Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 477 (HP)

Rajesh Kumar v. State of H. P.

2020-08-08

AJAY MOHAN GOEL

body2020
JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J : By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs: ?(a) That a writ of certiorari may kindly be issued against the respondent No. 2 and test for initial selection of the candidates for training in SAS at HIPA held on 02.06.2011 may kindly be quashed and set aside. (b) That in alternative a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued in favour of petitioners and against the respondent No. 2 with the directions to grant the grace marks to the petitioner for SAS exam and send him for training.? 2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are as under: Respondent No. 2 issued an Advertisement on 2nd June, 2011, inviting applications for initial selection of candidates for undergoing training of SAS at HIPA, copy whereof is appended with the petition as Annexure P-1. In terms of Annexure-I appended with this Advertisement, the selection process was to consist of three papers, including Paper No. 1 of English/Hindi. 3. Note-1 therein provided that the standard of English paper shall be similar to that of the Degree examination of any recognized Indian University and standard of Hindi paper shall be similar to that of Matriculation examination of any recognized University or Board of School Education. The paper was to consist of eight questions, four in Hindi and four in English in two parts. The candidates were to attempt at least two questions from each part. 4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the paper of English/Hindi, which stands appended with the petition as Annexure P-2, was not in consonance with the Advertisement as well as Annexure appended thereto. Rather than giving four questions in Part-I and Part-II Sections of the Hindi/English paper, the respondent-Commission, to the disadvantage of the petitioner, gave five questions in Part-1, which consisted of English paper and only three questions in Part-II, which consisted of Hindi paper. On these basis, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of selection process so undertaken by the respondent-Commission. 5. On these basis, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of selection process so undertaken by the respondent-Commission. 5. Reply to the writ petition has been filed by respondent No. 2, in which, inter alia, the stand which has been taken by the said respondent is that the petitioner participated in the process of selection without any objection and if the petitioner had any objection with regard to the setting of papers, then he should have registered his protest at the earliest, which was not done by the petitioner. According to the said respondent, the writ was filed at a belated stage. It also stands mentioned in the reply filed by respondent No. 2 that in all, 447 candidates had applied to participate in the examination, however, 246 candidates appeared in the examination and on the basis of merit, names of 12 candidates stood recommended for undergoing training in SAS(OB) at HIPA. 6. For the purpose of record, it is pertinent to state that the private respondents were ordered to be proceeded against ex parte, as they chose not to appear before the Court despite being served. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. 8. Though it cannot be disputed that the English/Hindi paper which was held by respondent No. 2 was not strictly in consonance with Note-I appended with Annexure-I of the Advertisement, yet it is also a matter of record that the petitioner participated in the process of selection, i.e., to say he appeared in the said examination without any protest. Not only this, he appeared in other examinations also and it is only after he discovered that on merit, he was not in a position to make it for the training that he chose to approach the Court. Besides this, the examination took place in the year 2011. Petitioner had the choice of attempting maximum three questions from either of the two Parts and though in Part-II, i.e., Hindi Part of the paper, the number of questions were restricted from four to three, yet the petitioner was having the choice to attempt three questions, if he so desired. The candidates who were selected for training have already undergone the said training, as there was no stay granted in favour of the petitioner by the Court. 9. The candidates who were selected for training have already undergone the said training, as there was no stay granted in favour of the petitioner by the Court. 9. Therefore, taking into consideration the broader perspective of the matter that no fruitful purpose will be served by setting at naught the process which was undertaken by respondent No. 2 in the year 2011, this petition is being closed without disturbing the outcome of selection process undertaken by respondent No. 2. However, respondent No. 2 is cautioned that in future the papers to be set, have to be strictly in consonance with the Advertisement issued by it. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.