Rajasthan High Court

Sanjay Parihar Son Of Shri Jasaram ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 29 June, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                  S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8635/2022

 Sanjay Parihar Son Of Shri Jasaram Parihar, Aged About 35
 Years, Resident Of House No. 03, Gayatri Nagar, Prabhag Sr.
 Secondary School Street, Main Road, Badgaon, Police Station
 Ambamata, Udaipur (Raj.)
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
 1.      State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Secretary, Department
         Of Personnel, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
 2.      Additional Chief Secretary, Department Of Forest, Govt.
         Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.)
 3.      Head Chief Forest Conservator (Hoff), Aranya Bhawan,
         Jhalana Doongri, Jaipur (Raj.)
 4.      Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer
         (Raj.)
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Komal Giri Goswami.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. M.F. Baig.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

Order

29/06/2022

Issue notice to the respondent(s).

Mr. M.F. Baig, Adv., accepts notice on behalf of the

respondent-RPSC.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your lordship may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and -

(I). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof thereby quashed and set

(2 of 5) [CW-8635/2022]

aside the advertisement dated 04.04.2018 and its corrigendum issued by respondent R.P.S.C. Ajmer qua the terms of reservation for the S.C./S.T. candidates.

(iii). Issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.

(iv). Cost of the writ petition be also awarded in favour of the petition."

Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the

advertisement dated 04.04.2018 issued by the respondent-RPSC,

the petitioner applied for the post of ACF and Forest Range

Conservative Officer Grade-I.

Grievances of the petitioner is that the respondents have not

included the backlog vacancies of SC/ST category while issuing

the said advertisement.

Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-RPSC

submitted that the result of the examination in question has

already been declared by the RPSC on 26.05.2022. Counsel

further submits that the petitioner has challenged the process of

recruitment after participating in the same. Counsel further

submits that the RPSC has notified the vacancy/post in the

advertisement as per the recommendation made by the State

Government and the petitioner has filed this writ petition in the

year 2022 after a delay of four years after participating in the

selection process.

In support of his contention counsel relied upon the

judgment passed by the Hon'ble Suprme 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:-

(3 of 5) [CW-8635/2022]

"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 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 MANU/SC/7926/2007 : (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:(SCCp.584, para 16)

"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

(4 of 5) [CW-8635/2022]

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.

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

(5 of 5) [CW-8635/2022]

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 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."

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the advertisement in question

was issued in the year 2018 and the petitioner has filed this writ

petition in the year 2022 after a delay of four years with regard to

non addition of the backlog vacancies in SC/ST category;

secondly, the petitioner has questioned the process of selection

after participating in the same, therefore, in my considered view,

the petitioner is estopped to challenge the selection process after

participating in the same, in view of the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar & Anr.