Mukesh Kumar Prajapati vs Chairman Staff Selection Commi ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 1425 Raj/2

[2023/RJJP/001523]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                      S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9657/2010

Mukesh Kumar Prajapati Son of Jeevan Ram Prajapati, House No.
178/2, Bhopan Ka Bara, Shamshan Road, Lohakhan, Ajmer Rajasthan.

                                                                          ----Petitioner

                                          Versus

1.       Chairman, Staff Selection Commission, Northern Regional
         Office, Department Of Personnel And Training Block No. 12,
         CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi.

2.       Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Home
         Affairs, North Block, New Delhi.

                                                                      ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)               :    Ms. Preeti
                                     Mr. Sanjay Gangwar
For Respondent(s)               :    Mr. Mukesh Kumar Meena


         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
                          Order

03/02/2023

Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayer:

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed to your lordships may kindly be allowed this writ petition of mandamus and by appropriate writ, order or direction:-

i) the respondents may be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Sub- Inspector from the date of the persons have given appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector who are the lower in merit to the petitioner with all consequential benefits.

ii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may be passed in favour of the petitioner."

Brief and admitted facts of the case are that pursuant

to the advertisement issued by Staff Selection Commission (for

short 'SSC') in the year 2008, the petitioner applied for

[2023/RJJP/001523] (2 of 5) [CW-9657/2010]

appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector in Central Reserve

Police Force (for short 'CRPF'). As per Clause 22 of the

advertisement, a candidate was supposed to submit his preference

for the organization for which he / she would like to be considered

for appointment in the order of preference. Here in the instant

case, the petitioner submitted his preference for his appointment

on the post of Sub-Inspector for CRPF. Learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that on the day of interview i.e. 02.01.2010,

the petitioner submitted an application with the respondents that

by mistake he has preferred only one choice for his appointment

in CRPF and in the said application he submitted five choices for

his appointment in the following categories:

C. Central Reserve Police Force

B. Central Industrial Security Force

A. Border Security Force

D. Indo Tibetan Border Police

E. Sashastra Seema Bal

Counsel submits that after participation in the above

selection process, the petitioner secured 237 marks while the cut-

off marks for CRPF was 240 and the petitioner has secured more

than cut off marks in other organizations i.e. BSF (cut off marks is

234) and ITBP (cut off marks is 229) for OBC candidates. Counsel

submits that the petitioner was also an OBC candidate and in spite

of securing higher marks in merit, his candidature was not

considered for appointment in BSF and ITBP. Counsel submits that

less meritorious candidates have been given appointment in OBC

category in these two organizations overlooking the higher marks

of the petitioner. Counsel submits that under these circumstances

[2023/RJJP/001523] (3 of 5) [CW-9657/2010]

appropriate orders / directions be issued to the respondents to

consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on the post

of Sub-Inspector in ITBP or BSF. In support of her contentions, the

counsel has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of

Delhi High Court in the case of Namrata Singh vs. Union of

India and Ors (W.P. (C) 7151/2011) decided on 27.09.2011.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners

and submitted that as per clause / para No.22 of the

advertisement, the petitioner was supposed to give his preference

for the organization(s) for which he wanted to be considered for

appointment but the petitioner has given only one preference at

the time of submitting the application for consideration of his

candidature on the post of Sub-Inspector in CRPF. Counsel submits

that cut off marks for OBC candidates in CRPF was 240 while the

petitioner secured less than the cut off marks for that category as

the petitioner secured only 237 marks. Counsel submits that after

submitting / filling the preference in the application, a candidate is

not allowed to change or add preference. Counsel submits that

now all posts of Sub-Inspector in all the organizations have been

filled and third party rights have been created, so the case of the

petitioner cannot be considered at this belated stage, which might

affect cadre and seniority of the other selected candidates and the

same would result in unsettling the settled position, so this

petition is liable to be dismissed.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on the record.

[2023/RJJP/001523] (4 of 5) [CW-9657/2010]

This fact is not in dispute that the advertisement was

issued in the year 2008 with a clear stipulation in Para 22 of the

advertisement, which reads as under:

"22.vf/kekurk ¼,a½ vH;FkhZ dks vius vkosnu i= ds Øe la- 19 esa mu fofHkUu [email protected] dk mYys[k djuk gksxk] ftuesa fu;qfDr gks tkus dh fLFkfr esa muds uke ij fopkj fd;k tk,a] deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx }kjk fu;qfDr gsrq muds uke dh laLrqfr fd, tkus dh fLFkfr esa ;g mYys[k ojh;rk Øe esa gksuk pkfg,-

fVIi.kh % vH;FkhZ dks fofHkUu laxBuksa esa mi&fujh{kd ds :i esa fu;qfDr gsrq vf/kekurk Øe n"kkZrs le; viuh ik=rk ds fu/[email protected] fd, tkus gsrq fofHkUu iqfyl laxBuksa {kjk fu/kkZfjr fofHkUu ekun.Mksa ds ckjs esa fo"ks"kdj cgqr lko/kkuh cjrus dh lykg nh tkrh gS- vH;FkhZ dks ;g Hkh lykg nh tkrh gS fd og vius vkosnu i= esa lHkh laxBuksa dks vf/kekurk Øe esa n"kkZ,- ;fn ;g [email protected] esa ls fdlh Hkh [email protected] dks ugha n"kkZrk gS rks ;g eku fy;k tk,xk fd og mu lsokvksa gsrq fopkj fd, tkus dk bPNqd ugha gS vkSj vk;ksx dk ;g foosdkf/kdkj gksxk fd og ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fjfDr;ksa dh miyC/krk ds vuqlkj muls dksbZ Hkh i=&O;ogkj fd, fcuk dksbZ [email protected] vkoafVr djs- p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dks lsokvksa dk vkoaVu mudh ;ksX;[email protected] rFkk fofHkUu lsokvksa gsrq vf/kekurk Øe dks /;ku esa j[kdj gh fd;k tk,xk-"

Bare perusal of Para 22 clearly indicates that the

respondent authorities were supposed to consider the preference

given by the candidates at the time of filling the application forms.

In the instant case, at the time of filling the application form the

petitioner has submitted only one option i.e. for consideration of

his appointment on the post of Sub-Inspector in CRPF. The cut off

marks for the category of OBC candidates were 240 in CRPF while

the petitioner has secured 237 marks i.e. less than the last cut off

marks.

Now the question which remains for consideration for

this Court is whether the petitioner can be allowed to change or

add his preference after participation in the process for selection.

It is well settled principle of law that a candidate cannot

be allowed to change his preference after participation in the

[2023/RJJP/001523] (5 of 5) [CW-9657/2010]

selection process as he is estopped to change the same. It is clear

from the documents available on the record that by reading the

condition No.22 of the advertisement by naked eye, the petitioner

opted/ exercised only one option i.e. option No.C for consideration

of his candidature for appointment in CRPF. When the petitioner

got to know that chance of his selection in CRPF is less, then at

that stage he tried to change his preference, which was not

permissible in the eye of law.

So far as the judgment relied by the counsel for the

petitioner in the case of Namrata Singh (supra) is concerned,

the same is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the

present case.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the petitioner is

not entitled to get relief as prayed in the writ petition.

If such prayer of the petitioner is accepted at this

stage, it would certainly affect the rights of third party and it

would affect the cadre and seniority of other selected candidates

and settled position cannot be allowed to be unsettled at this

stage.

In this view of the matter, the present petition fails and

the same is hereby dismissed. Stay application and all applications

(pending, if any) also stand dismissed.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

KuD/8

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)