A candidate appearing in the selection without protest cannot challenge the process subsequent to the result where he remained unsuccessful.

1. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the amendment in the Officers Service (Recruitment, Promotion and Seniority) Regulations, 1974 (for short "the Regulations of 1974") so adopted subsequently by the Rajasthan Rajya Vidhyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. (RRVPNL). The amendment was brought vide order dated 03rd June, 2006 (Annexure-1).

2. It is submitted that for the post of the Assistant Public Relations Officer (for short "the APRO"), higher qualification of Masters Degree was provided, whereas, for the post of Public Relations Officer (for short "the PRO"), lower qualification of Graduation was kept. The amendment was made to change the qualification so as to oust the petitioner from selection and, accordingly, private respondent was appointed vide order dated 10th April, 2007. The appointment of private respondent was challenged by way of amendment in the writ petition in the year 2012 i.e. after five years of selection. It is further stated that post of APRO was not even existing on the date of selection in the year 2007. It is in view of the order dated 03rd June, 2006 at Annexure-1 that post of APRO was converted to the post of Assistant Secretary in the same pay-scale thus selection was otherwise made against non-existing post.

3. A reference of down-gradation of the post of PRO to that of APRO vide order dated 24th August, 2002 has also been given. The down-gradation was made with a view to benefit the private respondent. In view of the above, impugned amendment so as the selection of private respondent may be set aside and the relief claimed in the writ petition may be allowed.

4. Learned counsel for the respondents have raised preliminary objections about maintainability of the writ petition for challenge to the selection. It is mainly on the ground that the petitioner participated in selection process without a protest to the amendment in the Rules. It was challenged after remaining unsuccessful therein. It is also stated that no amendment in the qualification has been made, as alleged. In fact, when the Rules were framed, same qualification was existing. The amendment was to bifurcate the post in two categories making out different quotas thus the very basis to challenge amendment in the Rules and the allegation of malafides for making room for the private respondent is not made out.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents further stated that the post of APRO was available at the time of selection. In fact, one post of PRO was downgraded vide order dated 24th August, 2002 i.e. much before selection thus conversion of one post of APRO to that of the post of Assistant Secretary vide order dated 03rd June, 2006 would have no effect because, despite conversion, one post still remained in view of down-gradation of the post of PRO to APRO.

6. It is, lastly, submitted that if the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner about non-existing of the post of APRO is accepted then, claim of his selection would not be made out. The petitioner, having retired, would not be entitled to any benefit other than to challenge selection and appointment of the private respondent on the aforesaid post.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, submits that protest to the amendment in the Rules was made prior to entering into selection. A reference of Annexures 3 and 4 has been given for the aforesaid. It is thus submitted that the preliminary objection raised by the respondents is not made out. We have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

8. A challenge is made to the amendment in the Rules alleging change of qualification for the post of APRO to benefit the private respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced unamended and amended provisions and, if they are compared, there exist no change in the qualifications as per the record provided by him. The only change by way of amendment to make quota in the direct recruitment. In view of the above,