Rajasthan High Court

Shivani Saini D/O Sh. Anil Kumar ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 9 May, 2022

Bench: Inderjeet Singh

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6863/2022

Shivani Saini D/o Sh. Anil Kumar Saini, Aged About 26 Years,
R/o 204-A, Kushi Vihar, Patrakar Colony, Mansarovar, Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
                                                                     ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Government
       Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2.     Chairman,       Rajasthan          Staff     Selection      Board,    State
       Institute      Of       Agriculture          Management          Premises,
       Durgapura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3.     Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, State Institute
       Of Agriculture Management Premises, Durgapura, Jaipur,
       Rajasthan.
                                                                  ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Aslam Khan
For Respondent(s)          :



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH

                                      Order

09/05/2022

Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may very graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition, call for the entire record pertaining to the present case and:-

(i) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby to quash and set aside the result declared by respondents on 18.02.2022, for the post of Stenographer pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.07.2018 and amended 18.08.2020.

(2 of 6) [CW-6863/2022]

(ii) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to prepare the separate merit list of second phase of the candidates, bifurcating them according to the respective language as per their eligibility.

(iii) By issuing an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may be directed to Recommend the name of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Stenographer (English) as per her merit pursuant to the advertisement dated 04.07.2018 and amended 18.08.2020.

(iv) Any other appropriate order or directions which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the humble petitioner."

Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the

advertisement dated 04.07.2018 issued by the respondents, the

petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Stenographer.

Scheme of examination has been mentioned in advertisement

clause No.21 of the advertisement which reads as under:-

२१. शीघ्रलरलिपिपिक िपिदपदों िपिर भभर भर्ती ती ह्ती हेभरी िपिरतु परीपरीक परीक्षा क्ती हे ा के सका के स्कीम :-

शीघ्रलरलिपिपिक िपिदपदों िपिर भभर भर्ती ती ह्ती हेभरी िपिरतु परीपरीक परीक्षा का के स्की ा के सका के स्कीम स्कीम न स्कीम निकीम निम स्कीम नि परीक्षा स्कीम निीिम्नानुस परीक्षार ती हन:- प्रस्कीम नभरयियोगी िपिरतु परीपरीक परीक्षा मष स्कीम न स्कीम निकीम निम स्कीम निलरलि्नलिखम्नलिखिभर प्रित प्रश स्कीम नििपित्र िम्नानुसश्नपत्र समकीम निममलरलिभर ती हपदोंग्ती हे ओर प्र होंगे ओर प्रतय्ती हेक प्रित प्रश स्कीम नि िपित्र उिम्नानुसक्ती हे िम्नानुस परीक्षाम स्कीम नि्ती हे दलश्शिभर अ अंकपदों क परीक्षा ती हियोग परीक्षा, अर् परीक्षा्शिभर :- प्रित प्रश स्कीम नििपित्र अव अवध अवधि अ अंक फ्ती हेज - I

१. िम्नानुस परीक्षाम परीक्षानय ज परीक्षा स्कीम नि, 3 घ अंट्ती हे १०० दनस्कीम न स्कीम निक पवज परीक्षा स्कीम नि अं रजर् परीक्षा स्कीम नि क परीक्षा िम्नानुस परीक्षाम परीक्षानय ज परीक्षा स्कीम नि।

२. िम्नानुस परीक्षाम परीक्षानय हती ह अंदतु परी और अ अंग्ती हेजी ३ घ अंट्ती हे १०० फ्ती हेज -II अभयर् भर्ती स्कीम न स्कीम निकीम निम स्कीम निलरलि्नलिखम्नलिखिभर दियो प्रित प्रश स्कीम नििपित्रपदों मष िम्नानुस्ती हे में से ककिम्नानुसी एक क परीक्षा चय स्कीम नि कर िम्नानुसक्ती हेग परीक्षा :- प्रित प्रश स्कीम नििपित्र अव अवध अवधि अ अंक

१. अ अंग्ती हेजी आशली रलिपिपि िपिररपरीकण १० लम स्कीम निट (िपिररपरीकण १०० शबद प्रस्कीम नभर लमस्कीम न स्कीम निट का के स्की शस्कीम नी भररलि्ती हेम्नलिखि क परीक्षा ती हियोग परीक्षा) १०० हदए गए शस्कीम नी भररलि्ती हेम्नलिखि का के स्की रलि्ती हेम्नलिखि परीक्षा अंश क परीक्षा ६० लम स्कीम निट क अंपयट य र िपिर अ अंग्ती हेजी मष प्रस्कीम नभररलि्ती हेम्नलिखि स्कीम नि और ट अंकण।

२. हती ह अंदतु परी आशली रलिपिपि िपिररपरीकण १० लम स्कीम निट (िपिररपरीकण १०० शबद प्रस्कीम नभर लम स्कीम निट का के स्की शस्कीम नी भररलि्ती हेम्नलिखि क परीक्षा ती हियोग परीक्षा) १००

(3 of 6) [CW-6863/2022]

हदए गए शस्कीम नी भररलि्ती हेश का के स्की रलि्ती हेम्नलिखि परीक्षा अंश ७० लम स्कीम निट क परीक्षा क अंपयट य र िपिर हती ह अंदतु परी मष प्रस्कीम नभररलि्ती हेम्नलिखि स्कीम नि और ट अंकण

Counsel for the petitioner submits that for the test of

English translation, the time has been prescribed as 60 minutes,

whereas for the Hindi translation, it is 70 minutes. Counsel

further submits that the action of the respondents in fixing extra

10 minutes for Hindi translation is discriminatory because for the

English translation, the time has been given only 60 minutes.

Counsel further submits that the respondents have erred in

preparing the common merit list for Hindi and English

Stenographer. Counsel further submits that the examination has

been conducted for the post of Stenographer by the Rajasthan

High Court and the separate merit list has been prepared for

Hindi and English Stenographers. Counsel further submits that

nowhere in the advertisement it has been mentioned by the

respondents that there will be common merit list for Hindi and

English Stenographers.

Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

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 in paras No.13 to 18 has held as

under:-

"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

(4 of 6) [CW-6863/2022]

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 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

(5 of 6) [CW-6863/2022]

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 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."

(6 of 6) [CW-6863/2022]

This principle has been reiterated in a recent judgment in Madras Institute of Development Studies V. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam."

This writ petition filed by the petitioner deserves to be

dismissed; for the reasons, firstly, the petitioner has challenged

the result declared by the respondents after participating in the

said selection process, in my considered view, the petitioner is

estopped to challenge the same after participating in the

selection process, secondly, if aggrieved by the selection process,

the petitioner ought to have filed the writ petition at the initial

stage, thirdly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar & Anr. (supra), I

am not inclined to exercise the jurisdiction of this Court under