Rajesh Kumar Pal And 15 Others vs State Of U.P. And 9 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 25090 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 



 
Reserved on 23.05.2023
 
Delivered on 18.09.2023
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:179426
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7470 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Pal And 15 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 9 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Atipriya Gautam,Devesh Mishra,Madhaw Pandey,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

1. Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Devesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing Counsel.

2. The petitioners who are 16 in numbers appeared in the selection of Sub-Inspector in Civil Police (Male/Female), Platoon Commander, PAC & Fire Station Second Officer Direct Recruitment-2020-21 but were not declared selected, and consequently, the petitioners by means of the present writ petition have prayed for following main reliefs:

"(a) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the impugned Select List dated 12/06/2022, issued by the Respondent No.2, (enclosed as Annexure-1, to the writ petition) by which the list of selected candidates has been issued, for the post of Sub-Inspector in Civil Police (Male/Female), Platoon Commander, PAC & Fire Station Second Officer Direct Recruitment - 2020-21.

(b) Issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents, to conduct the Medical Examination and Character Verification of the petitioners and to declare the petitioners as finally selected candidates and appoint them on the post of Sub-Inspector in Civil Police (Male/Female), Platoon Commander, PAC & Fire Station Second Officer Direct Recruitment - 2020-21, as they have already qualified in Computer Based Written Examination, Document Verification & Physical Standard Test (DV/PST), and also qualified in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET) and they fulfilled all the criteria and norms of the advertisement dated 24/02/2021, as well as Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector & Inspector (Civil Police) Service (Seventh Amendment) Rules, 2015.

(c) Issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus, directing the Respondents, to declare the petitioners as a finally selected candidates and appoint them on the post of Sub-Inspector in Civil Police (Male/Female), Platoon Commander, PAC & Fire Station Second Officer Direct Recruitment - 2020-21, as they have already qualified in Computer Based Written Examination, Document Verification & Physical Standard Test (DV/PST), and also qualified in the Physical Efficiency Test (PET), and they fulfilled all the criteria and norms which have been prescribed under the Advertisement and Rules.

(d) issue, any other writ, order, or direction, in favour of the petitioners, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case, so as to secure the ends of justice or else, the petitioners shall suffer irreparably."

3. The petitioners under the advertisement dated 24.02.2021, inviting application for the recruitment of Sub-Inspector in Civil Police (Male/Female), Platoon Commander, PAC & Fire Station Second Officer Direct Recruitment - 2020-21, applied for being considered for selection and appeared in the examination but they could not qualify in the examination, and consequently, they preferred the present writ petition praying for the reliefs as stated above.

4. The ground of challenge by the petitioners is that the normalization method as provided in the advertisement No.PRPB-2-2(3V)/2020 has not been followed which has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioners as the candidates who had secured lesser marks than the petitioners have been selected. The petitioners in this regard have given the details in paragraph Nos.60 to 64 that the respondent Nos.7 to 10 have secured less marks than the petitioners but they have been declared selected while the petitioners have not been selected.

5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has invited the attention of the Court to the paragraph Nos.70 to 75 of the writ petition, wherein, the petitioners have elaborated as to how the Rules and the principle of normalization have not been followed by the respondent-commission in preparing the select list. Paragraph Nos.70 to 75 are reproduced hereinbelow:

"70. That, the petitioners come under the purview of the selected candidates in the written examination and they are eligible candidates and the Respondents are duty bound to declare the petitioners as selected candidates and hence, and hence the petitioners are liable to be declared as a selected candidates for the post of Sub-Inspector in Civil Police (Male/Female), Platoon Commander, PAC & Fire Station Second Officer Direct Recruitment - 2020-21, in the interest of justice.

71. That, in the present case, the procedure prescribed under the Rules has not been followed by the Respondents as such the action of the Respondents are wholly illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and not sustainable in the eyes of law. It is well settled previsions of law that in a case the Respondents wants to do something or wants to take any action then that should be done in manner provided by the act or statute and not otherwise.

72. That, it is also relevant to mention that normalization is a principle by which basically to Equi-Percentile persons appeared in the examination on different dates in different shifts on the basis of standard of question paper but dividing further on sub-section/subject of one paper will jeopardize candidates as if person is higher in mathematics process and attitude method and having less knowledge in law or reasoning and they appearing in one shift which was easy in mathematics and tougher in reasoning and law, therefore, certainly they have attempted maximum in mathematics and also tries their best in mathematics and they will only try their best in sub-sections only to obtain maximum mark and if on the second day a student who is having better knowledge in reasoning or law but they are slightly weak in Mathematics then they will prefer law and reasoning rather then the mathematics and total standard is maintained in one paper of 4 sub-section/subjects then over all they perform their best maximum, not limited, so that they have to obtained minimum mark so fixed in each section.

73. That, deleting names of the petitioners, though they have already cleared their written examination after putting percentile is absolutely arbitrary and unjust.

74. That, the Respondents have arbitrarily and illegally done the normalization in the individual subjects/ section wise while the Notification require for Normalization to be done marks secured in the written examination of question papers in the shifts. The Notification does not provided any type of Normalization section-wise by diluting eligibility criteria.

75. That, as per rules the normalization has to be done for preparing the select list on the basis of merit among those candidates who have crossed all the stages after fulfilling the eligibility criteria require for the recruitment as per the Rules."

6. Accordingly, it is submitted that since the Rules in respect to the method providing the procedure to be applied for normalization has not been followed, therefore, the entire selection is bad and the select list is liable to be set aside. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in support of his submission placed reliance upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No.228 of 2022.

7. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel would contend that the selection impugned in the present writ petition was assailed by some of the candidates in Writ-A No.4581 of 2022 and this Court vide order dated 17.04.2023 refused to set aside the selection, however, the writ petitions have been disposed of by the Court giving certain directions. It is submitted that as the selection has already been upheld by this Court in Writ-A No.4581 of 2022, therefore, the present writ petition is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. He further contends that once the petitioners have participated in selection process and have failed in the selection process, it is not open to the petitioners to challenge the selection, and thus, it is contended that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground also.

8. I have considered rival contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The case of the petitioners is that they have submitted application for being considered for appointment for the post of Sub-Inspector in Civil Police (Male/Female), Platoon Commander, PAC & Fire Station Second Officer Direct Recruitment-2020-21 under advertisement No.PRPB-2-2(3V)/2020 and they participated in the selection process, however, they were not selected, whereas, the candidates who secured less marks than the petitioners have been selected. The petitioners' grievance is that the normalization method as contemplated in the Rules namely Uttar Pradesh Sub-Inspector and Inspector (Civil Police) Service (7th Amendment) Rules, 2015 and the procedure provides in the advertisement has not been adhered to, therefore, this has resulted in selecting less meritorious candidates inasmuch as the petitioners who have secured more marks have been left out whereas the candidates who have secured lesser marks have been selected.

10. Now, so far as the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that they have secured more marks than respondent Nos.7, 8, 9 & 10 is concerned, the petitioners have not brought out any material on record to indicate that they had secured more marks than respondent Nos.7 to 10. Though the petitioners have stated in detail from paragraph Nos.60 to 65 of the writ petition that they have obtained more marks than respondents No.7 to 10, but no details whatsoever in respect of marks obtained by the petitioners and respondent Nos.8 to 10 have been stated in the said paragraphs in support of the said averments. Further the petitioners have stated in paragraph Nos.70 to 75 extracted above that how the method of normalization has not been followed but no material has been produced on record to substantiate the aforesaid averments. It would be relevant to state that the paragraph Nos.70 to 75 of the writ petition have been sworn by the petitioners on the basis of personal knowledge. The averments contained in paragraph Nos.70 to 75 in the opinion of the Court cannot be based upon personal knowledge inasmuch as if the petitioners are assailing the selection on the ground that the method of normalization provided in the Rules and advertisement has not been assailed, then they have to disclose their source of information or the basis of information alleging that correct method of normalization has not been followed. In such view of the fact, the averments contained in paragraph Nos.70 to 75 are not supported by any material on record to substantiate the contention that the method of normalization provided in Rules and advertisement has not been adhered to by selection body.

11. This Court also finds substance in submission of learned Standing Counsel that once the petitioners have participated in the selection without raising any objection they are estopped in law from questioning the selection. In this respect it would be apt to reproduce paragraph Nos. 21 and 23 of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Karunesh Kumar & Others, 2023 (1) ADJ 389.

"21. A candidate who has participated in the selection process adopted under the 2015 Rules is estopped and has acquiesced himself from questioning it thereafter, as held by this Court in the case of Anupal Singh (supra):

"55. Having participated in the interview, the private respondents cannot challenge the Office Memorandum dated 12-10-2014 and the selection. On behalf of the appellants, it was contended that after the revised Notification dated 12-10-2014, the private respondents participated in the interview without protest and only after the result was announced and finding that they were not selected, the private respondents chose to challenge the revised Notification dated 12-10- 2014 and the private respondents are estopped from challenging the selection process. It is a settled law that a person having consciously participated in the interview cannot turn around and challenge the selection process.

56. Observing that the result of the interview cannot be challenged by a candidate who has participated in the interview and has taken the chance to get selected at the said interview and ultimately, finds himself to be unsuccessful, in Madan Lal v. State of J&K [(1995) 3 SCC 486 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 712], it was held as under : (SCC p. 493, para 9) "9. ... The petitioners also appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned. Thus the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed this petition. It is now well settled that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted."

57. In K.H. Siraj v. High Court of Kerala [(2006) 6 SCC 395 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1345], it was held as under : (SCC p. 426, para 73)

"73. The appellant-petitioners having participated in the interview in this background, it is not open to the appellant-petitioners to turn round thereafter when they failed at the interview and contend that the provision of a minimum mark for the interview was not proper."

58. In Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792], it was held as under : (SCC p. 107, para 19)

"19. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari v. Shakuntala Shukla [(2002) 6 SCC 127 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 830] ....

xxx xxx xxx

It was further observed : (SCC p. 149, para 34)

'34. There is thus no doubt that while question of any estoppel by conduct would not arise in the contextual facts but the law seem to be well settled that in the event a candidate appears at the interview and participates therein, only because the result of the interview is not "palatable" to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or there was some lacuna in the process.'

59. Same principle was reiterated in Sadananda Halo v. Momtaz Ali Sheikh [(2008) 4 SCC 619 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 9] wherein, it was held as under : (SCC pp. 645-46, para 59)

"59. It is also a settled position that the unsuccessful candidates cannot turn back and assail the selection process. There are of course the exceptions carved out by this Court to this general rule. This position was reiterated by this Court in its latest judgment in Union of India v. S. Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 792] .... The Court also referred to the judgment in Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986 Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644], where it has been held specifically that when a candidate appears in the examination without protest and subsequently is found to be not successful in the examination, the question of entertaining the petition challenging such examination would not arise."

23. The aforesaid principle of law applies to the present case. It is not open to the candidate to contend to the contrary so that he can have the best of both sets of rules. Not only is there a difference in the mode of selection, but also in the constitution of recruiting authority as well. It is pertinent to note, that under the 2015 Rules, there is no such procedure for preparing a waiting-list, as the Respondents seek to contend."

12. Thus, for the reasons given above, this Court does not find any merit in the submission of learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners. Consequently, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed without any order as to costs.

Order Date :- 18.09.2023

R.S. Tiwari