Dharam Singh Meena And Ors vs Union Of India And Anr
2021 Latest Caselaw 166 Raj/2

                                         (1 of 3)                  [CW-7795/2018]


      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7795/2018

1.     Dharam Singh Meena S/o Shri Rama Lallu Ram, Category
       - St, R/o Village And Post - Bamboli, Teh.- Ramgarh,
       District Alwar Raj.
2.     Dhanpal Singh S/o Shri Mangal Singh, Category- Gen,
       R/o Village- Barkheda Fojdar, Post- Khakhawali, Teh.
       Nagar, District Bharatpur Raj.
3.     Dhara Singh S/o Shri Nand Singh, Category- Gen, R/o
       Village- Hazipur Dadikar, District Alwar Raj.
4.     Dinesh Kumar Choudhary S/o Shri Ballu Ram Jat,,
       Category- Obc, R/o Village- Kirarod, Pass Pragpura,
       Kotputli, District Jaipur Raj.
5.     Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Raman Lal, Category- Obc, R/o
       Village- Baiaheda, Teh. Nagar, District Bharatpur Raj.
6.     Yogendra Singh S/o Shri Devendra Singh, Category- Gen,
       R/o Village And Post - Rahimgarh, Teh. Wair, District
       Bharatpur Raj.
7.     Vishram Singh Jat S/o Shri Ram Dayal Jat, Category-
       Obc, R/o Village- Khedla, Teh. Malakheda, District Alwar
       Raj.
                                                                  ----Petitioners
                                   Versus
1.     Union Of India Through Secretary, Ministry Of Home
       Affairs, East Block- V, R.k. Puram, New Delhi
2.     Director General Of Police, Sashastra Seema Bal, East
       Block- V, R.k. Puram, New Delhi
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. M S Raghav
For Respondent(s)        :     Mr. Ashish Kumar

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

08/01/2021

(2 of 3) [CW-7795/2018]

Both the counsel agreed that the issue involved in the

present writ petition stands adjudicated finally by this Court in

vide judgment dated 25.11.2019, Deepak Kumar Biwal Vs.

Union of India in SBCWP No.7352/2018 and other connected

petitions wherein it was held as under:-

"8. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Surender Singh & Ors. reported in 2019(8)SCC67, wherein it was held as under:

"18. From a perusal of the said Clause it is noticed that though under the very Clause there is no cut-off marks specified, Clause 25 would, however, provide the full discretion to the DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks for selection. In the instant case, keeping in view that the recruitment was for the post of Assistant Teacher (Primary) and also taking note of the orders passed by the High Court in an earlier petition requiring the maintenance of minimum standards, DSSSB while preparing the select list had stopped the selection at a point which was indicated as the cut-off percentage. In a circumstance where Clause 25 was depicted in the Advertisement No. 1/2006, when the private Respondents herein and the other Petitioners before the High Court were responding to the said Advertisement, if at all they had a grievance that the Clause is arbitrary and might affect their right ultimately since no minimum marks that is to be obtained have been indicated therein, they were required to assail the same at that stage. On the other hand, despite being aware of the Clause providing discretion to DSSSB to fix the minimum qualifying marks, they have participated in the selection process by appearing for the qualifying examination without raising any protest. In that circumstance, the principle of approbate and reprobate would apply and the private Respondents herein or any other candidate who

(3 of 3) [CW-7795/2018]

participated in the process cannot be heard to complain in that regard."

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.

12. All pending applications stand disposed of. The order shall be placed in each writ petition."

Keeping in view above, the present writ petition is also

dismissed.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

SAURABH YADAV /670/38

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)