And B), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8905/2022
Lokesh Kumar S/o Shri Har Lal, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Ward
No. 05 Vpo Jaitpura, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8932/2022
Jogesh S/o Shri Bijendra, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Vpo Madina
District Rohtak (Haryana)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8934/2022
Anish Kumar Meel S/o Shri Bharat Singh, Aged About 22 Years,
R/o Village And Post Hansalsar, District Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(9 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8935/2022
Dinesh Kumar S/o Shri Vijay Singh, Aged About 20 Years, R/o
Vpo Chorari, District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8936/2022
Vikash Kumar S/o Shri Mahendra Singh, Aged About 21 Years,
R/o A-5, Ward No.10, Maan Nagar, In Front Of Nagar Parishad,
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8937/2022
Vikram Singh S/o Shri Khem Chand, Aged About 22 Years, R/o
Village Ajeetpura, Post Kudan, Tehsil Dhod, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(10 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8938/2022
Lokesh Poonia S/o Shri Ramniwas Poonia, Aged About 23 Years,
R/o Mahalana Dikhanada, Post Mahalana Utradha, Tehsil
Rajgarh, District Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9334/2022
Anita D/o Shri Ramlal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Village Jethwan
Ka Bas, Post Dantru, Tehsil Fatehpur, District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9779/2022
Sunita Choudhary Wife Of Shri Anoop Singh, Aged About 32
Years, Resident Of Village And Post Rajwara, Tehsil Mundawar,
District Alwar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(11 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its
Chief Managing Director.
2. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited, Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through Its
Secretary (Admn.)
3. Jt. Director (Per. And Admn), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut
Prasaran Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti
Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)
4. Personnel Officer (Estt.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
5. Chief Accounts Officer (Rr And B), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran
Nigam Limited, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar,
Jaipur (Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9906/2022
Mukesh Kumar S/o Shri Mohan Lal Budania, Aged About 22
Years, R/o Village Seetsar Ward No. 5, Post And District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10809/2022
Raspal Meena S/o Shri Harikesh Meena, Aged About 28 Years,
R/o Village Tikhuti, Post Kalaguda Amargarh, Tehsil Sapotra,
District Karauli (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(12 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10817/2022
Yogesh Kumar S/o Shri Ejesh Kumar, Aged About 26 Years, R/o
Village Bairas, Post Sahnoosar, Tehsil Fatehpur Shekhawati,
District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10818/2022
Anand Pareek S/o Shri Dungarmal Pareek, Aged About 20 Years,
R/o Ajeetsar, Sardarshahar, District Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10887/2022
Krishan Kumar S/o Shri Durga Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o
Ward No. 5, Brahamno Ka Mohalla, Jasrasar, District Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(13 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10969/2022
Ramesh Kumar Khoud S/o Shri Bhom Raj, Aged About 25 Years,
R/o Ward No. 5, Behind Senior Secondary School, Ramsar
District Bikaner (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11015/2022
Rahul S/o Shri Bharat Singh, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Gadla
Kalan Village Ponkh, Tehsil Gudha Gorji, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11036/2022
Amit S/o Shri Shishram, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Ward No. 10,
Seethal, Post Seethal, Tehsil Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu
(Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(14 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11058/2022
Ashok Kumar Bajiya S/o Deepa Ram Bajiya, Aged About 23
Years, R/o Village Padampura, Post Bhojpur, Tehsil Khandela,
District Sikar (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11070/2022
Gajendra Pal Jakhad S/o Shri Rawat Ram Jakhad, Aged About 26
Years, R/o 85 K Ghanchi Colony, Bhagat Ki Kothi, Jodhpur (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.)Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11275/2022
Rohitash Kumar S/o Shri Mahaveer Prasad, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o Ward No. 8 Bhomiya Ki Dhani, Gadla Kalan, District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(15 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd. Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 10755/2022
Manoj Poonia D/o Ram Kumar W/o Mamraj, Aged About 29
Years, R/o Sulkhania Post Bhukharari, Tehsil Ratangarh, District
Churu (Raj.)
