Jigyasha Gupta vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 773 Jhar

                                            1                [W.P.(S) No. 3500 of 2018]




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                                 ----

W.P.(S) No. 3500 of 2018

----

Jigyasha Gupta, Daughter of Umesh Prasad Gupta, aged about 25 years, resident of Zabra Road, New Colony, Korrah, Hazaribagh, PO-Korrah, PS-Sadar, District-Hazaribagh ..... Petitioner

-- Versus --

1.The State of Jharkhand

2.Secretary, Department of Home, Govt. of Jharkhand, at Project Building, Dhurwa, PO Dhurwa, PS Jagnath Pur, District Ranchi

3.The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission, at Kali Nagar, Chaybagan, PO and PS Namkom, District Ranchi, Jharkhand, through its Secretary

4.Examination Controller, Jharkhand Staff Selection Commissioner, at Kali Nagar, Chaybagan, PO and PS Namkom, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand ...... Respondents

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate For Resp.-State :- Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, Advocate For Resp.-JSSC :- Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, Advocate

----

6/18.02.2021 Heard Mr. Amritansh Vats, the learned counsel for the

petitioner, Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, the learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondent State and Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, the learned counsel

appearing on behalf of the respondent-JSSC.

2. This writ petition has been heard through Video

Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into

account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the

parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and

with their consent this matter has been heard.

3. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing

the impugned notice dated 27.06.2018 so far the petitioner is concerned

by which the candidature of the petitioner has been treated under the

general category candidate. The further prayer is also made for direction

upon the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the BC-I category.

4. The respondent no.3 issued Advertisement No.5/2017 for

appointment of Sub-Inspector of Police on the different categories on

vacant post of Sub Inspector of Police, known as Combined Competitive

Examination of Sub-Inspector of Police, 2017. The petitioner is

permanent resident of Zebra Road, New Colony, Korrah, Ward No.26,

Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. The petitioner submitted her application for

issuance of the residential certificate of the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar,

Hazaribagh, vide Registration No.JHRC/2017/660417 dated 26.05.2017

which was issued vide Certificate No.JHRC/2017/660417 dated

13.06.2017. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for

issuance of caste certificate from the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar,

Hazaribagh which was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer Sadar,

Hazaribagh vide Certificate No.JHCC/2017/612848 dated 12.06.2017. The

petitioner submitted her on line application having requisite qualification

and eligibility criteria. The petitioner received the Admit Card and

appeared in the examination. She cleared the P.T. examination. The

result of the main examination was published on 28.02.2018. The

petitioner was declared successful in the main examination. The physical

fitness test was conducted from 16.03.2018 to 23.03.2018. The fitness

test of the petitioner was conducted on 23.03.2018 at Dumka in which

the petitioner was declares successful. Thereafter, the petitioner was

called for verification of certificates as mentioned in the application form.

The petitioner produced her caste certificate as mentioned in the

application form but inadvertently in place of BC-I the petitioner

mentioned BC-II in her application. On this background, the candidature

of the petitioner was rejected. He submits that the petitioner has

secured higher marks in comparison to last recommended candidate in

the reserved category, in that view of the matter the case of the

petitioner may kindly be directed to be considered by the respondent

JSSC.

5. Per contra, Mr. Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing for

the respondent -JSSC submits that in the application form the petitioner

in clear terms has stated the category as BC-II whereas on verification

he produced the certificate under BC-I category. In view of the said

discrepancy the candidature of the petitioner was considered in the

general category and she was declared unsuccessful. He submits that in

the advertisement in clear terms at Clause-9 it has been disclosed that

the candidates should be careful in submitting the application form. He

submits that it has been stated therein that after submission of the

application form any time of claim for correction shall not be allowed. He

submits that the examination has already been completed and the

process of appointment has also been taken place. This fact has been

disclosed in paragraph no.36 of the counter affidavit.

6. Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, the learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the respondent State submits that in view of the circular of

2012 of the State Government any vacancy is required to be carried

forward in the subsequent advertisement. He submits that the case of

the petitioner is fit to be rejected.

7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of

the parties and going through the records, it transpires that the petitioner

has applied under BC-II category. The certificate on the record suggests

that the petitioner was having the caste certificate under BC-I category.

The Clause-9 of the advertisement, in clear terms, says that once the

application form is submitted, no rectification will be allowed to be

carried out. The case of the petitioner in view of the anomaly in the

caste certificate was considered under the general category. The

application form is in the handwriting of the petitioner. The form filled up

by the petitioner is under category of BC-II thus, the petitioner has

applied under the BC-II category. The petitioner appeared in the

examination as a candidate of BC-II category. The contention of the

petitioner to treat her candidature under BC-I category cannot be

considered at this stage when the examination has already been taken

place and the appointment has been made. On being unsuccessful in the

examination, the writ petitioner has approached this Court. It is well

settled proposition of law that when a candidate who consciously takes

part in the selection process cannot turn around and complain that the

process of selection was unfair. In this regard, a reference may be made

to the judgment reported in "Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi"

reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309. Paragraph nos.17 and 18 of the said

judgment are quoted hereinbelow:

"17. Those who were desirous of competing for the post of Physiotherapist, which is a Group 'C' post in the State of Uttarakhand must have, after reading the advertisement, become aware of the fact that by virtue of the Office Memorandum dated 3-8-2010, the Board has been designated as the recruiting agency and the selection will be made in accordance with the provisions of the General Rules. They appeared in the written test knowing that they will have to pass the examination enumerated in Para 11 of the advertisement. If they had cleared the test, the private respondents would not have raised any objection to the selection procedure or the methodology adopted by the Board. They made a grievance only after they found that their names do not figure in the list of successful candidates. In other words, they took a chance to be selected in the test conducted by the Board on the basis of the advertisement issued in November 2011. This conduct of the private respondents clearly disentitles them from

seeking relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. To put it differently, by having appeared in the written test and taken a chance to be declared successful, the private respondents will be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement and the procedure of selection.

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."

8. The Court has given thoughtful consideration of the facts as

discussed hereinabove and after going through the records and after

considering the entire aspect of the matter and the legal position is of the

view that no interference is required in the writ petition.

9. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J) SI/,