Lalit Dave vs State of Rajasthan and Others

R. S. Chauhan, J.—Having faced the selection process, having been denied the appointment to the post of Rural Nursing Grade II, the petitioners, in all these writ petitions, have approached this Court. Since all these writ petitions challenge the merit list dated 8-8-2009, they are being decided by this common judgment.

The brief facts of the case are that on 18-7-2008, the Director, Medical & Health Services issued an advertisement for the post of Rural Nursing Grade II. According to the advertisement there were 1757 posts. Moreover, according to the advertisement, the selection was to be made on the basis of merit/ interview. The selections were to be made in accordance with Rajasthan Medical & Health Subordinate Services Rules, 2008 (for short `Rules, 2008''). Since the petitioners possessed the requisite qualification, they applied for the said post. The petitioners were called for interview, which were conducted from 3-7-2009 to 2-8-2009. On 8-8-2009, the merit list was published. However, the petitioners were shocked to learn that they have not been selected for the said post. Hence, they rushed to this Court.

Mr. Dinesh Yadav, the learned Additional Advocate General, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of these writ petitions. Since the petitioners have undergone the selection process, without any protest and without challenging the same, they are now precluded from challenging the selection process. According to Mr. Yadav, in catena of cases, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that once a candidate undergoes the selection process, he cannot challenge it, as he has acquiesced to the selection process and waived his right. In order to buttress his argument, the learned Counsel has relied upon Manak Lal Vs. Dr. Prem Chand, ; Dhananjay Malik and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, ; Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, ; Marripati Nagaraja v. State of A.P. (2007) 11 SCC 522 ; Om Prakash Shukla Vs. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla and Others, ; Amlan Jyoti Borooah Vs. State of Assam and Others, ; Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. S. Vinodh Kumar and Others, ; Sadananda Halo and Others Vs. Momtaz Ali Sheikh and Others, ; H.K. Nirmala v. Karnataka State Finance Corporation (2008) 7 SCC 639 ; Munindra Kumar and others Vs. Rajiv Govil and others, ; Rashmi Mishra v. M.P. Public Service Commission (2006) 11 SCC 724; Chandra Prakash Tiwari and Others Vs. Shakuntala Shukla and Others, ; Vijay Syal and Another Vs. State of Punjab and Others, ; G. Sarana Vs. University of Lucknow and Others, ; Smt. Yashbala Rathore & 126 Ors. v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., 2010 (1) W.L.C. (Raj.) 514.

Mr. Tanveer Ahmad, Mr. S.S. Hasan and other learned Counsel for the petitioners have vehemently contended that the appointment cannot be made solely on the basis of interview. In order to buttress this argument, the learned Counsel have relied upon Ajay Hasia and Others Vs. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Others, , and St. Stephen''s College v. the University of Delhi AIR 1992 SC 1639. According to the petitioners for 1757 vacancies all the applicants were invited for interview. Every day about 700 candidates were interviewed. Thus, the interview could not have lasted for more than a minute or two. Hence, the entire interview process was more illusionary than substantive in nature. The petitioners could challenge the selection only after having undergone the process, and not before hand. Secondly, as there are glaring mistakes made in the merit list, for example, the cut of point is no where indicated in the merit list, marks obtained by each candidate is not indicated in the said list, members of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe have not been selected, therefore, the selection process could be challenged only after it has been completed.

In rejoinder, Mr. Yadav has argued that in the advertisement dated 18-7-2008, it was clearly stated that the selection would be made solely on the basis of interview. In case the petitioners were aggrieved by the said stand of the respondents, they were free to challenge the said advertisement prior to holding of the interview. Knowing fully well that the selection would be made only on the basis of interview, the petitioners decided to participate in the said process. Once they have undergone the interview, they cannot challenge the interview process, or the merit list.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

A similar issue had arisen in the case of Yashbala Rathore & 126 others v. State of Rajasthan (supra). Like the present case, the case of Smt. Yashbala Rathore dealt with the selection to the post of Female Health Worker. The said selection was also made under the Rules of 2008. The petitioners in that case also applied under the advertisement dated 18-7-2008. A coordinate bench of this Court held that once the petitioners had participated in the selection process, they were stopped from challenging the selection process. Similarly in the case of Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (supra) the Apex Court had observed that if a candidate had a chance to appear in the interview, the result of interview is not appealable. He cannot turn around subsequently and contend that the process of interview was unfair or the selection was not properly conducted. Therefore, the petitioners, who have undergone the interview cannot be permitted to challenge the interview process.

Keeping in mind the principle laid down by the Hon''ble Apex Court, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Dinesh Yadav, learned Additional Advocate General is worthy of acceptance. Since the preliminary objection is being accepted, there is no necessity to enter into the merits of the case.

The writ petitions are, hereby, dismissed on the ground of nonmaintainability.