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Vidyut
Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur (Raj.) Through
Chairman Cum Managing Director.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran
Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur
(Raj.)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Mehla with
Ms. Sunita Mehla
Mr. Almas Khanam
Ms. Neha Godara
Ms. Komal Kumari Giri
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Virender Lodha, Sr.Adv. Assited by
Mr.Jai Lodha, Mr. Rachit Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
Order
09/09/2022
1. Since identical question is involved in all these petitions and
pertains to the self same selection process, therefore with consent
of the parties, these writ petitions have been heard finally and are
being decided by the present common order.
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(16 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
2. As prayed, the facts have been noticed from S.B.Civil Writ
Petition No.7345/2022 and the prayer made therein reads as
under:-
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your
lordship may graciously be pleased and accept and
allow this writ petition and
I) by an appropriate writ order or direction the
respondents be directed to declare the result/marks of
petitioner Roll No. 1440006513 of online examination
held on 13.11.2021 and also issued the answer key of
online examination;
ii) by an appropriate writ order or direction the
respondents may further be directed that if the
petitioner found place in merit, he may allow to
participate in the Phase-II as well as further selection
process and also give him appointment to the post of
Junior Assistant/ Commercial Assistant-II in any
company in Non-TSP area with all consequential benefit.
(iii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems just
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case
may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."
3. Brief facts of the case are that an advertisement dated
22.02.2021 came to be issued by the respondents holding
selections for five power companies of Rajasthan, of the various
posts including the post of Junior Assistant/Commercial Assistant-
II, with which the present petitioners are concerned. For the
purpose of holding the selections, the respondents authorized the
recruiting agency namely Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
(hereinafter to be referred as IBPS). As per the scheme of
examination, as mentioned in the advertisement, a candidate has
to qualify two phases as mentioned in the advertisement, i.e.
Phase-I & Phase-II. The Phase-I examination carried 40%
weightage and was a computer based written exam through
Online Mode and the candidates qualifying the Phase-I
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(17 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
examination and equal to three times of category-wise vacancies
were to be admitted in the Phase-II which carried 60% weightage
and was an exam of Type-Test in Hindi/English on Computer. Thus,
the marks obtained by the candidates in Phase-I & Phase-II of the
examination, have to be counted for determining the final order of
merit. However, in the present matters, the dispute arose after the
Phase-I examination of the petitioners. The petitioners after
having applied for the aforesaid posts, participated in the Phase-I
examination i.e. computer based written exam through Online
Mode, which in case of the petitioners was held on 13.11.2021,
however result of others was declared on 08.04.2022 but the
result of petitioners' participation in Phase-I examination was
withheld by the respondents, which has been challenged by the
petitioners by filing the present writ petitions.
4. The common grievance raised by the petitioners in the
present writ petitions is that although they were permitted to
participate in the Phase-I examination i.e. computer based written
exam through Online Mode, but without there being any
reasonable basis, their result of Phase-I examination has been
withheld by the respondents, which unabled them to go for further
process of selection.
5. Counsels for the petitioners submitted that prior to
withholding result of the petitioners of Phase-I examination,
neither any show cause notice was issued to them nor any
opportunity of hearing was afforded to them by the respondents,
which is in clear violation of the principles of natural justice and at
least four weeks prior notice ought to have been issued to the
petitioners before taking such enormous and harsh decision.
Counsels further submitted that OMR sheets of the petitioners
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(18 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
were not shown by the respondents. Counsels further submitted
that the respondents have wrongly withheld result of the
petitioners invoking Clause 10(6) of the advertisement, which is
not at all applicable in the case of the petitioners as there was no
chance to commit any cheating or copy by the petitioners as the
Examination Center, Invigilator as well as the Examination Team
all were of the recruiting agency IBPS and no material was
recovered from them during the course of examination, which
could make out a case of unfair means against the petitioners.
Counsels lastly prayed that the result of petitioners' participation
in Phase-I examination be declared and if they stand qualified,
may be considered for further process of selection.
6. Counsels for the petitioners in support of their submissions,
relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the matter of "Union of India & Ors. Vs. Dr.Pranab Baishya &
Ors." (Special Leave to Appeal Nos.10786-10788/2019), decided
on 08.11.2019 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the
termination of the Lecturers after joining of their duties, even
without issuing show cause notice is in violation of principles of
natural justice.
