Jigyasha Gupta vs State of Jharkhand And Ors

Heard Mr. Amritansh Vats, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent

State and Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JSSC.

This writ petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising

due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been

heard.

The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing the impugned notice dated 27.06.2018 so far the petitioner is concerned by which the

candidature of the petitioner has been treated under the general category candidate. The further prayer is also made for direction upon the

respondents to appoint the petitioner under the BC-I category.

The respondent no.3 issued Advertisement No.5/2017 for appointment of Sub-Inspector of Police on the different categories on vacant post of Sub

Inspector of Police, known as Combined Competitive Examination of Sub-Inspector of Police, 2017. The petitioner is permanent resident of Zebra

Road, New Colony, Korrah, Ward No.26, Hazaribagh Sadar P.S. The petitioner submitted her application for issuance of the residential certificate of

the Sub Divisional Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh, vide Registration No.JHRC/2017/660417 dated 26.05.2017 which was issued vide Certificate

No.JHRC/2017/660417 dated 13.06.2017. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner applied for issuance of caste certificate from the Sub

Divisional Officer, Sadar, Hazaribagh which was issued by the Sub Divisional Officer Sadar, Hazaribagh vide Certificate No.JHCC/2017/612848

dated 12.06.2017. The petitioner submitted her on line application having requisite qualification and eligibility criteria. The petitioner received the Admit

Card and appeared in the examination. She cleared the P.T. examination. The result of the main examination was published on 28.02.2018. The

petitioner was declared successful in the main examination. The physical fitness test was conducted from 16.03.2018 to 23.03.2018. The fitness test

of the petitioner was conducted on 23.03.2018 at Dumka in which the petitioner was declares successful. Thereafter, the petitioner was called for

verification of certificates as mentioned in the application form. The petitioner produced her caste certificate as mentioned in the application form but

inadvertently in place of BC-I the petitioner mentioned BC-II in her application. On this background, the candidature of the petitioner was rejected. He

submits that the petitioner has secured higher marks in comparison to last recommended candidate in the reserved category, in that view of the matter

the case of the petitioner may kindly be directed to be considered by the respondent JSSC.

Per contra, Mr. Piprawal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent -JSSC submits that in the application form the petitioner in clear terms

has stated the category as BC-II whereas on verification he produced the certificate under BC-I category. In view of the said discrepancy the

candidature of the petitioner was considered in the general category and she was declared unsuccessful. He submits that in the advertisement in clear

terms at Clause-9 it has been disclosed that the candidates should be careful in submitting the application form. He submits that it has been stated

therein that after submission of the application form any time of claim for correction shall not be allowed. He submits that the examination has already

been completed and the process of appointment has also been taken place. This fact has been disclosed in paragraph no.36 of the counter affidavit.

Mr. Gaurav Abhishek, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent State submits that in view of the circular of 2012 of the State

Government any vacancy is required to be carried forward in the subsequent advertisement. He submits that the case of the petitioner is fit to be

rejected.

Having heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and going through the records, it transpires that the petitioner has applied

under BC-II category. The certificate on the record suggests that the petitioner was having the caste certificate under BC-I category. The Clause-9

of the advertisement, in clear terms, says that once the application form is submitted, no rectification will be allowed to be carried out. The case of the

petitioner in view of the anomaly in the caste certificate was considered under the general category. The application form is in the handwriting of the

petitioner. The form filled up by the petitioner is under category of BC-II thus, the petitioner has applied under the BC-II category. The petitioner

appeared in the examination as a candidate of BC-II category. The contention of the petitioner to treat her candidature under BC-I category cannot

be considered at this stage when the examination has already been taken place and the appointment has been made. On being unsuccessful in the

examination, the writ petitioner has approached this Court. It is well settled proposition of law that when a candidate who consciously takes part in the

selection process cannot turn around and complain that the process of selection was unfair. In this regard, a reference may be made to the judgment

reported in ""Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi"" reported in (2013) 11 SCC 309. Paragraph nos.17 and 18 of the said judgment are quoted

hereinbelow:

Those who were desirous of competing for the post of Physiotherapist, which is a Group 'C' post in the State of Uttarakhand must have, after

reading the advertisement, become aware of the fact that by virtue of the Office Memorandum dated 3-8-2010, the Board has been designated as the

recruiting agency and the selection will be made in accordance with the provisions of the General Rules. They appeared in the written test knowing

that they will have to pass the examination enumerated in Para 11 of the advertisement. If they had cleared the test, the private respondents would not

have raised any objection to the selection procedure or the methodology adopted by the Board. They made a grievance only after they found that their

names do not figure in the list of successful candidates. In other words, they took a chance to be selected in the test conducted by the Board on the

basis of the advertisement issued in November 2011. This conduct of the private respondents clearly disentitles them from seeking relief under Article

226 of the Constitution. To put it differently, by having appeared in the written test and taken a chance to be declared successful, the private

respondents will be deemed to have waived their right to challenge the advertisement and the procedure of selection.

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.

The Court has given thoughtful consideration of the facts as discussed hereinabove and after going through the records and after considering the

entire aspect of the matter and the legal position is of the view that no interference is required in the writ petition.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.