Samay Singh Meena vs State of Rajasthan and Others

Anupinder Singh Grewal, J—This intra court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Bench dated 09th October, 2014 whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant and respondent No. 2 has been dismissed. The writ petitioners therein who belong to Scheduled Tribe category had applied for appointment on various posts including the post of Platoon Commander in terms of advertisement dated 27th November, 1998. They qualified the written examination and were called for efficiency test as well as physical test, which they cleared.

They were thereafter called for interview vide separate letters dated 02nd October 1999. However, when the final result was declared, the petitioners were not selected.

The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has contended that the criteria of having minimum passing marks of 50% in the interview was illegal, which has also resulted in the disqualification of the appellant.

She has further submitted that two candidates belonging to General category, namely Ajit Singh and Arun Singh Bhati were originally awarded marks which were less than the minimum qualifying marks in the interview but subsequently their marks had been increased. This had been done to deprive the Schedule Tribe candidates of the selection as the posts, which were meant for Schedule Tribe category were then transferred to General category.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is evident that the writ petitioners had participated in the selection in terms of the criteria laid down in the advertisement and after having failed to qualify they have challenged the criteria prescribed in the advertisement. It is well settled that the candidates who after having taken a chance and failed to qualify the examination can not turn around and challenge the criteria. If at all they were aggrieved with the criteria it should have been challenged at the very outset before participating for selection therein. Reference may be made to judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhananjay Malik and Others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others, AIR 2008 SC 1913 : (2008) 1 CLT 753 : (2008) 3 JT 611 : (2008) 3 SCALE 425 : (2008) 4 SCC 171 : (2008) 1 SCC(L&S) 1005 : (2008) AIRSCW 2158 : (2008) 2 Supreme 328 wherein it was held:

"7. It is not disputed that the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the process of selection knowing fully well that the educational qualification was clearly indicated in the advertisement itself as BPE or graduate with diploma in Physical Education. Having unsuccessfully participated in the process of selection without any demur they are estopped from challenging the selection criterion inter alia that the advertisement and selection with regard to requisite educational qualifications were contrary to the Rules.

In Madan Lal and Others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others, AIR 1995 SC 1088 : (1995) 2 JT 291 : (1995) LabIC 1575 : (1995) 1 SCALE 494 : (1995) 3 SCC 486 : (1995) 1 SCR 908 : (1995) 2 SLJ 161 : (1995) 2 UJ 817 , this Court pointed out that when the petitioners appeared at the oral interview conducted by the Members concerned of the Commission who interviewed the petitioners as well as the contesting respondents concerned, the petitioners took a chance to get themselves selected at the said oral interview. Therefore, only because they did not find themselves to have emerged successful as a result of their combined performance both at written test and oral interview, they have filed writ petitions. This Court further pointed out that if a candidate takes a calculated chance and appears at the interview, then, only because the result of the interview is not palatable to him, he cannot turn round and subsequently contend that the process of interview was unfair or the Selection Committee was not properly constituted.

In the present case, as already pointed out, the respondent-writ petitioners herein participated in the selection process without any demur; they are estopped from complaining that the selection process was not in accordance with the Rules. If they think that the advertisement and selection process were not in accordance with the Rules they could have challenged the advertisement and selection process without participating in the selection process. This has not been done.

In a recent judgment in the case of Marripati Nagaraja and Others Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2007) 12 JT 407 : (2007) 11 SCC 522 : (2008) 1 SCC(L&S) 68 : (2007) 11 SCR 506 : (2008) 2 SLJ 1 this Court has succinctly held that the appellants had appeared at the examination without any demur. They did not question the validity of fixing the said date before the appropriate authority. They are, therefore, estopped and precluded from questioning the selection process.

We are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court could have dismissed the appeal on this score alone as has been done by the learned Single Judge."

It is also evident that the General category candidates were required to secure 40% minimum qualifying marks whereas the candidates belonging to reserved categories were required to secure 36% marks. It was thereafter that they were subjected to efficiency test carrying 20 marks with similar criteria of minimum marks of 40% for General category and 36% for reserved categories. Those candidates who secured 45% marks in the efficiency test were eligible to appear for physical test, which had total of 20 marks and such candidate had to secure at least 10 marks to qualify. Thereafter at the final stage the candidate had to appear in the interview, which carried 20 marks and a candidate was again required to secure minimum of 10 marks. Consequently, the marks obtained by the candidates at all these stages were calculated and only such candidates who secured at least 50% of the total marks were selected.

The candidates belonging to the reserved categories including Schedule Tribe category to which the petitioners belong were given relaxation at only first two stages and thereafter they were to secure the minimum marks prescribed in the interview before they were finally selected.

As regards the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner that two candidates in the General category namely Ajit Singh and Arun Singh Bhati who had earlier got less than minimum marks and later their marks were changed, the learned Single Bench has rightly held after perusing the record of selection, which was furnished during the course of hearing, that the marks were changed in case of some of the candidates belonging to General and OBC categories as there were some instances of over-writings after having recorded the marks but those over-writings had been signed by Head of the selection committee.

Moreover, appellant cannot derive any benefit from this as he could not get minimum qualifying marks required for selection. In the absence of any cogent material on record, it is rather far-fetched to suggest that if these two aforementioned candidates belonging to General category had not been selected then these posts would have fallen in the category of Scheduled Tribes candidates wherein the writ petitioners would have been selected.

Even otherwise, the selection pertains to the year 1998 and the selected candidates would have put in over 17 years'' service and it would not be equitable for this Court to dislodge the selected candidates at this stage. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the order of learned Single Judge which may call for interference in appellate jurisdiction.

In the result, this Special Appeal (Writ) is dismissed.