Rajasthan High Court

Ajay Meena S/O Sitaram Meena vs The Rajasthan High Court Johdpur ... on 1 October, 2024

Bench: Inderjeet Singh, Ashok Kumar Jain

[2024:RJ-JP:41769-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12895/2024

1.       Ajay Meena S/o Sitaram Meena, Aged About 35 Years,
         R/o Plot No 30, Prabhu Pradhan City, B-Block Jagatpura,
         Jaipur (Rajasthan)
2.       Amit Kumar S/o Shri Babu Lal Gupta, Aged About 41
         Years, R/o Opposite Govt. Girl Senior Secondary School
         Ward No. 11 Khairthal District Khairthal (Rajasthan)
3.       Narendra Yogi S/o Gopal Lal Yogi, Aged About 30 Years,
         R/o   Yogi     Bhawan         Bus      Stand       Sirsi   District   Jaipur
         (Rajasthan).
                                                                      ----Petitioners
                                       Versus
1.       The Rajasthan High Court Johdpur, Through Registrar
         General.
2.       The    Registrar        (Examination)          Rajasthan      High    Court,
         Jodhpur (Rajasthan)
                                                                    ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Gautam For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN

Order

01/10/2024

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners with the

following prayers:

"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature thereof the respondent be consider the petitioners for appear in typewriting test on computer who shall be scheduled very soon.

(ii) Issue a writ order or direction to the respondent for consider the representation given of the petitioner and to be included in typewriting test

[2024:RJ-JP:41769-DB] (2 of 7) [CW-12895/2024]

on computer as per corrigendum dated

02.06.2024.

(iii) Issue a writ order or direction to the respondent after included in typewriting test on computer as per corrigendum dated 02.06.2024 and after passing of said test petitioners be appointed for the post of System Assistant.

(iv) Any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper, be passed in the interest of justice and to grant adequate relief to the humble petitioners."

2. The respondent(s) issued advertisement dated 18.12.2023

for recruitment to the post of System Assistant, 2023. In pursuant

to the said advertisement all petitioners applied for the said post

for which written test (first phase) was conducted by the

respondent(s) on 03.03.2024. All the petitioners appeared in the

said written test and result of the written test was declared by the

respondent(s) on 19.03.2024. In the second phase, the type test

was held by the respondent(s) on 18.05.2024 in which all

petitioners appeared, however, after participating in the written

test and type test they submitted representations on various dates

i.e. 29.05.2024, 19.06.2024, 30.05.2024 and 05.06.2024 to the

respondent(s) for conducting fresh type test on the ground that

the respondent(s) have issued a corrigendum on 02.06.2024 for

conducting the fresh type test for SC category (women

candidates).

3. Learned counsel for petitioners submitted that the

respondent(s) are going to conduct the type test for SC category

(women candidates) and one more chance be given to the

petitioners along with those candidates to appear in the type test.

[2024:RJ-JP:41769-DB] (3 of 7) [CW-12895/2024]

Learned counsel further submits that there were technical faults

with the computer and keyboard provided to the petitioners for

which they were not responsible and they failed to type the

answers properly in the said type test.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent(s)

opposed the writ petition and submitted that there is no fault on

their part to conduct the type test and after examination all the

candidates signed the form with regard to their satisfaction that

their peripherals and systems were working properly, more

particularly, in para no.5 of the reply it has been submitted on

behalf of the respondent(s) as under:

"That it is pertinent to mention that prior to starting of typewriting test on computer, all the candidates were being directed time and again by way of announcement to please check all the additional equipment's like monitor, keyboard, mouse etc. of the computer and also to click of the icon "Peripheral Check" and do the practice of typing.

All the candidates checked the computers & additional equipment's and also practice typing before the starting of typewriting test on computer. In case, any candidate raise any objection regarding non-working of their respective computer or any of the additional equipment thereof, the same was attended immediately and required follow up action of changing the computer or equipment thereof was taken. After verifying that all the candidates have checked their computers and its additional equipments, the type writing test on computer was started. After examination, all the candidates verified the fact that their peripherals and system were working properly and voluntarily signed the certificate to this effect. In these circumstances the facts mentioned in the writ petition are not

[2024:RJ-JP:41769-DB] (4 of 7) [CW-12895/2024]

tenable and writ petition is liable to be dismissed."

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent(s) submits that as

per instructions uploaded on the official website of the

respondent(s) with regard to type test, in any case of difficulty,

the candidate has to make a complaint to the invigilator at the

time when the type test was conducted but no complaint was ever

made by the petitioners to their respective invigilators.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme 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 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

[2024:RJ-JP:41769-DB] (5 of 7) [CW-12895/2024]

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 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

[2024:RJ-JP:41769-DB] (6 of 7) [CW-12895/2024]

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."

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

8. This writ petition filed by the petitioners deserves to be

dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the petitioners are estopped to

challenge the process of selection after participating in the same

as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (supra);

secondly, the petitioners have not made any complaint at the time

[2024:RJ-JP:41769-DB] (7 of 7) [CW-12895/2024]

of written test to their respective invigilator with regard to any

fault either in the computer or with the keyboard provided to them

in the examination hall; thirdly, the petitioners have voluntarily

signed the certificate that their computer and keyboard are