Rajasthan High Court – Jaipur
Vijay Singh Saini S/O Ram Swaroop Saini vs Union Of India (2024:Rj-Jp:51057-Db) on 12 December, 2024
Bench: Inderjeet Singh, Vinod Kumar Bharwani
[2024:RJ-JP:51057-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16889/2024
Vijay Singh Saini S/o Ram Swaroop Saini, Aged About 46 Years,
R/o House No. 542, Gorvari Mohalla, Village Sonkhar, Tehsil
Kathumar, District Alwar-301001, Rajasthan Present Posted As
PGT, Chemistry, Kendriya Vidyalaya, Bharatpur-301001 Group- B.
Subject - Recruitment.
----Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Tribal
Affairs, Govt. Of India, 416, 4th Floor, B-Wing, New Delhi-
110001.
2. Director, National Education Society Tribal Students,
Ministry Of Tribal Affairs, Ground Floor, Gate No. 3-A,
Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament Street, New Delhi-
110001.
3. Commissioner, National Education Society Tribal Students
(Nests), Gate No. 3-A, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament
Street, New Delhi-110001.
4. Joint Commissioner, National Education Society For Tribal
Students, Gate No. 3-A, Jeevan Tara Building, Parliament
Street, New Delhi-110001.
----Respondents/Non-Applicants
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krishan Kumar Sharma.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amit Jindal.
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI
Order
12/12/2024
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging
the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jaipur whereby the original application filed on behalf of
the petitioner was dismissed.
(Downloaded on 27/12/2024 at 11:56:23 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:51057-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-16889/2024]
Brief facts of the case are that case in pursuance to the
advertisement issued by the official respondents in July, 2023 to
fill up the post of Principal in Eklavya Model Residential School, the
petitioner applied for the said post under PH category. After having
been declared successful in the written examination , he was called
for interview on 23.05.2024. But subsequently, he was not allowed
to appear before the interview on the ground that he is disabled
with one leg (OL).
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the
advertisement, the respondents have not given any reservation to
‘OL’ category which the petitioner belongs. In the original
application, the petitioner prayed for modification in the
advertisement.
In the first round of litigation, the Central Administrative
Tribunal directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the
petitioner and on the said direction, the respondents reconsidered
the case of the petitioner and observed that he was lower in merit,
therefore, he was not selected in his category and the said
representation was dismissed against which the petitioner again
approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal again dismissed the
original application filed on behalf of the petitioner.
Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record as well
as advertisement issued by the respondents.
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.
(Downloaded on 27/12/2024 at 11:56:23 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:51057-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-16889/2024]
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 the Judgments in(Downloaded on 27/12/2024 at 11:56:23 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:51057-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-16889/2024]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
(Downloaded on 27/12/2024 at 11:56:23 PM)
[2024:RJ-JP:51057-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-16889/2024]
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.”
Since the petitioner has challenged the selection process as
well as terms & conditions of the said advertisement after taking a
part in the selection process with his open eyes, therefore, in our
considered view, the petitioner is estopped to challenge the
selection process in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar (supra)
Hence, the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
(VINOD KUMAR BHARWANI),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J
Neeru-Saurabh/60
(Downloaded on 27/12/2024 at 11:56:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)