7. Reply (CWP-7345/2022) has been filed by the respondents
and it has been averred that the recruiting agency i.e. IBPS was
authorized to conduct the selection process. The said recruiting
agency after holding the examination of Phase-I submitted its
report about 53 candidates using unfair means. The decision of
withholding the result of petitioners' participation in Phase-I
examination has been taken invoking clause 10(6) of the
advertisement, which reads as under :-
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(19 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
"6. RVPN would be analyzing the responses (Answers)
of individual candidates with those of other candidates
to detect patterns of similarly of right and wrong
answers. If in the analytical procedure adopted by RVPN
in this regard, it is inferred/concluded that the
responses have been shared and scores obtained are
not genuine/valid, RVPN reserves right to cancel the
candidature of the concerned candidates and the result
of such disqualified candidates will be withheld."
8. In para no.5 of the reply to the writ petition (CWP-
7345/2022), it has been averred as under :-
"5.That the contents of para No. 5 of the Writ Petition is
relied in the terms that The Recruitment Agency i.e. IBPS
has provided the category wise list of 3823 successful
candidates (03 times of the vacancies as per availability)
of Phase-I, as per rules and the same was published on
Nigam's website on 08.04.2022. As per Clause- 10(6) of
the detailed advertisement wherein it is clearly mentioned
that "RVPN would be analyzing the responses
(answers) of candidates with those of other
candidates to detect of individual patterns of
similarity of right and wrong answers. If in the
analytical procedure adopted by RVPN in this regard,
it is inferred/ concluded that the responses have
been shared and scores obtained are not genuine/
valid, RVPN reserves right to cancel the candidature
of the concerned candidates and the candidates
(disqualified) will result of such be withheld." The
online examination for the post of Junior Assistant/ CA-II
was conducted from 08.11.2021 to 10.11.2021 &
13.11.2021 to 14.11.2021. Total 146061 applications were
registered out of which 92165 appeared for the exam in
multiple sessions. In reference to above clause the entire
result of 92165 was analyzed by the recruitment agency
i.e. IBPS and submitted report on unfair means of 53
candidates who were appeared in online examination
(Phase-I) for the post of Junior ctt.) Assistant/Commercial
Assistant-II, and also recommended that "if the
candidates are not deleted from the Merit List at this
stage, it may lead to further problems. For our exams like
Common Recruitment Process for RRBs and Common
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders)
(Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM)
(20 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
Recruitment Process for PSBs we delete such cases from
further process."
Further, the recruitment Agency i.e. recommended that
"IBPS uses this statistical method of IN IBPS."
9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents
opposed the writ petitions and submitted that in all 146061 applications were registered out of which 92165 candidates appeared for the exam in multiple sessions and in reference to clause 10(6), the entire result of 92165 was analyzed by the recruitment agency i.e. IBPS and after examining the same, IBPS submitted a report of unfair means used by 53 candidates who appeared in the Online examination(Phase-1) for the posts in question and recommended to delete the names of these candidates for holding fair selection and taking into consideration the report of IBPS, decision was taken to withhold the result of 53 candidates which includes the present petitioners.
10. Learned Senior Counsel made a reference of a Chart annexed with the reply, marked as Annexure-1 and submitted that only in one center itself i.e. Keen College Bikaner, 50 candidates were found using unfair means and in Grow Computer Institute-
Ajmer, 3 candidates were found using unfair means and submitted that in the facts & circumstances the petitioners are not entitled for any indulgence by this Court and prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions.
11. In support of the submissions, Learned Senior Counsel relied upon judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Varun Bhardwaj Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.(W.P. (C) 3707/2011 decided on 6th February, 2013 where in para 5 & 6 it has been held as under:-
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM) (21 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
5. In my opinion, Courts cannot sit as an expert body to decide the rational test which has been applied by institutions to find out use of unfair means, and this is because unfair means are on many occasions never found to have been caught red handed. Of course, it is possible that there may be the greatest possibility of a co-incidence of the petitioner not having used unfair means, however, once the respondent no.1 uniformly applies the IBPS test, Courts would prefer not to interfere for any one of the candidate who gives the examination inasmuch as this would mean to quashing of the application of the IBPS test which is used by the respondent no.1 bank which deals with public moneys. No doubt the petitioner's argument that he was not sitting at the same centre with the other two candidates with whom the petitioner had same answers, and they were sitting at different centres in Delhi, but, in these days of technology and communications, some things do happen and therefore as long as the respondent No.1 is not acting arbitrarily there is no reason for the Court to interfere.
