A candidate who participates in a selection process without challenging the criteria and the Rules pertaining to selection, cannot be allowed to challenge the process of selection or the criteria of selection in the event of his being unsuccessful.

ORDER :

1. Heard.

2. This review petition has been filed by the review petitioner/writ petitioner-candidate seeking review/recall of order dated 21.02.2022 by which bunch of writ petitions including the writ petition filed by the review petitioner in the matter of selection to the post of District Judge in the Rajasthan Judicial Service was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court.

3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner argued that when the bunch was decided by this Court, which included the case of the review petitioner also, the issue raised by the review petitioner was not decided. It is argued that the only issue raised in the writ petition was that the review petitioner belongs to physically handicapped category and therefore in addition to the relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks in his capacity as reserved category (Scheduled Tribes), he ought to have been assessed on a further relaxed minimum qualifying marks at the level of 33%.

4. It is submitted that at the time of deciding all the writ petitions including the writ petition filed by the review petitioner, this issue was not dealt with in the common order. Learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that the review petitioner belongs to physically handicapped category and the respondents were obliged under the law to provide for proper relaxation in the matter of assessment of merit under the scheme of The Rights of Persons With Disabilities Act, 2016.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents would submit that it is true that the issue raised by the review petitioner/writ petitioner in the writ petition was whether the review petitioner is entitled to be assessed on the basis of relaxed criteria, that was suitably replied by submitting that the review petitioner having participated in the process of selection without challenge to the Rules and the advertisement, was not entitled to any relief on such grounds. He would further submit that the issue otherwise stands concluded by an order passed by this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Neha Sankhla vs. State of Rajasthan and Others (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13228/2019 decided on 06.09.2019), wherein, this Court has categorically held that a candidate cannot claim a direction that a person with disabilities ought to be granted the same benefit of relaxed eligibility standard of minimum 40% marks as in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidate, given that no other reserved category candidate has been provided such a benefit.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent would, however, submit that this was not argued during the course of hearing and, therefore, there was no occasion for this Court to deal with such an issue while deciding other common issues raised during the course of hearing.

7. The order passed by this Court does not deal with the issue, which has been raised by the review petitioner. We have, therefore, allowed the learned counsel for the review petitioner to make a submission on the issue.

8. The contention of the learned counsel for the review petitioner is mainly based on claim for being assessed on a relaxed criteria on the basis of petitioner belonging to physically handicapped category. The petitioner’s claim is based on a notification of the State.

9. In the present case, what is not in dispute is that the selection to the post borne in the cadre of District Judge is governed by the rules known as Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’). We have gone through the Rules and we find that there is no provision entitling a candidate belonging to physically handicapped category to get relaxation in the minimum qualifying marks. In the advertisement also, no such provision was made. If the review petitioner was aggrieved, it was open for him to challenge the validity of the Rules as also the advertisement on such a ground, but the review petitioner did not choose to challenge either the Rules or the criteria of sele