Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 855
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BENCH AT JAIPUR
Inderjeet Singh, J.
Vishwas Sinsinwar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Rajasthan & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Petition No. 1629/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 20163/2019, Civil Writ Petition No. 1183/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 1241/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 1242/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 1244/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 1408/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 1419/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 1427/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 1577/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 1656/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 1775/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 1804/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 1837/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 1854/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 1928/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 1941/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 1980/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 2007/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 2096/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 2147/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 2260/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 2357/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 2362/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 2363/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 2367/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 2403/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 2404/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 2818/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 3202/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 3662/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 6271/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 7015/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 7355/2020, Civil Writ Petition No. 7367/2020 and Civil Writ Petition No. 7877/2020
Decided On : 03-09-2020
Mr. Vigyan Shah Adv., Mr. Hanuman Choudhary Adv., Mr. Rajaram Choudhary Adv., Mr. Akshit Gupta Adv., Mr. Kamalesh Sharma Adv., Mr. Harendar Neel Adv., Mr. Yash Joshi Adv., Mr. Arpit Jain Adv., Mr. Pukhraj Chawla Adv., Mr. Padam Singh Gurjar Adv., With Ms. Sheetal Gurjar Adv., Mr. R.K. Gouttam Adv., Mr. G.S. Gouttam Adv., Mr. Jai Singh Rathore Adv., Mr. Poonam Chand Sharma Adv., Mr. Neeraj Kumar Sharma Adv., Mr. Koslesh Kumar Bairwa Adv., Mr. Ram Pratap Saini Adv., Mr. Raghu Nandan Sharma Adv., Mr. Dheeraj Kumar Palia Adv., Mr. Sunil Kumar Sharma Adv., Mr. Sunil Kumar Saini Adv., Mr. Suresh Kumar Adv., Mr. S.L. Sharma Adv.-Through Vc), Dr. T.N. Sharma Adv., Mr. Santosh Singh Shekhawat Adv., Mr. R.D. Meena Adv., Mr. Sandeep Garssa Adv., Mr. Kailash Kumawat Adv., Mr. Tanuj Gupta Adv, for the Appellant; Mr. Prakhar Gupta Adv.- Through Vc, Dr. V.B. Sharma-Aag, Mr. Gaurav Bhardwaj Adv., Mr. Tushar Pareek Adv., Mr. Avinash Choudhary Adv., Mr. M.F. Baig Adv., Mr. P.S. Naruka Adv., for Mr. Rupin Kala-Gc, for the Respondent.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 - Selection process - Common grievance regarding manipulation in Physical Efficiency Test results by the respondents, leading to petitioners' failure despite claims of prior success - Court directed fresh physical test under proper supervision to ensure fairness (Paras 5, 6, and 30).
(B) Estoppel - Petitioners' participation in selection process prevents them from challenging its criteria afterwards - Court reiterated principles on waiver of rights when candidates participated without protest (Paras 10 and 30).
(C) Allegations of malafide conduct - Insufficient evidence to substantiate claims against selection officials, hence, dismissal of claims for favoring existing personnel (Paras 20 and 26).
Facts of the case:
Petitioners, failing the PET, claimed unfair treatment and requested the court to review results based on alleged prior success communication.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in petitioners' claims and emphasized the necessity of fairness and transparency without changing rules mid-selection.
Issues: Whether candidates can challenge selection after participating, and if the process conducted was fair.
Ratio Decidendi: Court holds that participant candidates are estopped from raising objections and asserts the importance of established selection procedures.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. common grievance regarding selection process (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. claims of malafide and selection irregularities (Para 4 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. judgment on procedural fairness in selection (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. principles on estoppel in contesting selection (Para 24 , 25 , 31 , 32) |
| 5. judgment dismissing the writ petitions (Para 34) |
ORDER
1. Since in the present batch of writ petitions, the grievance raised by the petitioners is common & pertain to the self same selection process, hence these petitions have been heard together and are being decided by the present common order.
2. To examine the controversy raised in the present batch of writ petitions, at the joint statement made by the counsels for the parties, the facts contained in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1629/2020 are being taken into consideration.
3. An advertisement dated 05.10.2016 was issued by the respondents for holding selection for the post of Sub-Inspector (AP), (IB) (RAC) (MBC) under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules,1989 and by corrigendums dated 19.11.2018 & 23.08.2019, the number of advertised vacancies were revised. As per the criteria of selection, three stages were prescribed i.e. (i) Written Examination (ii) Physical Efficiency Test (iii) Interview. The written examination was conducted on 07.10.2018 and the result thereof was declared on 26.08.2019 in which the petitioners were declared qualified for stage-II i.e. Physical Efficiency Test (hereinafter to be referred as *PET') and were called for appearing in the PET which was conducted from 23.09.2019 to 27.09.2019 at different places for which respective Boards were constituted by the respondents to have fairness and transparency in the selection process. In all 9259 candidates appeared in the PET, out of which 1926 candidates qualified in the PET and result of PET was declared on 08.01.2020 in which the petitioners were declared failed and being unsuccessful in the PET have approached this Court by filing the present writ petitions.
4. Counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that after conducting the PET the petitioners were orally told that they have qualified in the PET. Counsels further submitted that the respondents in a malafide manner have declared the petitioners failed on the pretext that they have not secured minimum qualifying marks i.e. 50 out of 100. Counsels further submitted that action of the respondents is arbitrary in nature as they have declared the petitioners failed only to accommodate the persons who are already serving in the department as Constable. Counsels further submitted that in the present circumstances, the videography of PET is required to be summoned & perused by this Court for examining the error committed by the respondents in holding the PET. Counsels further submitted that Article 316 of the Constitution of India mandates the recruiting agency to have fairness in the process of selection. Counsel further submitted that the respondents should have used the chip to maintain transparency in the process of selection and lastly prayed that this Court under Article 226 may examine the videography of the PET conducted by the respondents or in the alternate direct the respondents to conduct the PET for the petitioners afresh within the stipulated period which this Court may deem proper. In support of the contentions, counsels for the petitioners relied upon certain judgments of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :-
5. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Bablu Saini & Anr. Vs. State of Raj. & Ors., (CWP-18445/2012) & connected petitions, decided on 11.11.2013, held as under :-
"I have considered submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It is a case where two sets of petitioners/ candidates exist. One set of petitioners are those who appeared in the physical test and declared fail. The allegation of manipulation in the record so as the result has been made. Other