6. In view of the above, once it is found that there is no discrimination against the petitioner inasmuch as the IBPS Scientific Test is uniformly applied by the bank, and also the fact that the probability is so negligible of various wrong answers being identical for a pair of persons inasmuch as five options are given in the objective type test, I do not feel in the facts and circumstances of the case that Courts should substitute its own opinion for that of an expert body.
12. Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the matter of Varun Bhardwaj Vs. State Bank of India & Ors.(LPA 155/2013) decided on 24.11.2015, where in para 21 & 24 it has been held as under:-
21.Again, the need to be aware that natural justice is not a stereotyped principle, of unbending universal application was emphasized in Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee (1977) 2 SCC 256, where the Court observed that natural justice is not an unruly horse, no lurking landmine, nor a "judicial cure-all". The Courts cannot look at law in the abstract or natural justice as a mere artifact.
Nor can they fit into a rigid mould the concept of reasonable opportunity. If the totality of circumstances satisfies the Court that the party visited with adverse order has not suffered from denial of reasonable opportunity, the (D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM) (22 of 25) [CW-7345/2022] Court will decline to be "punctilious or fanatical as if the rules of natural justice were sacred scriptures" (Ref Dharampal Satyapal Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Ors. 2015 (8) SCC 519). As a result, the appellant's submissions with regard to SBI's failure to adhere to principles of natural justice have to fail.
24. The Court is conscious that technology often empowers citizens; at the same time it has the potential to facilitate misuse. In the context of the facts of this case, this Court is not persuaded with the appellant's submission that without tangible material or evidence, the SBI could not have inferred the employment of "unfair means" by candidates generally and the petitioner in particular. Use of electronic devices to transmit information - either in the form of text messages or by use of hidden listening devices which go undetected may be hard to establish. That does not mean that patterns which are discernible and are thrown up on application of scientific formulae or statistical models, which leads to further examination of the primary material should be eliminated by the Courts. In the present case, the pattern which emerged showed that the appellant's results in respect of wrong answers matched with some other candidates who also appeared in the New Delhi centre. On further scrutiny, the reasonableness of the suspicion was strengthened by the manner of his attempting the answers. These, in the opinion of the Court, were sufficient basis for the SBI to conclude that unfair means had been employed and withhold his result. The directions sought are, therefore, unavailable in exercise of judicial review discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution. As a result, this Court finds that the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge does not call for interference. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed without any order as to costs. "
13. Learned Senior Counsel further relied upon another judgment passed by 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 where 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 (D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM) (23 of 25) [CW-7345/2022] 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 (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:
"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.
(D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM) (24 of 25) [CW-7345/2022]
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".
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 (D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM) (25 of 25) [CW-7345/2022] 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."
14. Heard, counsel for the parties and perused the record.
15. These writ petitions filed by the petitioners deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly the respondents have taken a conscious decision based on the report of the Expert Committee for withholding the result of the petitioners as they were found using unfair means; secondly, this court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority over the decision of the respondents based on the report of the Expert-Committee, thirdly the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case as in the aforesaid matter the lecturers were appointed and after joining, their services were terminated without giving any opportunity of hearing while in the present matters the petitioners have not even been selected as yet and, thirdly as the petitioners have participated in the selection process after careful reading of the terms and conditions of the advertisement, as such they are estopped to challenge the same in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar (supra) and lastly, in my considered view no illegality has been committed by the respondents for invoking clause 10(6) of the advertisement based on the report of the Expert-Committee.
16. Hence, these writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed.
(INDERJEET SINGH),J Anu /128-158, 160-169, 224 (D.B. SAW/1075/2022 and 24 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) (Downloaded on 25/12/2022 at 07:44:33 AM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)