Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1144 (RAJ)

Surendra v. State of Rajasthan

2021-07-15

INDERJEET SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT : Inderjeet Singh, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- "In these circumstances, it is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly call for entire record pertaining to RAS & RTS (Mains) Examination, 2018 and after examining the same be pleased to direct the respondents and under:- (i) By an appropriate order, writ or direction, the official respondent be directed to declare and disclose the result of the unsuccessful candidates i.e. their marks of main examination prior to holding of interview which is scheduled to commence from 05.10.2020. (ii) By an appropriate order, writ or direction, the official respondent be directed to verify the copies of the petitioners using the barcode an independently examine the copies of few petitioners and other persons similarly situated randomly and that too manually and also to verify/compare individual answer sheets with the mark sheet and in case if there is any variation and discrepancy in the allotment of marks, in that eventuality the entire evaluation of copies be held afresh manually and it is only thereafter a new result be held afresh manually and it is only thereafter a new result be declared of main examination of RAS & RTS (Mains) Examination, 2018 and till the aforesaid exercise is carried out, the official respondents be restrained from conducting interview during the pendency of the writ petition; (iii) By an appropriate order, writ or direction, the entire result of RAS & RTS (Mains) Examination, 2018 declared on 09.07.2018 be declared null and void and be quashed and set aside; (iv) By appropriate order, writ or direction, the official respondent be directed to first make available and disclose the marks of the unsuccessful candidates so that they can apply for re-totaling prior to interview and till the aforesaid exercise is carried out, the official respondents be restrained from conducting interview during the pendency of the writ petition. (v) By an appropriate order, writ or direction the unsuccessful candidates by made available their answer sheets/copies before convening of interview; (vi) By an appropriate order, writ or direction, the petitioners be made available their marksheets in order to evaluate them to move for re-totaling before interview in order to enable the petitioners to adjust their performance; (vii) Cost of writ petition. (viii) Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case may kindly also be passed in favour of the Petitioners." 2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 02.04.2018 issued by the respondent-RPSC the petitioners applied for the subject post in Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services and participated in the preliminary examination which was held on 05.08.2018. Result of the preliminary examination was declared on 23.10.2018 and the result of main examination was declared on 09.07.2020, thereafter extended result was also declared on 12.03.2021. According to the information of the petitioners' counsel the interviews are over by 13.07.2021. 3. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the respondent-RPSC has committed wrong while checking the answer sheets through screening method whereas the same should not have been checked by manually. Counsel further submits that the RPSC has selected ineligible persons and on demand marks have been supplied to them. Counsel further submits that even marks-sheets of the petitioners were also not supplied by the respondents. Counsel further submits that the liberty be granted to the petitioners to file fresh writ petition if need so arises. 4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the petitioners are estopped to challenge the process of selection after participating in the same. 5. In support of the contention, counsel for the respondents, relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar & Anr. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in (2017) 4 SCC 357 wherein paras No. 13 to 18 it has been held as under:- "13. The law on the subject has been crystalized in several decisions of this Court. In Chandra Prakash Tiwari vs. 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. 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 vs. S. Vinodh Kumar, (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 vs. Rajiv Govil (1991) and Rashmi Mishra vs. 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 vs. State of Bihar, the same principle was reiterated in the following observations: (SCC p. 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 vs. State of J&K, Marripati Nagaraja vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, Dhananjay Malik and Ors. vs. State of Uttaranchal, Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs. State of Assam and K.A. Nagamani vs. Indian Airlines. 16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. 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. vs. State of Uttaranchal, Amlan Jyoti Borooah vs. State of Assam and K.A. Nagamani vs. Indian Airlines. 16. In Vijendra Kumar Verma vs. 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 vs. 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, para 18) "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. vs. 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 vs. Dinesh Kumar Pandey, this Court held that: (SCC P. 500, para 17) "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. 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 vs. S.K. Shiva Subaramanyam." 6. Counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in the matter of Shanu Goyal vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17708/2013) decided on 08.07.2013 wherein the following order was passed:- "In view of the emphatic enunciation and the legal proposition as above, we are of the unhesitant opinion that considering the nature of the ongoing selection process as stipulated by the Rules and the bearing of the results of the written examination on the eventual selection of the candidates, the request of the petitioner, as made in the instant petition, ought not to be entertained at this stage. This request, we construe, if allowed, would undermine the confidentiality of the exercise underway, apart from affecting the third party rights. Besides, the very basis of the relief sought for by the petitioner is speculative i.e. her perception that her performance has not been correctly evaluated for which there is no tangible basis for this Court to act upon. The petition therefore, lacks in merit and is rejected. The stay application is also dismissed. 7. Besides, the very basis of the relief sought for by the petitioner is speculative i.e. her perception that her performance has not been correctly evaluated for which there is no tangible basis for this Court to act upon. The petition therefore, lacks in merit and is rejected. The stay application is also dismissed. 7. The 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; in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar (supra); secondly, the answer sheets of the petitioners cannot be provided to them in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this court in the matter of Shanu Goyal (supra) and the petitioners can take the copy of the answer sheets after completion of selection process; lastly, in the facts and circumstance of the present case, I am not inclined to exercise the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In that view of the matter, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, the petitioners are at liberty to file fresh writ petition if need so arises.