Rajasthan High Court
Khushiram Gurjar And Ors vs Union Of India And Ors on 7 January, 2021
Bench: Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6818/2018
1. Khushiram Gurjar Son Of Shri Bhagirath Gurjar, Resident
Of Village And Post Dholi Tehsil Malpura District Tonk.
2. Laxman Pratap Singh Son Of Shri Rajendra Singh,
Resident Of Village And Post Hamirpura Tehsil
Todaraisingh District Tonk.
3. Dinesh Kumar Chaudhary Son Of Shri Banna Lal
Chaudhary, Resident Of Village And Post Abodiya Post
Santhli Tehsil Devli District Tonk.
4. Subhash Nehra Son Of Shri Jairam Nehra, Resident Of
Village And Post Chomu Purohitan Tehsil Srimadhopur
District Sikar.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home
Affairs, Government Of India, New Delhi.
2. Director General, Sashastra Seema Bal, Ministry Of Home
Affairs, Government Of India, R.k. Puram, New Delhi.
3. Assistant Director Recruitment, Sashastra Seema Bal,
Ministry Of Home Affairs, Government Of India, R.k.
Puram, New Delhi.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Avinash Choudhary on behalf of
Mr. Prakhar Gupta
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Kumar
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA
Order
07/01/2021
The petitioners by way of this writ petition has prayed
as under:-
(2 of 3) [CW-6818/2018]
"It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may
call for the entire record concerning the case and by
issuing writ, order or direction or in the nature
thereof ;
(I) Declare the action of respondents in preparing
merit list (annexure-3_ considering marks received by
candidates in one of the written tests only as bad in
law and the same be quashed and set aside and the
respondents be directed to prepare fresh merit list as
per the advertisement, considering marks received by
candidates in both written tests i.e. Common written
examination and Trade test;
(ii) If the name of petitioners find place in the fresh
merit list prepared on the basis of advertisement,
they b considered for appointment on the post of
Constable (Driver), with all consequential benefits;
(iii) any other order or direction as may be deemed
fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the
case may also be passed in favour of humble
petitioners.
(iv) cost of this writ petition may also be awarded in
favour of humble petitioners."
The issue involved in the present petition stands already
concluded decided by this court vide its judgment dated
25.11.2019 passed in number of cases with the lead case of
SBCWP No.7352/2018 wherein this court noticed contention of the
respondents as under:-
"4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents have placed on record a corrigendum
issued to the advertisement on 3/9.12.2016 in the
Employment news whereby it was informed to all the
candidates that the final merit list will be drawn on
the basis of marks obtained in the paper 1 only and
trade test will treated to be qualifying test in nature.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that
the corrigendum was issued before the written
examination was conducted and the petitioner did not
challenge the corrigendum at any stage. They have
(3 of 3) [CW-6818/2018]
participated in the selection process and after
remaining unsuccessful have filed writ petitions.
9. It is also noticed that corrigendum dated
3/9.12.2016 changed the criteria of selection process.
The assessment was to be made and merit list was
prepared on the basis of marks obtained in the
written examination paper 1. The condition relaxed
was with regard to trade test. None of the petitioner
has challenged the corrigendum. Although, it was
argued that trade test marks ought to be included as
the selection process relating to specific trade.
However, this court would not deal with such
arguments as the same are not the basis of deciding
of the present writ petitions. More so after the
selection process is over, the petitioners cannot be
allowed to approbate and reprobate at the same
time.
10. No other arguments were advanced with regard
to merit position and it is admitted case that selection
had been made purely on the basis of merit prepared
on the basis of written examination
11. In view of above, the writ petitions are found to
be devoid of merit and the same are dismissed."
In the present petition also, a corrigendum which was issued
on 3/9.12.2016, is not under challenge. In view thereof, the
present writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid
judgment. Accordingly, this writ petition is decided in the same
terms and the it is accordingly dismissed. Interim order, if any,
stands vacated.
All pending applications also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J
Anu /397
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
